💬 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
...
💬 eragmus commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878267117)
> It is highly troubling to see this discord between people involved in bitcoin.
>
> As someone who recently joined the community, I find it unsettling.
Bitcoin is a decentralized system, so discord is natural. The guy above is particularly nasty though, but this is not the norm in the discussion thread if you read the rest of it.
> 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, intentionall
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878267117)
> It is highly troubling to see this discord between people involved in bitcoin.
>
> As someone who recently joined the community, I find it unsettling.
Bitcoin is a decentralized system, so discord is natural. The guy above is particularly nasty though, but this is not the norm in the discussion thread if you read the rest of it.
> 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, intentionall
...
💬 torkelrogstad commented on pull request "rpc: validate fee estimation mode case insensitive":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-1878320908)
Thanks for the excellent review @ismaelsadeeq , very much appreciated. You're correct in your findings! I've updated the logic, and added functional tests for this
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29175#issuecomment-1878320908)
Thanks for the excellent review @ismaelsadeeq , very much appreciated. You're correct in your findings! I've updated the logic, and added functional tests for this
💬 desi-bitcoiner commented on pull request "datacarriersize: Match more datacarrying":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878334784)
I hope the following information helps in adding clarity to the thought process of folks who advocate otherwise:
"Satoshi made only 1 mistake, which I believe is the root of the confusion among some Bitcoiners who defend spam.
He used the same name bitcoin - to define two different elements: the asset, and the network.
Although they are interdependent, they possess very distinct properties.
The network is decentralized, permission-less, and resistant to censorship - not the asset.
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1878334784)
I hope the following information helps in adding clarity to the thought process of folks who advocate otherwise:
"Satoshi made only 1 mistake, which I believe is the root of the confusion among some Bitcoiners who defend spam.
He used the same name bitcoin - to define two different elements: the asset, and the network.
Although they are interdependent, they possess very distinct properties.
The network is decentralized, permission-less, and resistant to censorship - not the asset.
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "ubsan: misaligned-pointer-use in crc32c/src/crc32c_arm64.cc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29178#issuecomment-1878395056)
```
# git bisect bad
228d6a2969e4fcee573c9df7aad31550eab9c8d4 is the first bad commit
commit 228d6a2969e4fcee573c9df7aad31550eab9c8d4
Author: Hennadii Stepanov <32963518+hebasto@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon Nov 20 13:37:44 2023 +0000
build: Fix regression in "ARMv8 CRC32 intrinsics" test
The `vmull_p64` is a part of the Crypto extensions from the ACLE. They
are optional extensions, so they get enabled with a `+crypto` for
architecture flags.
configur
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29178#issuecomment-1878395056)
```
# git bisect bad
228d6a2969e4fcee573c9df7aad31550eab9c8d4 is the first bad commit
commit 228d6a2969e4fcee573c9df7aad31550eab9c8d4
Author: Hennadii Stepanov <32963518+hebasto@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon Nov 20 13:37:44 2023 +0000
build: Fix regression in "ARMv8 CRC32 intrinsics" test
The `vmull_p64` is a part of the Crypto extensions from the ACLE. They
are optional extensions, so they get enabled with a `+crypto` for
architecture flags.
configur
...
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "refactor: Make CWalletTx sync state type-safe":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21206#discussion_r1442693589)
This is part of #29042.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21206#discussion_r1442693589)
This is part of #29042.
💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "p2p: Allow whitelisting outgoing connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1442715945)
I think we can avoid passing them in `Initialize` by setting them in `AddWhitelistPermissionFlags`.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27114#discussion_r1442715945)
I think we can avoid passing them in `Initialize` by setting them in `AddWhitelistPermissionFlags`.
👍 TheCharlatan approved a pull request: "rpc: Remove deprecated -rpcserialversion"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28890#pullrequestreview-1805703512)
lgtm ACK fa46cc22bc696e6845915ae91d6b68e36bf4c242
> If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28890#pullrequestreview-1805703512)
lgtm ACK fa46cc22bc696e6845915ae91d6b68e36bf4c242
> If there is a use-case, likely a per-RPC flag can be added, if needed.