Damus
Open in Damus
Rik profile picture
Rik
@Rik

🔥 🏔 🍃 🌊

Current theme: welcoming

npub1efz8l77esdtpw6l359sjvakm7azvyv6mkuxphjdk3vfzkgxkatrqlpf9s4npub
rikmeijer.nlnip05
https://rikmeijer.nlwebsite
[email protected]lnurl
Relays (9)
  • wss://relay.damus.io/ – read & write
  • wss://relay.ditto.pub/ – read & write
  • wss://relay.primal.net/ – read & write
  • wss://nostrelites.org/ – read & write
  • wss://nostr.malin.onl/ – read & write
  • wss://nostr.rikmeijer.nl/ – read & write
  • wss://nostr.data.haus/ – write
  • ws://100.95.9.76:8081/ – read & write
  • ws://nqoyvruuoxezzl6h6qcqegindh5x4lzgnarkc4dhu3xxsck3t6kfuvqd.onion/ – read & write

Recent Notes

nostrich · 4d
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 th...
 Rik profile picture
Rik @Rik
I don't think that it is a logical fallacy. If you create a mechnism by which a judgement is made on the transactions content, that is a slippery slope towards censorship. When we would only have rules on transaction properties, there is no way to filter spam.

Only limiting the op_return is already a possible configuration for node runners.
1
nostrich · 3d
Limiting OP_RETURN on a node doesn’t stop spammers and others from mining whatever data they want and forcing full nodes to store that data. That’s why I see consensus changes as necessary. The reason why I don’t consider it a slippery slope is that nodes are not (yet) centralized, and most a...
nostrich · 4d
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 ...
 Rik profile picture
Rik @Rik
I agree that running a node already can have legal risks, although it is a gray area. That already is the case, as the blockchain already contains illegal content. I think it would be more fruitful if efforts are put in to create legal clarity in different jurisdictions. Also, what options are there to find out who out the content there in the first place.
nostrich · 5d
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 profile picture
Rik @Rik
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.
3
nostrich · 4d
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 · 4d
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 · 4d
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. ...
nostrich · 6d
It’s not cool to make fun of the plebs who are trying to prevent Bitcoin becoming a shitshow, and I’m getting tired of the Bitcoin LARPers who are anti BIP-110 without reading the BIP or because t...
 Rik profile picture
Rik @Rik
How does one decide what is financial data? Who is going to make that decision?

Also, the average block size did not really pass the 2MB limit, so one can argue about the real impact ordinals have other then paying miners and keeping the network save.

https://blossom.rikmeijer.nl/00b910056bedd17f82cada9e487062f851ebe64f9863b94e3501aad4e5eaeee0
1
nostrich · 5d
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 financial use case - it’s a storage use case. Storing a hash that proves ownership of that jpeg m...
Ragamuffin · 6d
There were major limitations before. To data storage on transactions. Core removed them. BIP110 puts them back and strengthens them. Let’s go!