Damus
Open in Damus

Recent Notes

hodlonaut · 3d
By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we...
 Nyoro~n profile picture
Nyoro~n @Nyoro~n
another example of philosophy flip-flopping (caveat: Core isnt a monolith -- different contributors now) are the comments Core made on compact block filters.

when compact block filters was announced it was to announce to miners/pools to implement them in order to more closely align with the p2p network. at the time fees were elevated, as some exchanges and pools were stuffing blocks (perhaps to make an argument for big blocks). "follow the <compact block filters> p2p network or risk your blocks being orphaned".

this got turned on its head with the OP_Return PR. "node's compact block filters should follow what the miners are mining"

i think those that throw the word gaslighting around Core proponents is because they arent goldfish 🧐
Nyoro~n profile picture
it's that time of year again. lantern festival is the 15th day of Spring Festival/Lunar New Year to celebrate the end of festivities

https://youtu.be/yO-FZkJA1bE

another lantern festival tradition we have in taiwan is the "bombing of han dan" in taitung rather than shooting fireworks at the public like in yansui/tainan, this one parades a brave volunteer that is stripped naked into a bunch of fireworks. goggles and a towel for safety 😰

taiwanese people are weird, enjoy some tang yuans 🥳
Nyoro~n @Nyoro~n · 107w
today is the 15th day of the Lunar New Year which is mostly known for the lantern festival, which is nice family gathering enjoying savory Tang Yuans (湯圓) and lantern decorations are seen in many spots. However in the south of Taiwan (Tainan) there is a peculiar tradition ca Show more
Rusty Russell · 2w
But not relaying them disadvantages small and anonymous miners, driving centralization and thus putting my own UTXOs in danger.
mIX · 2w
What? It is a concensus valid use case, this is why there is no issue with it. It doesn't try to stick things were they don't belong and doesn't have other adverse effects.
Bill Cypher · 2w
Yeah. Core nodes will follow the new longer chain tip and knots nodes will stay on the old block waiting for someone to add to it because they think that new block is invalid. The core nodes and the knots nodes will follow different chains. And when 1 chain becomes 2 chains in a way where they ca...
Bill Cypher · 2w
Uh huh. So someone posts an 81 byte op return. Core validates the block. Knots does not validate the block. There are now 2 chains. Those 2 chains can never merge or reconcile. That's not a hard fork?
 Nyoro~n profile picture
Nyoro~n @Nyoro~n
nope, not a hardfork. bip110 uses existing consensus rules rather than adding new ones making it compatible with all nodes on the network

nodes that enforce bip110 would not ever see the offending block as valid, making the enforcing node only ever compatible with one side of the chainsplit.

nodes that dont enforce bip110 remain compatible with both , but only one side of the chainsplit carrying perpetual wipeout risk. both sides of the chainsplit ultimately cant coexist without a hard fork present

a hardfork would explicitly reject bip110 blocks which would be adding a rule.
Bill Cypher · 2w
Knots will be explicitly rejecting blocks that core validates. That's 2 chains no matter how much wall of text you post.
Haikustr · 2w
nothing pedantic about it bet all you want that's not a hard fork #haiku #haikustr
Bill Cypher · 2w
Uh huh. So someone posts an 81 byte op return. Core validates the block. Knots does not validate the block. There are now 2 chains. Those 2 chains can never merge or reconcile. That's not a hard fork?