Oddbean new post about login | logout Does Coinjoin exceed standard 42 bytes? Wonder why Samurai does… 🤔
OP_RETURN LIMIT IS 80 BYTES IN CORE. LUKE MADE UP HIS OWN LOWER LIMIT AND THEN SAID THEY DID NOT COMPLY.
Wow… 😂😂😂
The 80 byte OP_RETURN limit is a relay standard, not a consensus rule. Nodes can set their own limit easily (-datacarriersize flag in Bitcoin Core). This means that nodes (including mining pools) are free to adjust their own relay limits on OP_RETURN size, if they want to be non-standard. tl;dr: You are free to make up your own byte limit but noone else has to "comply" with it.
100%. POOLS CAN EVEN MINE EMPTY BLOCKS IF THEY WANT.
TIL about empty blocks👀 https://youtu.be/f3XsNhLiPBk
Someone's lying to you Core changed theirs to 80, but 40 is what the standard was. If they don't want to comply, that's fine, but blaming me for their decision not to is dishonest.
Also note that having ANY extra data hurts your privacy, which seems to contradict the goals of coinjoins. Not really sure what Samourai is thinking here ...
Fascinating, thank you for explaining little things like this
"v0.10.0 had 40 (not 42) and isn't even available due to security concerns your custom knots are basically the only ones running 42" also if core says 80 and samourai works with 80 why are they the ones not complying, if only you are using 42?
42 is 40 + 2 opcodes (which are counted in the current versions) If you think Core gets to just dictate things, get over your centralization mindset. Knots has used 40/42 since 2013. Samourai are the ones who chose to exceed it.
👍👏🧡😊
Seems this is not a mistake, @jack 😬
luke makes up standards no one e knows, then claims everyone else has it wrong https://image.nostr.build/484fac8be753054fd93c0299c71677cc43fa2873f4de3903960a5e66fcf115ab.jpg https://image.nostr.build/99800bb4111d8b26ffeac2ea6c7a90a9713021ae9a5444eafdca56a3948535e3.jpg
Recognizes core as credible originator of a standard but not a credible updater of said standard 🤔
More custom node rules will come up, some aligned with business requirements and/or idiology. I think it's fine, thats what decentralization and consensus is about. nostr:note13uuza6wxv5wukq0uclx30geg9au4nzayq9dhj7c8y3cvfjqfnvwqav970d
I mean yeah, but in the end it won't be an issue if it wasn't affecting the limited capacity Bitcoin users have to generate private transactions using something like whirlpool.
I wouldn't be surprised if In a few years to run a node you would choose between Core/ Ocean/Synonym node versions. nostr:note1rnpulvz9hstd8r7a7hfy7v7uh8arnr7yr5mq6vq9cy0em20dsdxqjw5py9
Quick question, why is it so hard to change it to 80 and stop the drama? 🤷🏻
80 isn't justifiable, and brc20 spam is at 45
I see, what about leaving it at 44? 😅
Why bother?
Apparently it can be up to 80 bytes
They have specific so called tx0 before coins enter first coinjoin round and that includes OP_RETURN. Not actually sure what’s the idea there (OP_RETURN, not tx0 itself).
Even Tx0 is sketchy
Yes it does and also Paynym is affected
nostr:nevent1qqszgydvmq3wthvsyaluhgyr7xk8dndvpt2vkpv0wzqhj4hucsaa4xgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzppmx5480ngtskwrqh3n06e26hvjttld8t47hlumz73zy9777k3aeqvzqqqqqqynusskg
Is this accurate? Doesn't sound like a bug, but choice of allowed spec. nostr:nevent1qqszgydvmq3wthvsyaluhgyr7xk8dndvpt2vkpv0wzqhj4hucsaa4xgpvemhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0dec82c33wehx66ryxgurwurk0puxkdth89kkx7trvcerxctkxg6xuumrwa4nqerpxae8yenpvy6hwuf5dsuxsum9dpenjvrxw3k8v0mzwfhkzerrv9ehg0t5wf6k2q3qsan22nhe59ct8pstcehav4dtkf94lkn46ltl7d30g3zzl00tg7usxpqqqqqqzhcawz9
It's a bug if they expected it to work under the 40 byte spec. If they knowingly exceeded it... Then what are they complaining for? That's on them
Out of curiosity, how does JoinMarket fare in these comparative discussions over OP_RETURN? JoinMarket coinjoins work just fine in either setting or are they in same boat as Samurai here? If JM is unaffected. Then does Samurai's different "setup" make these txns stick out like a sore thumb? (Apologies for my non-techy understanding)
As far as I know, this is a Samourai only issue. It doesn't make sense for coinjoins to dox themselves like this in the first place.
It's a bug if they expected it to work under the 40 byte spec. If they knowingly exceeded it... Then what are they complaining for? That's on them
Out of curiosity, how does JoinMarket fare in these comparative discussions over OP_RETURN? JoinMarket coinjoins work just fine in either setting or are they in same boat as Samurai here? If JM is unaffected. Then does Samurai's different "setup" make these txns stick out like a sore thumb? (Apologies for my non-techy understanding)
As far as I know, this is a Samourai only issue. It doesn't make sense for coinjoins to dox themselves like this in the first place.
