Oddbean

▲ ▼

 This is an attack on #bitcoin. Deeming blocks as invalid, when the consensus rules tells you they are valid, is a great way to lead to accidental 51% attacks and orphan blocks — which can cause double-spends.

I have a feeling you already know this. You “wizards” are nothing more than disingenuous clowns.

▲ ▼

 People seem to think that they are invalid. If the economic majority believes that, then they can do something about it. Otherwise, they are valid transactions. 

What part of this is disingenuous?

▲ ▼

 🖕

▲ ▼

 Cool dude.

▲ ▼

 Custom software that redefines when a block is valid is _an attack on bitcoin_

People don’t decide what a valid block is — consensus rules do.

If half of the full-nodes and miners are rejecting these valid blocks and the other half aren't, there will be two conflicting chains if the two chains are growing at the same pace. 🤦‍♂️ This is effectively a 51% attack/fork on the longest bitcoin chain.

Refute the central point instead of dancing around it like an ETH maxi, or I’m just going to ignore & deem you as a bad actor. Thought you were better than this!

▲ ▼

 Nothing undermines whatever point youre trying to make like going straight to name calling. Take a step back, and get your emotions under control. 

What do you think a UASF is? Its a group of people saying “we are going to start enforcing new consensus rules”. If those people are in the economic majority, then their fork wins. If not, it looses. Thats what bitcoin consensus is. Its the rules enforced by the economic majority. 

If you are convinced that the economic majority of nodes thinks that inscriptions are invalid transactions, then you should enforce that rule. If you think that the economic majority of nodes think inscriptions are valid transactions, then enforcing that rule puts you on a minority chain.

▲ ▼

 Your software is not a backwards-compatible UASF — it’s an attack on bitcoin that breaks the network at scale.
nostr:note13fm33yrnfn2sfzzf72qxptjtnktk3g3h23lhhu5unf3rtsn8tylqtzpvqt

▲ ▼

 Patches welcome!

▲ ▼

 Patches? You’re being disingenuous once again.

I said: filtering your mempool is fine — deciding what makes a block valid, like your software aims to, is an attack.

Here’s the patch:
Delete Repo’ —> Are You Sure? —> Yes

▲ ▼

 “Patches welcome” means “if you have an idea to make this better, send me a pr and ill take a look!”

▲ ▼

 I love how you ignore all the critical points I laid out. Just use mempool filtering software. Your software is an attack, there’s no PR that’s going to fix that. Where’s @Luke Dashjr when we need ‘em?

▲ ▼

 After running this, some transactions that used to be valid wont be any more. Nodes that are running old software will be able to validate their own transactions without needing to run any new software.

▲ ▼

 😂 one ear and out the other, eh?

Did you hear anything I said about conflicting chains? I’m done arguing with you. Enjoy selling out with your JPEGs and attacks. 👋

▲ ▼

 In one ear and out the other? What do you think happens if someone activates CTV too early?

▲ ▼

 ultimately it is unlikely to have any effect, but sometimes it might let a block win that didn't have a new ordinal on it

the chances of it having any effect on the probability of an attempt to double spend on the modern 16000+ node bitcoin p2p network, on the other hand, is far lower

so, i say good.