+- Super Testnet -- 202d -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[...]+ | | | Excellent question for the "filters don't work" crowd: | | | | Why are 81 byte op_returns three orders of magnitude less common than 80-byte ones? | | | | Filterers know why: a filter filters out 81 byte op_returns but not 80 byte ones. But y'all say they don't work. Do | | you have *any* explanation? https://x.com/cguida6/status/1975273120287105531 | | | +-- reply --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---+Excellent question for the "filters don't work" crowd: Why are 81 byte op_returns three orders of magnitude less common than 80-byte ones? Filterers know why: a filter filters out 81 byte op_returns but not 80 byte ones. But y'all say they don't work. Do you have *any* explanation? https://x.com/cguida6/status/1975273120287105531
thread · root 7f5cf7b2…4b2d · depth 16 · · selected 58806417…41fc
thread
root 7f5cf7b2…4b2d · depth 16 · · selected 58806417…41fc
Excellent question for the "filters don't work" crowd:Why are 81 byte op_returns three orders of magnitude less common than 80-byte ones?Filterers know why: a filter filters out 81 byte op_returns but not 80 byte ones. But y'all say they don't work.Do you have *any* explanation? https://x.com/cguida6/status/1975273120287105531
because some people manage to bypass the filtersThere, I've answered your question. Care to answer mine?
I mean, what point since you just admitted they don't work.If this was something where less or delay helped you might have a case. Your side made it about CSAM and CSAM isa 100% effective or 100% fail situation.Can you explain to me how a 1 block delay or costing $300 instead of $150 is going to stop this alleged nationstate attacker?
> what point since you just admitted they don't workOn the contrary, I think I proved they do. Their goal is to reduce the spam, and they succeed at that goal> Your side made it about CSAM and CSAM is a 100% effective or 100% fail situationI don't think so. If we keep out most CSAM but some makes it through, that's better than not keeping out any> Can you explain to me how a 1 block delay or costing $300 instead of $150 is going to stop this alleged nationstate attacker?I don't know what allegation you are referring to, but I don't think the spam filters stop high-effort spammers-- they work by reducing the amount of spam from low-effort spammers
It is either illegal to run a node or not. You are either serving CSAM or not. The amount that changes that is"any at all" not "less than an alleged alternate reality I made up"There are way better and cheaper ways to store CSAM just like any other data. The only reason to do it is anattack. This isn't a situation where people will upload their collection anymore than people will upload theirMP3 collection.The path is already there before core 30. All we lack is the motivated attacker.
> It is either illegal to run a node or not. You are either serving CSAM or not.You seem to be equating these two things but I don't think that's valid. If the blockchain became illegal themoment *any* CSAM entered it, then it would already be illegal, because there is already a small amount of CSAMon it. (source:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/20/child-abuse-imagery-bitcoin-blockchain-illegal-content)Since it is not illegal, it must follow that a small amount of CSAM does not make the blockchain illegal. Andtherefore it is not binary, as you seem to be claiming. Spam filters that help reduce the amount of CSAM aregood even if they don't entirely eliminate it.
Illegal and actively prosecuted are different things.If CSAM legality is not the issue then why not just price out spam by doing more economic transactions?
> why not just price out spam by doing more economic transactions?one reason why is because to "just" do more economic transactions is to needlessly throw out another helpfulmitigationit is like saying "you should break all your windows -- you can keep your room warm by just exercisingconstantly"yeah I suppose I could but that's no reason to smash my windows, which *also* help keep my room warm
Any martial artist knows that defense is a joke. To only defend is to guarantee a loss. As you may have heard itsaid before, the best defense is a good offence.Personally I intend to use bitcoin. Other people using it only matters to me if I am trying to transact withthem.As the privacy advocate you have positioned yourself as in the past, I can't see how you square insisting on anode implementation that blocks on chain privacy by default and nosing around in controlling transactions youaren't a party to.I don't support the changes but Luke's history is very much that of someone who doesn't support privacy or thecypherpunk ethos. I'll just not update or switch to libbitcoin before I follow him.
I doubt you will find any martial artist who agrees with the proposition that defending yourself is a joke
Miyamoto Mushashi:"The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means.Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the samemovement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching theenemy, you will not be able actually to cut him."I'm also a martial artist, though I am less credentialed than Mushashi.
Bill, this thread was painful to read and i am not a knots guy. You just kept moving the goal post.Super said reduction of spam is the point of the filters, elimination would be nice, but this is open tech, theonly way to eliminate work arounds is to bury it in the dirt.You should go back and address his actual points otherwise fence sitters like me are going to start leaningtowards knots just because of the way yall are approaching this debate.
You fell into the same trap as everyone else then.I'm trying to lead him to the conclusion that he has been trapped in a false dichotomy of knots vs core. Core isa problem and knots doesn't solve it.We need a third path that has a chance of getting where we want to go.I'm not the only one who sees it this way because I hear a few mumblings about removing the witness discount.I'm not a skilled enough dev or a big enough voice to get anything done by myself so I'm left to hassle thosewho are when they show up in my feed talking about it.I suppose I am trying to move the goalpost in a way, I see it more as trying to add a new goal and a new team tothe game. Core wants to allow crap without limits to any payer which I think is bad. Knots already filters onchain privacy which I think is bad. The future I want for Bitcoin has on chain privacy and all or at leastmostly monetary use.
Ok, i get you. I too think we actually need a third option. Seems like the consensus mechanisms need to beabstracted into a separate repo and all of the other stuff be in the various client repos. That would be thebiggest win because i feel like a big part of this debate is core actibg holier than thou as the maintainers ofthe reference client.
Libitcoin.
On my short list to get it running and see what is up.