LukeDashjr
0 Following
0 Followers
0 Liked
0 Shared
Posts
People need to stop trying to dress up attacks on Bitcoin as "debates". That implies there are two legitimate "sides".
There is no "debate" around OP_RETURN. There is an attack, and it must be fought.
There is no "debate" around OP_RETURN. There is an attack, and it must be fought.
Don't let the bad actors trick you into thinking Bitcoin Core 30 allows you to re-enable the datacarrier limit:
1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.
2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").
3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.
The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.
1) Along with unlimiting the default, they also broke it further. datacarriersize=83 now (as of Core 30) allows for 83 outputs totalling 830 bytes of spam, instead of just 92 bytes of spam (9 bytes of which couldn't be arbitrary) as in Core 29 and earlier.
2) datacarriersize is marked as deprecated, and explicitly planned to be removed in a future release (likely silently, since "it's already deprecated").
3) Core never fixed the Inscription exploits (CVE-2023-50428 and CVE-2024-34149) which allow spammers to bypass the datacarriersize limit.
The only way forward now is a mass migration to Knots. Not the way I wanted things to go, but Core has given us no other choice. Once this is resolved, we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, and encourage the creation and use of multiple clients.
Spam apologists trying to reintroduce the Bitcoin censorship FUD painted with jargon to confuse people. Sigh
Spam filters cannot be abused for censorship. It only takes 1 block to bypass attempts to censor. But it takes 1 block to make spam filters effective. Opposites.
Spam filters cannot be abused for censorship. It only takes 1 block to bypass attempts to censor. But it takes 1 block to make spam filters effective. Opposites.
Join the bitcoin++ workshop Livestream at 3pm Central US time (in 2hrs15min) for my workshop on making a new node policy
https://www.youtube.com/live/J9bRVIXOhm0?si=svzeDyBnIl0XDmO4
https://www.youtube.com/live/J9bRVIXOhm0?si=svzeDyBnIl0XDmO4
Login to explore more contents