💬 sipa commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112)
Concept NACK.
I do not believe this to be in the interest of users of our software. The point of participating in transaction relay and having a mempool is being able to make a prediction about what the next blocks will look like. Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
Of course, anyone is free to run, or provide, software that relays/keeps/
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112)
Concept NACK.
I do not believe this to be in the interest of users of our software. The point of participating in transaction relay and having a mempool is being able to make a prediction about what the next blocks will look like. Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
Of course, anyone is free to run, or provide, software that relays/keeps/
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877852201)
>Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwanted transa
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877852201)
>Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwanted transa
...
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#issuecomment-1877879833)
Huh, looks like this behavior has been broken since it was introduced in #15652
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#issuecomment-1877879833)
Huh, looks like this behavior has been broken since it was introduced in #15652
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "fuzz: rule-out too deep derivation paths in descriptor parsing targets":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1877881661)
ACK a44808fb437864878c2d9696b8a96193091446ee
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832#issuecomment-1877881661)
ACK a44808fb437864878c2d9696b8a96193091446ee
🚀 achow101 merged a pull request: "fuzz: rule-out too deep derivation paths in descriptor parsing targets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28832)
💬 achow101 commented on pull request "test: wallet rescan with reorged parent + IsFromMe child in mempool":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#issuecomment-1877892122)
ACK 1a52ca7619eeb1baafa5a32b364381126862b29d
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29179#issuecomment-1877892122)
ACK 1a52ca7619eeb1baafa5a32b364381126862b29d
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877957720)
> >Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
>
>
>
> I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwan
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877957720)
> >Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
>
>
>
> I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwan
...
💬 BitcoinMechanic commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877963374)
> To the extent that this is an attempt to not just not _see_ certain transactions, but also to _discourage_ their use, this will at best cause those transactions to be routed around nodes implementing this, or at worst result in a practice of transactions submitted directly to miners, which has serious risks for the centralization of mining. While non-standardness has historically been used to discourage burdensome practices, I believe this is (a) far less relevant these days where full blocks
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877963374)
> To the extent that this is an attempt to not just not _see_ certain transactions, but also to _discourage_ their use, this will at best cause those transactions to be routed around nodes implementing this, or at worst result in a practice of transactions submitted directly to miners, which has serious risks for the centralization of mining. While non-standardness has historically been used to discourage burdensome practices, I believe this is (a) far less relevant these days where full blocks
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877964372)
> >Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
>
>
>
> I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwan
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877964372)
> >Intentionally excluding transactions for which a very clear (however stupid) economic demand exists breaks that ability, without even removing the need to validate them when they get mined.
>
>
>
> I would agree on this point's premise however to me it is not clear that this PR attempts to do this, it applies the same standard of datacarrier cost to transactions that currently do not encounter it and makes exceeding the limit nonstandard which is a policy used to deter other kinds of unwan
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877974758)
"It only deterred it in the past, due to lack of economic demand. 36.2% of 2023's fees came from non-traditional txs, so we no longer live in the old era that lacked demand.
And the discount with segwit, if that's what you mean, does the opposite of creating incentive to increase the UTXO set."
You are again using the word demand completely ambitiously, there is little to no evidence that these are organic or sustainable flows of Bitcoin funding scam protocols. You are free to prove that
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877974758)
"It only deterred it in the past, due to lack of economic demand. 36.2% of 2023's fees came from non-traditional txs, so we no longer live in the old era that lacked demand.
And the discount with segwit, if that's what you mean, does the opposite of creating incentive to increase the UTXO set."
You are again using the word demand completely ambitiously, there is little to no evidence that these are organic or sustainable flows of Bitcoin funding scam protocols. You are free to prove that
...
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878045521)
> The point of participating in transaction relay and having a mempool is being able to make a prediction about what the next blocks will look like.
No, it is not and never has been. The closest it comes to that, is the point of *influencing* what the next blocks will look like, as you said yourself years ago to justify Compact Blocks.
Predicting the next block can only ever be a possibility if you assume a centralized mining ecosystem, something to actively work against.
>Of course, an
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878045521)
> The point of participating in transaction relay and having a mempool is being able to make a prediction about what the next blocks will look like.
No, it is not and never has been. The closest it comes to that, is the point of *influencing* what the next blocks will look like, as you said yourself years ago to justify Compact Blocks.
Predicting the next block can only ever be a possibility if you assume a centralized mining ecosystem, something to actively work against.
>Of course, an
...
💬 ben-arnao commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878084944)
All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't neces
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878084944)
All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't neces
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878089719)
> All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't nec
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878089719)
> All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't nec
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878099171)
>All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't nece
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878099171)
>All these people really care about is being able to inscribe data in an immutable and decentralized manner, they don't really care about it being done on BTC blockchain in particular. I feel like if someone came along and created a solution for this purpose purely run on fees (basically a blockchain without the concept of token ownership) this would probably solve the problem IMO. Obviously there would be the issue of needing to somehow pay miners, but that part not being centralized isn't nece
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878116952)
> > "It only deterred it in the past, due to lack of economic demand. 36.2% of 2023's fees came from non-traditional txs, so we no longer live in the old era that lacked demand.And the discount with segwit, if that's what you mean, does the opposite of creating incentive to increase the UTXO set."
>
> You are again using the word demand completely ambitiously, there is little to no evidence that these are organic or sustainable flows of Bitcoin funding scam protocols. You are free to prove th
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878116952)
> > "It only deterred it in the past, due to lack of economic demand. 36.2% of 2023's fees came from non-traditional txs, so we no longer live in the old era that lacked demand.And the discount with segwit, if that's what you mean, does the opposite of creating incentive to increase the UTXO set."
>
> You are again using the word demand completely ambitiously, there is little to no evidence that these are organic or sustainable flows of Bitcoin funding scam protocols. You are free to prove th
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878123389)
>And I'll add that there is nothing biased about this, as 2023 is precisely when everything changed in Bitcoin re: arbitrary data, as it is when Casey unveiled his inscriptions protocol + then it was followed by many other arbitrary data protocols. So the fees are focusing on when it actually began. We didn't have such huge economic demand previously in Bitcoin's history. That's why I'm saying we are in a New Era, so the past thinking revolving around 'spam filters' is no longer relevant.
You
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878123389)
>And I'll add that there is nothing biased about this, as 2023 is precisely when everything changed in Bitcoin re: arbitrary data, as it is when Casey unveiled his inscriptions protocol + then it was followed by many other arbitrary data protocols. So the fees are focusing on when it actually began. We didn't have such huge economic demand previously in Bitcoin's history. That's why I'm saying we are in a New Era, so the past thinking revolving around 'spam filters' is no longer relevant.
You
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878134828)
>"re: "scam protocols" -- This is a subjective analysis,"
No it literally is not. They are convincing new and uniformed users that there exists such a thing as satoshis that are more rare than other satoshis. Not only is this completely false and a scam, but if legitimized even a little bit would completely destroy the value proposition of anyone unfortunate enough to encounter this as their experience with Bitcoin.
Other protocols sell cheaply random generated JPEGs that are not even own
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878134828)
>"re: "scam protocols" -- This is a subjective analysis,"
No it literally is not. They are convincing new and uniformed users that there exists such a thing as satoshis that are more rare than other satoshis. Not only is this completely false and a scam, but if legitimized even a little bit would completely destroy the value proposition of anyone unfortunate enough to encounter this as their experience with Bitcoin.
Other protocols sell cheaply random generated JPEGs that are not even own
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878135261)
> > And I'll add that there is nothing biased about this, as 2023 is precisely when everything changed in Bitcoin re: arbitrary data, as it is when Casey unveiled his inscriptions protocol + then it was followed by many other arbitrary data protocols. So the fees are focusing on when it actually began. We didn't have such huge economic demand previously in Bitcoin's history. That's why I'm saying we are in a New Era, so the past thinking revolving around 'spam filters' is no longer relevant.
>
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878135261)
> > And I'll add that there is nothing biased about this, as 2023 is precisely when everything changed in Bitcoin re: arbitrary data, as it is when Casey unveiled his inscriptions protocol + then it was followed by many other arbitrary data protocols. So the fees are focusing on when it actually began. We didn't have such huge economic demand previously in Bitcoin's history. That's why I'm saying we are in a New Era, so the past thinking revolving around 'spam filters' is no longer relevant.
>
...
🤔 stratospher reviewed a pull request: "addrman, refactor: improve stochastic test in `AddSingle`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27319#pullrequestreview-1805356585)
ACK e064487ca28c12ba774c2f43a3c7acbdb1a278c9. simple use of << instead of a loop, didn't observe any behaviour difference before and after.
> if pinfo->nRefCount is 0, we created an unnecessary variable (nFactor)
i don't think `pinfo->nRefCount` can be 0 here though. `pinfo->nRefCount` can take on values [1, 7] here. the very first time when we add an address, it would go to the else block instead of the current if block.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27319#pullrequestreview-1805356585)
ACK e064487ca28c12ba774c2f43a3c7acbdb1a278c9. simple use of << instead of a loop, didn't observe any behaviour difference before and after.
> if pinfo->nRefCount is 0, we created an unnecessary variable (nFactor)
i don't think `pinfo->nRefCount` can be 0 here though. `pinfo->nRefCount` can take on values [1, 7] here. the very first time when we add an address, it would go to the else block instead of the current if block.
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878136908)
> eragmus
You are quite literally word for word repeating talking points made by BSV users who intend to harm Bitcoin by spamming the UTXO set and creating an unreasonably high fee environment in which the average end user is incentivised not to participate or if so forced into a custodial solution from which their Bitcoin fails to actually be a bearer instrument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RswZDQTqsI
All the connections were made by a random pleb in this video, don't think that b
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878136908)
> eragmus
You are quite literally word for word repeating talking points made by BSV users who intend to harm Bitcoin by spamming the UTXO set and creating an unreasonably high fee environment in which the average end user is incentivised not to participate or if so forced into a custodial solution from which their Bitcoin fails to actually be a bearer instrument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RswZDQTqsI
All the connections were made by a random pleb in this video, don't think that b
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878142034)
Furthermore you have made so many straw-man arguments in your response that I can only consider it an insult on the face of it, if anyone seriously holds any weight to the complete misrepresentation of my points you made in the future I will respond to it in full detail.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878142034)
Furthermore you have made so many straw-man arguments in your response that I can only consider it an insult on the face of it, if anyone seriously holds any weight to the complete misrepresentation of my points you made in the future I will respond to it in full detail.