Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Great video from Softfork Mechanic #BIP-110 explaining the current OP_RETURN situation. The choice isn’t between bloating the UTXO set or increasing OP_RETURN, it’s whether we normalize spam or we reject it. Is #Bitcoin for data storage or financial transactions.

94,396 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

9 Kommentare

Profilbild von Hexy⚡
Hexy⚡vor 1 Jahr

#Bitcoin⚡is sound money, not a storage layer. Instead, changes happen when most of the community generally agrees that a change is safe, useful, and doesn't harm Bitcoin's core principles. While its uses have evolved, Bitcoin's strength lies in its simplicity, stability, and focus as sound money. Let’s respect the protocol and build responsibly around it.

Profilbild von Michael Anton Fischer
Michael Anton Fischervor 1 Jahr

New to Bitcoin? ‘Bitcoin Nation’ offers a comprehensive introduction to Bitcoin’s role in fixing economic and social systems. This book explains how Bitcoin can be a solution to issues like inflation and financial instability, making it more than just a currency.

Profilbild von BashCo
BashCovor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin Honestly if Core developers had been proactive in addressing this spam vector early on rather than dismissing or tacitly endorsing it, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Profilbild von Hodl Adu ⛽🤘🃏
Hodl Adu ⛽🤘🃏vor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin OP_RETURN is an attack on bitcoin. Bitcoin is money, no need to be anything else.

Profilbild von Bitcoin Mike 80 IQ Pleb
Bitcoin Mike 80 IQ Plebvor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin Amazing video!

Profilbild von John S
John Svor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin Exactly, this current discussion is pointless, it’s a small argument in a much larger discussion…core is essentially right to remove limit at a technical level considering the state of things, but the real discussion, and where we need consensus, is financial txs vs data

Profilbild von Samson Mow
Samson Mowvor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin They aren’t right to remove the limit.

Profilbild von satstacker | kolin
satstacker | kolinvor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin Bitcoin is for financial sovereignty. Nothing else. OP_RETURN abuse is an attack on the network. Keep the chain lean and focused on sound money.

Profilbild von Michael Ruiz
Michael Ruizvor 1 Jahr

@GrassFedBitcoin This was an excellent breakdown.

Ähnliche Videos

Adam Krellenstein Returns: Counterparty’s Comeback & Bitcoin’s Soul Search [FULL EPISODE] In this episode of the Hell Money Podcast, we sit down with Adam Krellenstein — Counterparty’s co‑founder and longtime lead maintainer — for a tour of Bitcoin’s formative years and the ideas shaping its future. Adam revisits the birth of XCP, explains why he walked away a decade ago, and describes what dragged him back into the codebase. Along the way we tackle the perennial question: What is Bitcoin for? Is embedding data on‑chain an evolutionary feature or a contagion best off‑loaded to sidechains? And if you aren't buying your daily coffee with BTC, has Satoshi’s dream failed, or merely evolved? We explore: - Counterparty’s origin story - Early Bitcoin dev culture - OP_RETURN drama, Blockstream’s sidechain vision & the data‑bloat dilemma - Whether Bitcoin is prepared for sophisticated political actors - Counterparty culture & NFTs - Adam’s decade‑long hiatus: burnout, philosophy of nature & why he’s back - What's next for Bitcoin TIMESTAMPS 0:00 The beginning of Counterparty 17:30 Worse is better development 24:15 Early Bitcoin dev culture 32:05 OP_RETURN & Bitcoin core devs 38:05 Blockstream & sidechains, storing data on Bitcoin 45:15 Bitcoin is unprepared for sophisticated political actors 54:55 Counterparty culture & NFTs 1:00:30 Adam's departure from Counterparty 1:08:00 Philosophy of Nature 1:19:00 Returning to open source development 1:36:00 What's next for Bitcoin?

Hell Money

27,881 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

An interesting thought I had on my morning walk. Filters on their own are not effective to censor all spam from motivated attackers, that's true. But filters do make spam more prone to censorship at the mining pool level. Miners can get away with mining transactions that are used for illegal purposes because they have plausible deniability: they don't know what they are used for, they are "just including what's relayed" by the p2p network. But with many forms of spam, such as OP_RETURN, it is not so. They do not have plausible deniability. MARA is perfectly happy inscribing NFTs and non-standard troll OP_RETURNS via its slipstream service. Since they are legally low risk, it makes sense for them to profit from it. However, if I was to submit something really nasty like torrent links to child pornography (or child porn jpegs) or Mein Kampf (illegal in many countries) MARA could not plausibly deny that it is publishing and distributing illegal content. It’s right there in the OP_RETURN for everyone to see. Consequently they would probably not allow it. If they did, they would get in trouble. And it would be much easier for the content submitters to get caught. If nonstandard node relay software (i.e. libre relay) started being abused by pedophiles, its likely mining pools would just ban these types of higher-risk peers. Of course the pedophiles can always run their own mining pools and get a few transactions every month: bitcoin would remain censorship resistant if you are patient enough. But now, with relaxation of standardness rules and “filters” anybody can easily publish blatantly illegal content as OP_RETURNS and get it relayed to a mining pool in a more censorship-resistant way, cheaper and more effective. Good? Bad? It's possible mining pools are going to have no choice but to develop software that analyzes transaction OP_RETURN to assess what they will publish or not. They may develop content moderation policies, because the illegality of the OP_RETURN content will be blatant and they will have no plausible deniability. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised that miners haven't already done this for obviously "higher risk" transactions like coinjoin. However coinjoin transactions are not illegal per se, and there is very wide international support for financial privacy. Not so for child porn. Once miners start developing software to moderate what transactions go in the blockchain, a Pandora's box is opened: if you can easily filter transactions that have illegal data in the OP_RETURN, why are you allowing whirlpool tx0? Why are you allowing coinjoins? Why are you allowing sanctioned addresses? Ironically, the attempt at making spam transactions less prone to censorship might make economic transactions more prone to censorship. Bitcoin is censorship resistant from a network perspective because anybody can mine anonymously. This censorship resistance is compounded when large centralized mining pools and mining farms have plausible deniability that the transactions they mine aren't blatantly illegal because they are anonymous (“there is no way to know”). The more mining is centralized, the more this component of censorship resistance matters. Non-monetary content puts that aspect at risk. I'm not sure I’m right, but I don't think this idea has been widely discussed. The only thing that can prevent certain txs formats (i.e. the low hanging fruit spam vectors like OP_RETURN) from making it into the chain is consensus rules. Yes I'm aware spammers will always find a way to get spam in eventually. It would be sad to see fork-level consensus to ban OP_RETURN entirely, because there are reasonable harm-reducing use cases for it (e.g. open timestamps). We are nowhere near consensus on restriction spam vectors at a consensus level, not even close. But who knows after 10 years of child porn being distributed via the Bitcoin network nodes and miners both will have had enough. It would be interesting to watch this play out.

FRANCIS - BULLBITCOIN.COM

18,041 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten