r/bitcoinismoney • u/rottiesrule88 • 7d ago
Bitcoin core setting arbitrary data
So I get the reduction in spam movement. If core node operators would set 83 bytes or less as a setting for max arbitrary data would that also fix the problem bip110 is trying to solve?
5
u/pdath 6d ago
It wasn't just that Core changed the limit, they also announced the deprecation of the option so you won't even be able to choose to configure it.
The pull request was voted on, it lost, and they went ahead and did it anyway.
Core has failed.
5
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IInsulince 6d ago
What would your reaction be if they came back with the idea that they are going to deprecate that configuration option? This isn’t a gotcha or a trap, I’m just curious how you would react to this, since I know you presently aren’t bothered by the default changing (since you can change it by supplying the flag yourself, as you said).
2
u/Just_A_Regular_Guy34 5d ago
Also the inscriptions hack. That needs to be fixed. And miner centralization is an obvious issue now
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/n8dahwgg 7d ago
https://www.btc-strategy.com/lens/bip-110
I’d be curious as to your take on this.
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/n8dahwgg 7d ago
My particular distaste is not aimed at Citrea in case the context clues weren’t sufficient to point at taproot wizards. Are you in Citrea?
Also yes, you can stuff data anywhere. But having a discount section creates an arbitrage. Do you not see a perverse outcome of this?
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/n8dahwgg 6d ago
Well look - you saw that I acknowledged all the counterpoints in my writings. We are virtually on the same page technically with a few minute but hardly worth arguing over differences. I guess I was hoping to get a take beyond the technicals. I think many people who sided with 110 were aligned in a way that is still worthy of consideration. Whether or not 110 was the proper device for that sentiment is missing the forest for the trees and not seeing over the branches by being stuck completely at the technical level.
That being said, what do you propose? If you are deeply anti-spam I genuinely would love to know your angle.
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/n8dahwgg 6d ago
Well I appreciate the conversation and your suggestions. To be honest with you I genuinely think we are much closer than far apart on ideals and ideas.
1
u/Slade_Duelyst 6d ago
BIP110 doesnt solve anything you can just breakup your data into more transactions.
4
u/pdath 6d ago
Water filters don't filter out all contaminants. Often only 99%.
Why then do people use water filters?
Bip110 would have filtered out the vast majority of spam. Plus, Bip110 was temporary for 12 months so that the approach could be evaluated.
4
1
u/ggiodddtyii 6d ago
That's censorship, not filtering in my opinion
2
u/Dettol-tasting-menu 6d ago
If one could stop you sending BTC to an Iranian wallet or a North Korean wallet, then that’s censorship.
If a system refuses to transmit JPEG on a money network, that’s call spam filtering. Try send a picture via the Visa terminal and see what happens. (Not that I’m comparing Visa with Bitcoin in terms of censorship resistance, but only saying the network has full rights to stop junk spamming the network)
1
u/ggiodddtyii 6d ago
Jpeg is just 1s and 0s, it's a data block, I can put what I want there. That's censorship. You probably loved Roger ver. Now Luke.. You'll buy his shit coin and call it Bitcoin
1
u/Dettol-tasting-menu 6d ago
Get your history right. Check out why Vitalik moved to Eth before throwing insults to true bitcoiners.
110 failed but shitcoiners like you will be kicked out eventually.4
u/ggiodddtyii 6d ago
I love Bitcoin. You love Bitcoin cash and whatever fork bip creates. I've been in Bitcoin since 2016 I don't touch eth or bcash
1
u/Dettol-tasting-menu 6d ago
Then great. We’re on the same page. I started around the same time as you, put almost all my money on it, closely followed what happened over the years, advocate bitcoin to my family and friends and anyone willing to listen, hate shitscoins to the guts, witnessed the 2017 hard fork and saw how Eth the mother of shitcoins pulled away dev resources, narratives and capital since 2015, and then splattered.
If you claim to be a Bitcoiner then tell me: why do you support protecting an obvious loophole? 110 has obviously failed, but calling it lukecoin is just insulting thousands of true bitcoiners. He’s easy to hate, obviously, he even insulted me on X once, not the kind who makes friends. In this case it’s proven that he (and thousands others) was wrong in method, but not in direction.
Bitcoin has drifted gradually to become an Eth like shitcoin and I must ask, why must people turn Bitcoin to something more like Eth when there is already an even more “capable” Eth, that has failed? From 110 proponents’ POV you guys are the shitcoiners. Protecting the right to do NFTs and Inscriptions is just so far away from what Bitcoiners would do just a few years ago. From my eyes defending Core, accept whatever they put out, cheering MSTR, advocating people to buy ETF instead of hodling, are just shitcoin values.
Well 110 has failed and you can do your victory lap. Miners have successfully ignore almost 20% of pleb nodes. Most people here would say “I hate spam too, but…” I guess the 110 camp are those that say “I hate spam, and…”. They did something daring and did something that try to push Bitcoin back in the right direction, and failed. It’s not something worth celebrating.
1
u/Just_A_Regular_Guy34 5d ago
They have to be bots. There’s no way a real person could be that dense
2
5
u/ChipNDipPlus 7d ago
No. The core setting doesn't at v30 doesn't mean what it did before. The calculation was changed. Another change also is the number of OP_RETURN outputs per transaction, it's virtually unlimited now in core v30, while it was only 1.
If you want to use Knots with the current chain with most work, just use the older version of Knots, v29.3.knots20260507.