💬 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.
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878183650)
> You are quite literally word for word repeating talking points made by BSV users
I don't care what BSV people say, and I don't listen to them. Go argue the points themselves, if you can, don't argue based on who makes which points.
> harm Bitcoin by spamming the UTXO set
Inscriptions don't do that, unless you mean STAMPS or something else.
And UTXO set increase affects pruned nodes' storage requirement (not RAM, as is commonly misstated on Twitter), and based on conversation with s
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878183650)
> You are quite literally word for word repeating talking points made by BSV users
I don't care what BSV people say, and I don't listen to them. Go argue the points themselves, if you can, don't argue based on who makes which points.
> harm Bitcoin by spamming the UTXO set
Inscriptions don't do that, unless you mean STAMPS or something else.
And UTXO set increase affects pruned nodes' storage requirement (not RAM, as is commonly misstated on Twitter), and based on conversation with s
...
💬 DoctorBuzz1 commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878193764)
eragmus, there are ALREADY out of band Txs happening with ViaBtc.... See their latest block with 20 to 30 sat/vByte Txs: https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001b26d226a7993950d14bec4acce2d85eeb9974a63d9bf
It seems to me that there are 2 camps here.. Those that think the standard Txs (including IsDust() ) should be defined for the benefit of the monetary network as a whole.... and then those, who think that these standard Txs should be defined by miners, pools on an individual basi
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878193764)
eragmus, there are ALREADY out of band Txs happening with ViaBtc.... See their latest block with 20 to 30 sat/vByte Txs: https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001b26d226a7993950d14bec4acce2d85eeb9974a63d9bf
It seems to me that there are 2 camps here.. Those that think the standard Txs (including IsDust() ) should be defined for the benefit of the monetary network as a whole.... and then those, who think that these standard Txs should be defined by miners, pools on an individual basi
...
💬 alpeshvas commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878194485)
This has now become a complete noise discussion.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878194485)
This has now become a complete noise discussion.
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878198190)
your longer paragraph has only proven my point further, until I see calm and collected responses to my original counterarguments to Pieter's false claims about the current attack on the Bitcoin network, I refuse to sift through straw man arguments formulated by someone who talks like Craig Wright and respond to each of them individually. As you can see someone else has already pointed out your base fallacy about out of band txs.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878198190)
your longer paragraph has only proven my point further, until I see calm and collected responses to my original counterarguments to Pieter's false claims about the current attack on the Bitcoin network, I refuse to sift through straw man arguments formulated by someone who talks like Craig Wright and respond to each of them individually. As you can see someone else has already pointed out your base fallacy about out of band txs.
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878199208)
> This has now become a complete noise discussion.
maybe then contribute factual responses instead of ones based in pure speculation, ideology, and ignorance of publicly available facts.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878199208)
> This has now become a complete noise discussion.
maybe then contribute factual responses instead of ones based in pure speculation, ideology, and ignorance of publicly available facts.
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878212180)
> eragmus, there are ALREADY out of band Txs happening with ViaBtc.... See their latest block with 20 to 30 sat/vByte Txs: https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001b26d226a7993950d14bec4acce2d85eeb9974a63d9bf
Read my arguments more carefully? Nowhere did I deny out of band txs are already happening. I said they will only get worse, if filtering is used as a policy response. And I said out of band txs can be logically reduced, if relay policies are aligned with consensus policies, inste
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878212180)
> eragmus, there are ALREADY out of band Txs happening with ViaBtc.... See their latest block with 20 to 30 sat/vByte Txs: https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001b26d226a7993950d14bec4acce2d85eeb9974a63d9bf
Read my arguments more carefully? Nowhere did I deny out of band txs are already happening. I said they will only get worse, if filtering is used as a policy response. And I said out of band txs can be logically reduced, if relay policies are aligned with consensus policies, inste
...
💬 desi-bitcoiner commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878219595)
> This has now become a complete noise discussion.
This conversation seems noise only to those who don't want to hear the arguments of the folks who want to put better spam filters in place.
For everyone else, there's tons of reasoning to help understand the issue better and hopefully get the point across THAT UPDATING SPAM FILTERS IS NEED OF THE HOUR and core cannot run away from it.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878219595)
> This has now become a complete noise discussion.
This conversation seems noise only to those who don't want to hear the arguments of the folks who want to put better spam filters in place.
For everyone else, there's tons of reasoning to help understand the issue better and hopefully get the point across THAT UPDATING SPAM FILTERS IS NEED OF THE HOUR and core cannot run away from it.
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878227005)
>"Read my arguments more carefully? Nowhere did I deny out of band txs are already happening. I said they will only get worse"
If they are already happening it literally does not matter if they get any worse, your arguments are incredibly weak and you have shown that you do not understand the basic situation and or are maliciously ignorant.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878227005)
>"Read my arguments more carefully? Nowhere did I deny out of band txs are already happening. I said they will only get worse"
If they are already happening it literally does not matter if they get any worse, your arguments are incredibly weak and you have shown that you do not understand the basic situation and or are maliciously ignorant.
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878229481)
>"Bitcoin works on economic incentives"
is not just some magical phrase you can throw around and make your assertions true. the incentives for full node runners are becoming smaller and smaller every single day. this demonstrably hurts decentralization of bitcoin. you people would care about that if you actually cared about the state of the mempool, but instead you are concern trolling that setting a filter to EVENLY DISTRIBUTE COST for all transactions will kill the mempool. Your fallacious ar
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878229481)
>"Bitcoin works on economic incentives"
is not just some magical phrase you can throw around and make your assertions true. the incentives for full node runners are becoming smaller and smaller every single day. this demonstrably hurts decentralization of bitcoin. you people would care about that if you actually cared about the state of the mempool, but instead you are concern trolling that setting a filter to EVENLY DISTRIBUTE COST for all transactions will kill the mempool. Your fallacious ar
...
💬 dzyphr commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878232437)
>I've also stated several times in this thread (and surely others have too?), and it should be obvious if you think about it a little, that pricing out of lower-value normal txs is not a real concern, if using layer 2 networks like LN (and, in response to high fees, we recently got an easy to use wallet, Aqua, for sidechains like Liquid) to amortize cost of layer 1 tx fee. Actually if you send LN tx directly from LN-compatible exchange to a wallet, or Liquid bitcoin from exchange to wallet, like
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878232437)
>I've also stated several times in this thread (and surely others have too?), and it should be obvious if you think about it a little, that pricing out of lower-value normal txs is not a real concern, if using layer 2 networks like LN (and, in response to high fees, we recently got an easy to use wallet, Aqua, for sidechains like Liquid) to amortize cost of layer 1 tx fee. Actually if you send LN tx directly from LN-compatible exchange to a wallet, or Liquid bitcoin from exchange to wallet, like
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878252246)
> > "Bitcoin works on economic incentives"
>
> is not just some magical phrase you can throw around and make your assertions true. the incentives for full node runners are becoming smaller and smaller every single day. this demonstrably hurts decentralization of bitcoin. you people would care about that if you actually cared about the state of the mempool, but instead you are concern trolling that setting a filter to EVENLY DISTRIBUTE COST for all transactions will kill the mempool. Your fall
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878252246)
> > "Bitcoin works on economic incentives"
>
> is not just some magical phrase you can throw around and make your assertions true. the incentives for full node runners are becoming smaller and smaller every single day. this demonstrably hurts decentralization of bitcoin. you people would care about that if you actually cared about the state of the mempool, but instead you are concern trolling that setting a filter to EVENLY DISTRIBUTE COST for all transactions will kill the mempool. Your fall
...
💬 PerpetualWar commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878254839)
It is highly troubling to see this discord between people involved in bitcoin.
As someone who recently joined the community, I find it unsettling.
My stance is that monetary proposition of bitcoin is the one and only thing that core team must be focused on, but now I see that goal is lost, intentionally or not.
Everyone like to spout 'decentralization', but how is pushing people to sidechains not centralization is beyond me.
I find argument that everything will be solved with L2/L3, especia
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878254839)
It is highly troubling to see this discord between people involved in bitcoin.
As someone who recently joined the community, I find it unsettling.
My stance is that monetary proposition of bitcoin is the one and only thing that core team must be focused on, but now I see that goal is lost, intentionally or not.
Everyone like to spout 'decentralization', but how is pushing people to sidechains not centralization is beyond me.
I find argument that everything will be solved with L2/L3, especia
...