Top Tweets for #SPAMWAR

IDK if I've seen this post before, but you 100% nailed the fundamental argument spammers can't defend. Arbitrary data appended to monetary transactions is noise that reduces the channel capacity of the Bitcoin monetary network for monetary users. Anyone who has studied information theory (everyone please quit screeching "information theory" as some sort of axiomatic tautology) knows that its purpose is to quantify signal, noise, and channel capacity. The Shannon-Hartley theorem is channel capacity equals frequency multiplied by the binary logorithm of one plus signal divided by noise. C = B*log2(1 + S / N) So I get that information theory proves you can obfuscate spam, but it doesn't prove you can't do anything about spam. And everyone's a game theory expert without ever applying it mathematically. Game theory explains Knots users defecting because Core 30 reduces their node's monetary channel capacity past their preference threshold. Taken to its limits, you quickly realize Bitcoin must maximize its channel capacity while maintaining a peer-to-peer network implementation that can run on consumer hardware. Stay based.

I’m now certain: Removing filters from Core v30 at this time is a BAD IDEA. My conclusion comes from assessing my own certainty in the main categories of criticism of the Core team and Core v30. Below I try to spell it out 👇 CATEGORIES OF CRITICISM Listed by order of certainty where 1 is most certain and 4 is least certain: 1. Broken communication and arrogance towards users (no doubt in my mind) 2. Lacking in adversarial analysis/thinking (very likely) 3. Weak monetary maximalist vision (possible) 4. Possible hostile takeover from the inside (speculative/intuitive) LET’S EXPAND ON THESE 4 #1: I have interacted enough with Core v30 proponents to be convinced that Core has to back down. The communication has been and continues to be sub-par. And, so many people are pissed off that the only viable path forward is for them to back down and not push through the removal of filters. Even with a better attitude it won’t work, because the tight deadline to the next release is the only thing that people see at this point. #2: As a person that has spent significant time working on helping founders in startups counteract hostile takeovers (always happen from the inside) #2 is concerning to me. In my experience the startup founders that were the most blue eyed were usually the ones that got the most taken advantage of. Adversarial thinking is essential for survival even when it comes to small amounts of money like in startups. Bitcoin is a trillion dollar asset, the level of adversarial thinking required compared to startups, is orders of magnitude higher. The level of adversarial thinking I’m seeing from anyone I’ve interacted with on the Core proponent side is way below what is needed. #3: There are compelling arguments for the fact that Core could do more to make Bitcoin more money friendly and less JPEG friendly, but I would have to be more confident in the technical aspects and therefore I only rate #3 as “possible” as I choose to be humble with my lack of understanding. Some people I have argued with in the past few weeks choose to take my position as an argument that I’m not in the position to have ANY OPINION WHATSOEVER. This is a poor take. But if anyone is going to approach it this way, please post your CV with your “tech superior take” and I will evaluate if your experience is enough to disqualify my 15 years of experience as product lead in tech companies (which I led as product focused CEO) and for years leading developer teams and doing CTO-related work. #4: I have no insight or understanding of the inside dynamics of Core so I’m not in a position to have an opinion. However, my intuition has raised red flags and over the past 10 years working on hostile takeover situations, I have learned to trust my gut. I’m uneasy is all I can say at this point. TO SUM UP Only #1 is more than enough reason to stop the removal of filters with Core v30 until dust has settled. Adding #2 emphasizes that the push is reckless, which is an additional strong reason to pause. Arguments #3 and #4 are not very useful at this time, and not needed for a conclusion as #1 and #2 are more than enough.

Bitcoin Knots is 300 nodes short of being the most popular implementation to run for the Bitcoin network. As someone that has only ever used Core for 10+ years (or more?) this is beyond wild. Never seen anything like this emerge out of discourse in a decentralized system without central planning. It's not an "exodus, run for the hills!!!" its an organic slow and considered migration. Regardless whether you are team Core or Knots, this is a great sign of end-user "agency". They're alive, they're not zombies, and this is a VERY healthy signal for Bitcoin. Both sides should be thrilled that the network is alive enough to download the consciousness of the system (people) that operate it! Wild, and great for corn. Bitcoin ftw!

From 2010 until 2022, Bitcoin used spam filters to keep garbage out of the chain. Despite that, the blockchain has grown far faster than technology can keep up with. In 2022, the "Inscription" exploit was discovered, and we now have 2 full years of its damage to observe. Anyone who has synced a node recently can attest to how terrible it's gotten. Bitcoin's greatest threat to survival is that far too few people are using a full node. For Bitcoin to work, at least 85% of economic activity needs to do so. As a result, Bitcoin is _likely_ going to fail already - it's an uphill struggle. What do you think will happen now that Core is opening the floodgates to spam, and essentially endorsing it? (No matter what they say, that's how spammers will take it.) Any chance we have of making Bitcoin a success will go out the window - unless the community takes a clear stand and rejects the change.

Breaking: In news completely unrelated to the latest new from Bitcoin Core, Microsoft has decided that Windows Defender will no longer block viruses and malware. Spokesperson was quoted as saying "we really don't want to have to put the effort into trying to keep ahead of ever evolving viruses. Now we can move on to more important things. This will have the effect of making everyone's computer more efficient by not wasting time on trying to find malware. Think of all the saved CPU cycles. You're welcome. (sorry about the porn banners)"

Hey You, Are you still not sure where you stand in the op_return war? Its really this simple. You can run bitcoin however you like. As long as you don't break consensus rules it's still bitcoin. You can run knots and try to filter out non monetary transactions or you can run core and facilitate spam filled blocks that require more bandwidth to relay and use up valuable storage space on your hard drive. You can even build your own implementation that does whatever you want it to. Spam apologists are deceiving you when they say your filters don't work or only 'eConOMiC NodEs' matter. Just ignore them, they are irrelevant. Since when did shitcoiners opinion matter to bitcoiners. Spammers are trying to make you believe your input doesn't matter because if you knew the impact that you can have on the direction of the network, and acted on it, they would have a much harder time getting their garbage into a block. They are simultaneously counting on the fact that bitcoin mining, and node software, is incredibly centralized while also claiming that if we don't obliterate the size of op return mining will become more centralized. Think about it. If mining was decentralized they would have to mine their own block to get their shit in on chain. On the flip side, if they can trick you into relaxing all your filters under the guise of improving your fee estimation or speed up block propagation they can guarantee that you will relay and store their useless data, at no cost to them, for all time. Shitcoiners would rather you don't run a node so that you have no say in the direction of the network. I want everyone to run a node and mine so you can decide what the network looks like Scam artists say that bitcoin isn't a democracy but I would argue it is the most democratic institution on the planet. Where do you stand?