Oddbean new post about login | logout We're not censoring. They're just exceeding a limit that goes back a decade. We didn't do anything here
It would have helped to point out the details and difference out during the launch event, or on the website. The missed opportunity to do this marketing right cost goodwill. Hopefully y’all can openly remedy.
100% Making a big deal about transparency and then *not* being transparent about this up front was an own goal. :(
I think the point here is to have some conviction on running under a standard-based umbrella. If you don't like it the conversation continues and you're welcome to create your own mining pool which allows this kind of garbo data. Did you also bitch about browsers decision to maintain standards adherence, or were you totally cool with IE fucking everything up in their interpretations of HTML rendering?
Yes, Luke has views and convictions. This is great. The launch missed these sorely. Whoever is Luke’s marketing counterpart either did not understand the finer points and implications of Luke’s standards, or failed to communicate these. Either way not great.
This wasn't ready at launch, and we publicly announced it when it was
Every other miners running core could mine it but yours can’t. If that is not censorship I don’t know what is. But like I said, you can do whatever you want, just let people know before they point their miners to your pool. I won’t use your pool, but that is just me.
fiatdenier: stop being a San Franciso public space shitter, once in an 8 billion litterer par excellence crying like babies about privacy and free speech while shitting in public space called the bitcoin network(a public common good). You shit in public space of 8 billion ppl's common good, u get to take your shitty ass to China and mine your so called useful exceeded data there and please the Fee Lords feasting on the profits at the expense of 8 billion ppl being able to use their public space in a reasonable fashion, Fuckturds you're part of entitled WEF cuckturds, fiatdenier, u aint denying fiat shit, u and your supporters r just an immature fucking clown, Dont fuck with LDJ, he put his life on this project and what have you done for 8 billion people on this Earth? Shit, and shitting in public space is your contribution :( Just let the 8 billion people know your Whirlpooling so you can be a cool clever fuckturd fighting for High Fees for the 8 billion people so you and your sissy buddies can make lots of Profits, fuck off fiatbros and brag how privacy minded you're. What a fucking JOKE? clowns
How would you define censorship? Based on my understanding of it, it is a filter, framed as a filter against spam. So where would this turn into censorship in your opinion?
If a couple of BTC wizards can raise fees for actual BTC users during a bull run cycle and it causes a slow in BTC adoption THAT is censorship. Limiting the amount of spammable data on chain is not censorship, if anything this is anti DDOS protection. are DDOS blockers censorship?
right on Kartoshi, fuckturds should all move to San Francisco where they can choose to shit openly in the streets and at in the same breath bitch about not having privacy during their shitting shitstorm session, morale will improve once Core implements CVE-2023-50428 remedy. Can't wait till the shit litterers WEF cuckturds have better imagination than obfuscating shit as useful data on-chain.
“Causing a slow during a bull run” cannot be reasonably called censorship, anymore than outbidding someone at an auction is “censoring” them from buying the painting (or whatever). There can be considerations about the way to deal with tons of arbitrary data being shoved into the chain, and basically filtering by node policy probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, could slightly raise fees necessary for JPEGS and NFTS to get into blocks over honest bitcoin transactions. (funny, something like ocean mining and stratum v2 use would be optimal for node policy having the largest impact)
Well if it was using multiple criteria to isolate and remove all coinjoins of any kind, then it would be censoring coinjoins/privacy use. But if it is simply setting a different limit to one particular transaction characteristic which just happens to catch some coinjoins and not others, then clearly it isn’t censoring anything, or singling out a TX type, or specifically refusing certain addresses because they are deemed “bad.” Imagine it like this: you setup an email filter to send all emails with the word “unsubscribe” (since it’s always at the bottoms of newsletters & ads) to the spam folder. But it accidentally catches a couple of emails from your friend where they mentioned unsubscribing from Disney+ because Ashoka sucks. Did you censor your friend? Would it seem disproportionate if he got angry and demanded an explanation, and accused you of censoring him and not being open with your email filters? This whole thing seems to have been a big stink over nothing. Doesn’t seem like anyone was acting in bad faith to me. 🤷🏻♂️