@UXI
No relay list published yet.
Recent Notes
I think putting a hard cap on OP_RETURNs would be the single best non-risky thing to do. However, I think bitcoin adoption will cause blocks to be mostly full a few years from now - and the fees to be...
I agree that financial transaction will likely price out most of the spam in the long term, and block size are static so no storage issue, but the problem isn't there, the problem is in the UTXO set, which inscription such as ordinal creates multiple non used UTXO which nodes need to keep in RAM (so RAM cost are going significantly higher, so node cost more overtime. So I believe one of the most important things is to remove at the consensus level exploit that permit inscriptions to save UTXO set (which is what BIP-110 is mostly doing) now is BIP-110 the good approach, maybe not but at least its working in the good direction.
1
A chain split will create two chains, like when Bitcoin Cash happened and lost the split. It became a minority chain no ones care about; anyway there were funds loss because at first transactions woul...
Agreed that this is not ideal and its a risk on bitcoin stability (assuming the BIP-110 fork is initially a minority chain), but in your opinion, what should we do about UTXO bloat (which is a risk on decentralization) ?
3
Only if the miners on both sides mine at the same speed and there are no RBF transactions. And miners chose the same txes.
OK, I see the double spend reorg risk now, that would indeed be bad, but if BIP-110 would initially get accepted by most miners (55% signaling I believe) would you consider that as the ideal scenario ? (Since BIP-110 limits adjustment seams better for the protocol overall)
No, that is not what will happen. All mined blocks become invalid. So all transactions in them become unmined. Unless they happen to be mined in the other chain too.
Perfect time for a a large double...
But won't BIP-110 valid tx always be included in both chain ?
1
since bip110 has nowhere near consensus it will result in a chain split when they activate
the main chain will have blocks mined significantly faster than the bip110 chain
if miners switch to bip110...
But it will only reverse "invalid" (relative to BIP-110 consensus rules) tx, most likely spam, not normal tx, correct ?
3โค๏ธ1
The view from our new event space.
https://blossom.primal.net/7b5dd42fabc883e9f7316030c5619bc1da5751ee8be092748a4236cdba2e8a3f.mov
Which international airport is the closest ?
this was not a "feature addition". it was a small incentive tweak to not:
- make mining centralization worse
- make utxo spam worse
- make fee estimation worse
it was a completely reasonable change ...
I was referring more to bitcoin core development in general since the last ~5 years, "features" get added or filters preventing arbitrary data get removed, thus dramatically increasing spam and even increasing utxo bloat. And it doesn't seam to bother core dev, because I believe a lot of them are excited about new possibilities of building on top of bitcoin with all this arbitrary data space available. I agree that bitcoin core V30 has gained too much drama for what it does, but I think the drama around core itself is well justified
i've been a professional software engineer for 20+ years and have been following bitcoin core development since 2010. I can say for certain that you are incorrect. but what do I know i'm only an "expe...
Like he said, bitcoin core dev are technically competent, I would even say really competent and that's the problem. Bitcoin L1 needs maintainer not "builders", a builder cannot help himself, he has to build (add features). This is I believe very dangerous to have builders on the L1, builders should be on the other layers like @calle
2
If you are not par-boiling your brats in beer you hate America.
https://i.nostr.build/IwZt9vKMMJvhodpY.jpg
Don't cook with aluminum, it's toxic
2โค๏ธ2