Russell(SatoshiSpirit)

Nash and Bitcoin. Satoshi and Hal. Peanut Butter and Jelly. Forensic Accounting, JS/React C#/.Net CORE, civil engineering, adventure sport, 🏍️ road and dirt

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

you can initiate multiple Bitcoin nodes from a single initial block download (IBD) by first syncing one node and then copying its data directory to other machines. This saves significant time and bandwidth, as the Initial Block Download (IBD) is a resource-intensive process.

[Philip D'Ath @philip_dath]

Miners require nodes to replicate their blocks. Miners compete with other miners. When 2 miners solve a block at about the same time, they both put out their solutions into the blockchain. Whichever solution gets replicated the fastest forms the longest chain and wins.

Nodes need a lot of storage. It would be very expensive to spin up thousands of nodes. Economically prohibitive.
See for yourself.
https://t.co/nMXpgyIvRx

As a result, running a note does absolutely voice your vote.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

😂 now that’s rich

Thanks for the laugh this evening.

“I contributed to MANY open source projects”
“Studied Bitcoin for 15 years”
yet didn’t buy a single sat until you studied it for 15 years, proves you never understood Bitcoin.. most studied it for 2 days and bought some.

During those 15 years what did you study exactly? It obviously was not the repo/code.

Y’all don’t even know the 1st and the most basic rule of bitcoin.. the heaviest chain is the real Bitcoin aka the valid chain.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

@coinjoined You forgot the one woman maintainer Lulu ki Dasheari

[Coinjoined Chris ⚡ @coinjoined]

FUDster:
Knots only has one dev who merges without peer review 😡

Me, an intellectual:
Knots has more maintainers than Core (n+1)!

[Harry Beckwith @HarryGBeckwith]

@coinjoined

[nyx @chickenoftheSi]

@coinjoined

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

@ScarcityMan @ClioBitcoinBank @LynAldenContact @Puncher522 @mattkratter This is an LLM bot programmed with a retarded Luke type personality.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

Spends more time typing out a horrible analogy than simply exposing what “officially spam” actual means because he claims BiP110 stops official spam and it’s not debatable. Yet doesn’t link to the explanation of “official spam” but claims he has addressed it before.

Speaking about mincing words, this dude is just making up new definitions and refusing to clarify what it even means.

This has got to be a Bot 🤖 100%

He claimed he studied Bitcoin for 15 years but didn’t buy his first sats till just recently. If it took you 15 years of studying Bitcoin to buy some sats. You are a slow learner. That is not debatable.

[ScarcityMan 🚀 BIP-110 @ScarcityMan]

It's shorthand. I unpacked it for you elsewhere. It's like when evolutionary biologists talk and use the word "designed." They know it's not exactly the right word, but they're saving themselves from having to type or speak dozens of words each time they talk about the concept they mean. If pushed, they decompress it. No problem, standard practice way to communicate and the point remains completely untouched by the technical description of what's going on when we say "official." This doesn't rebut anything, it's just mincing words.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

I think you were already retarded, watching BYC for 15 years and not buying any shows me you didn’t study it, you misunderstand it, and now have became radically retarded and are proud of it. The BiP doesn’t do anything material to the spammers that are using bitcoin. That’s the whole point and you keep missing it and focusing on the fact it “forced” spammers to easily code up work around, 1 dev a few hours of work.. 👏 🤦‍♂️ literally every “spammer” has a bip110 compliant workaround ready to go and they did it just to prove a point that you all still miss, not because the work around will actually be needed.

It’s a cat and mouse game where the cat has to announce its plans to all the mice far in advance of being able to act. So mice build new nests and routes and are unaffected. It literally caused a few devs to put in a few hours each to code up a work around. That’s all the bio110 would do if it somehow was successful.

[Vortex | BIP448 @theonevortex]

> BIP-110 stops official arbitrary data storage.

No it does not, literally every spam protocol has already upgraded to be 110 compliant. https://t.co/1bPdcYj68p

> NE place for official arbitrary data storage in transactions, called OP_RETURN. Restrict that, and you restrict the official ability to store porn on bitcoin.

Wrong. People have been embedding data for 17 years and 110 won't stop that.

> We stop OFFICIAL exploits now, and then work on the rest, iteratively.

110 does none of that.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

@secsovereign Do I need trust to settle in bitcoin? Who do I need to trust? Math? Or can I verify? Meaning no need to trust anyone. I thought maths cannot lie?

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

I’d just ask them, does your node give you monetary and financial sovereignty or not?

Do you get to change default policy regardless of what core sets it to?

I see it more like the default values in relay policy like a default character in a video game, during the character creation process. Core simply changed the default model that most everyone alters, and a default isn’t a law and why you can change it.

BiP110 seeks to remove this freedom from all nodes and miners because Luke is having big feels and tricked some tard plebs into believing his lies and FUD.

[Samson Mow @Excellion]

BIP110 supporters are saying that Core blew open OP_RETURN.

They didn't. They just removed a sign.

Bitcoin's real OP_RETURN limit isn't 83 bytes or even 100KB. Those are policy. You can think of them as speed-limit signs each node chooses to post.

The real limit is ~1MB. That's the law of nature, or consensus rules.

Think of it as the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s. A fixed constant. No dev, no miner, no config flag moves it.

OP_RETURN data is non-witness data, 4 weight units per byte. Fill a whole block with it: 4,000,000 ÷ 4 = ~1,000,000 bytes. That's the real limit. It was the limit before v30 too.

This means the 83-byte cap was never Bitcoin's limit. It was a sign posted in front of a road that was always ~1MB wide.

And miners were already driving past it, accepting big non-standard transactions directly, bypassing the mempool entirely.

All v30 did was take the sign down. Default datacarrier size went from 83 to 100,000 bytes.

Should they have taken the sign down? That's debatable, but it also isn't relevant (outside of angering some people).

However, there were zero consensus changes. Not a soft-fork. Not a hard-fork. The set of valid blocks is identical before and after.

So when someone says "Core changed Bitcoin," ask them: which consensus rule changed?

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

@w_s_bitcoin Could you infer from this that bitcoins network propagation of txns/blocks must be healthy and robust, correct?

[John Nash Institute @famous_ideal]

For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops."

John F Nash Jr., Ideal Money

https://t.co/M4VgpTX7R5

[ᨒ↟𐂂 ݁↟𖠰 𓋼𓍊 @MycelFi]

@famous_ideal Choose your axioms
https://t.co/Gv2sqVMY5k

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

Nash would probably not be in favor of centralized layer 2’s or Bitcoin banks that fractional reserves its customers deposits.

It degrades TU or completely erases it.

It’s exactly like fiat, it works good during good times, but during not ideal times, it degrades. Good money is supposed to be good all the time, not just when the economy is doing well.

Centralized LN, which is exactly the plan to scale bitcoin, spoke and hub LN(centralized) and Bitcoin Banks(centralized) takes the TU out of Bitcoin and degrades it to a NTU for 99% of the users. As most will be on layer 2’s or custodial “banks”

Of another party can cause loss of funds, freeze, or stop your from transferring your funds, you are not sovereign and you don’t have TU, or you only have it as long as the custodian allows it, the second they don’t, you have NTU, aka bad money.

This is why it’s important to discuss the saving in txn fees by increasing the blocksize/weight, as it allows for more players to gain TU in their money/savings, and the savings on txns might very well outpace the added storage cost to your node. Even tho you don’t need a node for TU, just a wallet and UTXO’s.

https://t.co/k6j9MbbypY

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

@maitreyabtc @w_s_bitcoin @ghostofstacks PoW exists and is part of Bitcoin retard.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

I’m glad this gives you confidence 😂

[Vinnie ₿itcoins⚡ @vinnie_bitcoins]

Based on my analysis, it would seem there is overwhelming support for BIP-110 with approximately 85% chance of success.

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

it’s one of the actual humans that fell for Luke and Mechanics BS lies and FUD.

He needs studied.

[Dave Lund BIP-110 ⚡️🚢 @davelund_]

@bitcoinXtalk @hodlonaut

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

Why can @AntePurgatorio answer this question, it’s simple.

Instead he reverts to replying with,

“I can’t get a v30 node to act precisely the same as v29, so it must be broken”

even tho in practice you can still have it relay whatever you wish within consensus limits.

[Steve @steverabinow]

@AntePurgatorio You’re free to set datacarriersize to whatever you’d like.

Why does allowing multiple outs matter if the total aggregate size is still limited by whatever you set datacarriersize to?

[Russell(SatoshiSpirit) @bitcoinXtalk]

Avoids answering the simple question.. again

[The Excommunicate ⚡️ @AntePurgatorio]

@steverabinow Because I have no way to set my core client to behave as it did previously.

It's not even an option without patching and rebuilding it.

Yes, it was already valid, but Core made relaying it an unchangable default.