Rik on nostr

Node runners get to make that decision through cautious changes to consensus rules over time. It’s usually pretty obvious what is and isn’t a financial use case. Storing jpeg image data is not a...

Rik @Rik 1783833651

How will node runners decide? Does the software have to be updated? Does this mean a hard fork for every "cautious change"?

What is part of the resource growth can be actually attributed to spam? Sources?

If legal risks are an issue, pruning might be an option. Or may be only keeping the last block after the initial download and verification of the blockchain. May be there are more intelligent ways of clearing your node of unwanted data, instead of trying to determine what is spam or what is not.

This opens the door to censorship and is by definition an end to the permissionlessness of bitcoin.

nostrich · 5d

Tightening rules is a soft fork - not a hard fork. There can be a chain split if miners choose to ignore the soft fork. That’s not the same as a hard fork because a hard fork requires old nodes to upgrade whereas a soft fork doesn’t. Consensus code would need to change - various implementations...

nostrich · 5d

The censorship argument is a logical fallacy pushed by hardline libertarians, spammers and some Core devs who mean well but don’t think adversarially enough. It’s a propaganda tool that tugs on the heartstrings of many Bitcoiners. Protecting the protocol from abuse by people who have no interes...

nostrich · 5d

Pruning nodes is centralizing nodes. We need full nodes to bootstrap other nodes. If full nodes are only run by a handful of hardcore libertarian Bitcoiners and large institutions with legal teams to fight for their ability to run full nodes, then nodes are too centralized and too easily captured. ...