bitcoin OP_RETURN shitshow

[void]

anyone paying enough attention to this and willing to share the view and discuss the topic?

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Censorship should always be condemned.

“It is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties.”
John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689

 

[void]

Censorship should always be condemned.

I'm afraid it's more complicated than this

the "Lukes's side" would probably easily argue that all the rules built into the protocol are a censorship of it's kind which is hard to contradict...
an example is not only the status quo (OP_RETURN limited to 83 bytes) but also the block size and heaps of others

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Problem is they muted Luke and Mechanic

 

[void]

Problem is they muted Luke and Mechanic

yes, big mistake

 

[JosephLL]

What's going on? Who's after Luke now??

 

[void]

What's going on? Who's after Luke now??

it's a bit complex and nobody is after him this time
google "OP_RETURN limit Todd" or so

long story short... it seems that certain interest groups (including and allegedly led by Jameson Lopp who started a company that would benefit) are pushing on bitcoin core developers to merge the change of certain parameters which would improve the implementation of non-monetary use-cases on bitcoin blockchain (like NFTs, inscriptions, runes... in general data storage)
at this moment it's about the lates pull requests by Peter Todd that basically removes current size limit on OP_RETURN - this would have consequences in the size of blockchain, fees, block space scarcity and impact on the resources necessary for running a node and hence the level of decentralization

the Ocean/Knots gang is against (same as before) and quite vocal about it as usual... which lead to a ban of Luke, Mechanic and some others from the bitcoin core github which is something unprecedented and many heavy weights from the bitcoin space are not happy about it

for now it seems that the reputation of Lopp will take a hit, many supporters of bitcoin core devs are pulling back and the bitcoin knots implementation (alternative bitcoin node software forked by the "opposition") is gaining bigger share

it's way more complicated on a philosophical level though

 

[W Fish]

I had not paid attention, thanks for illuminating.
Is there a fork emerging?
What is the philosophical level dilemma? Pure money versus data storage?

 

[void]

Is there a fork emerging?

not really... for now it looks like an impulse for a desirable rebalancing of the space when it comes to bitcoin node implementations

What is the philosophical level dilemma? Pure money versus data storage?

I guess you could put it this way...

in other words - is bitcoin a purely monetary system or should it be allowed/supported to use it as a multipurpose data storage and implement whatever the market desires (images of cats, document storage and other ballast aka spam?) on top

there is a status quo that is close to the former, there are flaws/properties that still allow for the latter in a limited way

Todd's pull request would lead massively to the latter use-case

the other side would like to strengthen the former one by even potentially decreasing the OP_RETURN size - but it's not even on the table at the moment - however the bitcoin Knots node software allows one to do this unilaterally and exclude inappropriate transactions from the node mempool and not mine them (if used by the miner)

 

[void]

current bitcoin core stance is apparent from this https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce

 

[JosephLL]

Yes, I am one of those who treat NFT as an attack on the network. Usually the worst kind of desception is always served to you as "freedom" . What deeper philosophical question did you have in mind? Maybe that the so beloved John Lock and his kin were the initial british imperial scam of "free" trade and "free" markets ?

 

[W Fish]

A philosophical / abstract take:

BTC is (soon to be) the most valuable thing on earth. BTC blockchain is the thing that is able to protect it. Because of this ability it is very tempting to use it to eternalise whatever digital junk.
Because the blockchain is also extremely efficient (partially because the users are incentivised to protect their coins) in eternalising transactions, the cost of storing the next first unrelated thing is very small (1 sat + transaction fee?), thus the temptation is high. But if this starts happening, the costs will start to rise.
It will rise as high as to outprice storing junk but not btc as this is the most valuable thing.
At this point the market has done its job and the junk will "go away". Unfortunately junk storers are not the only ones, not even the majority who pay for this lesson. It would be better for everybody if the junk storers would understand this and not attempt it.

As BTC users are the ones who pay for the upkeep of the blockchain, it is their right to limit what gets stored on it.
I would not allwo other junk to be stored on BTC blockchain.
There might be some technical details that I am not aware of or dont understand.

 

[void]

adding my 2 sats...

* it's far from clear that bitcoin is or should be a purely monetary system
* money is what makes humans humans and serve as a social communication protocol and the price signals are what forms everything more complex than a simple barter trade
* it's impossible to define spam by general rules - it's undoubtedly a subjective classification - the more difficult in a situation when "spammers" pay for it and it's worth the money they spend
* every property or parameter of the protocol is inherently an act of censorship - censorship or discrimination in a free market is nothing bad and it's the way how to express one's preferences - this in a huge contrast with maliciousness of censorship in a regulated environment (e.g. in state controlled society)
* it's absolutely crucial to keep bitcoin as simple as possible, the blockchain as small as possible and the cost of running a node as cheap as possible
* the more bitcoin node software solutions are used the better - the more independent (code base, dev team, technology, dev stack, ...) the better
* there will always be a pressure from the users on forming the network according to their needs and it's nothing evil, actually totally natural
* bitcoin core github admins have the right mute whoever they want but it's a bad sign and they deserve to be treated equally - bitcoin knots market share is growing incredibly fast and it seems that the only thing slowing it down is the biggest enemy of all progress... inertia

I don't have a consistent opinion how to handle this situation especially because this is basically an unprecedented case (mostly because there is no owner and the system forms itself) far from black&white resolution and also because (as all adults should understand) opinions mean nothing... only deeds on the account of the agent do

 

[void]

for those of you who might be deeply interested in this topic I recommend

this video by Mechanic https://t.me/bitcoin/15722 (I could find it quickly elsewhere so.... telegram it is)
or latest video by Matt Kratter https://www.youtube.com/@Bitcoin_University/videos

the other side represented in a digestible form by Shinobi

do your own research and build your own stance