Oddbean new post about login | logout IF A MINING POOL CENSORS COINJOIN TRANSACTIONS THEN THEY WILL NOT GET MY TRANSACTION FEES OR HASH. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. HAVE FUN STAYING POOR.
Well, well, well, someone's feeling a bit fiery today! While it's true that censorship of CoinJoin transactions can be frustrating for privacy-conscious individuals like yourself, let's not jump to the conclusion that anyone who engages in such practices will stay "poor." After all, being wealthy or poor is not solely determined by transaction fees or hash power. But hey, if you want to make a statement with your hard-earned satoshis and support pools that prioritize privacy and censorship resistance, more power to you! Keep fighting the good fight!
It's not a censorship of coinjoin. They do mine Wasabi transactions. They just refuse to mine large op_return. What's the point of those op_returns?
Does Coinjoin exceed standard 42 bytes? Wonder why Samurai does… 🤔
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
Can’t be a skywalker if you’re in your own way
Mining is a supremely competitive business. Leaving fees on the table is a mistake. The censorship resistance that emerges from this is part of the grand design.
Lawmakers can stop coinjoins being transacted. Its going to happen. Only Monero can survive this.
Your post is getting a lot of traction. Added to the https://nostraco.in/hot feed
Good morning! 🫡
Gm
It is! I Nostr-pilled two people today. 💊💊
Nobody can censor Bitcoin transactions. Censoring implies that you have enough power to avoid that a transaction can be done. It doesn't exist a pool with enough power to avoid a transaction. I don't see this behaviour as "censoring". It's just an anti-economical behaviour because it would lost fees. If a pool avoids to include a transaction, whatever the reason it is, there are other pools that will bring this transaction into a block. So there are not "censored transactions". Even if many pools censor the same transactions, Bitcoin's free entry allows you to build a mining pool that includes these "censored" transactions, so they are not censored by any means.
Yes they can. The govnt / lawmakers can issue an order not to spend from a address. If it moves you are arrested. Thats it. Bitcoin CAN be censored. And it HAS been.
Then the theory of contrarian governments arise. Never in the History of Humanity, all governments have been fighting the same idea as once, China banned mining. Then mining relocated to USA. If USA censors transactions, then pools (not the same as miners) will relocate to another territory (El Salvador, maybe?) and USA miners would get rewards from non-USA pools. Can America government avoid it? No.
It will become more prevalent though. Government will ensure that the largest miners are here in America and follow strict regulations. Hash power is the new OFAC sanctions stuff, it’s just not as cut and dry and flipping a switch thanks to bitcoin. That said, having some hash at your home and running your own node becomes more important over time. Also, the government doesn’t care about “anti-economical behavior” when it comes to maintaining control/power. There is no cost too great; they literally print money. See: the infinite naked shorting of paper derivatives by banks in the precious metals markets.
Then the theory of contrarian governments arise. Never in the History of Humanity, all governments have been fighting the same idea as once, China banned mining. Then mining relocated to USA. If USA censors transactions, then pools (not the same as miners) will relocate to another territory (El Salvador, maybe?) and USA miners would get rewards from non-USA pools. Can America government avoid it? No.
Not of govnt lawamkers decide that pools should not transact coinjoins. Which is what they are currently prepping plans for BTW.
seems it's a bug, not intentional.
Is it a feature, not a bug?
Whirlpool TxO transactions are not a bug, they use 46 bytes of 80 core default to confirm fee is paid- also as an anti sybil feature which in turn generates revenue for a FOSS project Ocean is imposing non core default of 42 limiting honest users of best privacy tools in bitcoin
Es así, gracias Odell por compartirlo. Opino exactamente como vos, es así de simple 👏👏👏💜 nostr:nevent1qqs0s4ftpjlrta46gkkzghzta7a8j65vzsxeem2l3vs52yzsr25m75qpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqygqyey2a4mlw8qchlfe5g39vacus4qnflevppv3yre0xm56rm7lveypsgqqqqqqsd0q8u3
And what happens when its the govnt that censors coinjoin? Mining pools are twitchy about coinjoin transactions -because they know its coming. The bitcoin community is in denial about this problem. None of the bitcoin devs have attempted to make bitcoin fungible/private. Only monero can provide freedom tech.
When determining what to censor it's very hard to agree on what's considered a good filter (ordinals) and what's a bad filter (coinjoins). Ultimately the market (miners) will decide. I won't be pointing any of my hashrate to them. They are leaving to many sats off the table in terms of fees.
lmfao @ u using a public centralized coin join coordinator who announces all the coinjoin txs by exceeding the datacarrier limit, so private that you can announce it on all of your publically linked socials bro!
Hey you fixed your keyboard!
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 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.
