Oddbean new post about login | logout Matt, you know the default setting can be changed in the configuration file. Are you suggesting you and Samourai should be able to dictate how node runners set up their node’s configuration file? Don’t you want a diversity of nodes with individual node runners voting with their hardware and the settings they opt into or out of? Just like the size of the mempool you choose to hodl is configurable l, so is this. Samourai has shown their true colors time and time again. Too bad.
Breaking a massive wallet privacy tool for no reason is silly. They are welcome to do so, but dumb. F2pool acting at the hand of government is just as bad. Against, they are free to do so. Personally, I pulled my few PH from them and moved to 2 different pools. Ocean won't be getting it either.
> Breaking a massive wallet privacy tool What are you talking about? If one block in 100 does not include their transactions, it's not breaking their tool. By what metric is it "massive"?
For now. They could start winning 1 out of 10, 1 out of 5, who knows. Whirlpool is one of, if not the best forward privacy tool that exists. It currently has usage in the pool of almost 2x the entire lightning network capacity. That’s massive, and growing.
Literally nothing was broken🙄
This is not about samourai. It's a slippery slope. All eyes are on you guys because of the amount of hype you made around the launch. If you care about actually mitigating mining centralization concerns then surely the answer isn't let's have luke unilaterally decide what is spam.
I’m going to stop man. You have helped me so much over the years. I don’t like being on opposite sides of the issue. I’m sorry.
Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean that you respect them any less
The solution to miner centralization is not one pool that does it right, so all can mine at that pool. It's more pools and ideally also ones that do it right. In my book, any pool that has low switching cost is great as it allows miners to direct their hashes at a different pool quickly should problems arise. If banning wizard pics and the associated lower rewards is not perceived as a problem, let them mine at OCEAN.
More pools isn't enough. Each and every miner needs to be deciding for himself. Until OCEAN, miners had no choices. Now they have one more. Soon, we'll release the flood gates so they have infinite possibilities
"Each and every miner" will never be on board to stop censorship. I guess, censorship will be state-sponsored and many registered mining pools will take this extra money happily.
It only takes one miner to include your transaction With centralization, you have to convince one of a mere 11 pools
Is this a load of 💩 or am I missing something? 👇 "Until OCEAN, miners had no choices." No choices to one more makes 2 choices. What you're saying makes no sense at all. What was the one and only choice before Ocean? Or did we have more choices all along and this is a load of shit? nostr:nevent1qqs9dzrc8vn3afvh8n4ywm89kta6nz4tztygfzt28xcc86g5nw4545gpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzplw4arm2urdcz7lqkuw6ypyccxqxj6xc5eze2kwzf8ej97nnge98qvzqqqqqqy22ecva
Ocean does a lot of things different from most miners. They use PPLNS (tweaked and renamed TIDES) which makes payouts transparent and fair. You can mine directly to a bitcoin address (no account, no kyc). Everybody is angry about censoring inscriptions. Big whoop, who cares? Y'all don't even like inscriptions. I am genuinely confused by the coinjoin censoring. Why does whirlpool need an 80 byte op_return? (Apparently they don't.) Why does knots censor it? (Luke just stonewalls everyone on this point.) Seems like dumb decisions all around. Overall, a kyc free mining pool with fair and transparent payouts is a massive win. Everybody else uses PPS which reduces miner payout variance and gives the pool full control over blocks and profits. Censorship is a big problem if all pools censor the same stuff. If they all censor different stuff it is not really a problem. Ocean is a net positive. With Sv2 the censorship will be a non issue.
Braiins does not and they're no KYC. Only difference is having to get an account. No account required is the win but the source is closed and it's only for Ocean. Miners can already build their own blocks with stratum v2 which Braiins already supports.
Braiins used to talk big about open source then they did a 180 and quietly closed their source code. They also use FPPS which lets them do shit like keep out of band fees for themselves w/o compensating the miners. I don't know if they have abused this power but nothing is stopping them. DEMAND also recently announced they will launch with Sv2 support like the same day OCEAN went live and everyone collectively shrugged and started yelling about OCEAN. All the other pools are more or less the same: KYC & FPPS. More pools presenting more options is better, exactly like Luke said.
They JUST switched TODAY and it was market demand as the reason for the switch. I haven't even gotten a payout from their FPPS system yet. I would rather get a consistent payout. You would have thought the same if you were getting the wild payouts on their pool before. Braiins has had v2 for like over a year...
Who switched to what?
Braiins switched payout calculation.
Actually, @LeoWandersleb said it best. More pools, especially with low switching costs, is the big win. BTW with OCEAN you need to stick around for 8 blocks to get the full payout iirc. So the switching costs are not that low...
The standard datacarriersize Knots has always used is 42 bytes. They knew that and ignored it. We haven't changed anything in this regard. Brc20 comes in at 45 bytes, so just increasing it isn't a viable solution. That doesn't mean we're giving up - we do want to mine these - but it's going to take some work if Samourai doesn't fix the issue on their end (ultimately there's no good reason for ANY of this data)
Thanks for the response. I am not knowledgeable about datacarriersize. Does this refer to a constant in bitcoind code? Does it only apply to OP_RETURN? I was under the impression that BRC-20 uses the inscription data envelope technique, which does not involve OP_RETURN. That makes me think you are using datacarriersize to refer to the total amount of data you are willing to allow a transaction to store, regardless of the technique used. Can you please clarify this for me?
@Luke Dashjr You rock. Great example of a perseverance, strength, courage of a builder that changes the world. Ignore naysayers, haters that distract and stall progress (shipping and opening up new possibilites).
Samourai could have handled it better. Their public comms often do more harm than good. nostr:note1s4u5ptcglvy8hlgws7dfxu6s6amlhrz69p8u998kfu8gn9khnr9s6s8tr3
I mean, they are STILL handling it poorly. Do you disagree with the narrative that they are *still* pushing (this very hour) that this is intentional, hostile censorship specifically against their platforms?
That is regrettable. Blockchain data storage limit disagreements date back to Satoshi times. Luke's 40 byte limit is by no means unreasonable. People should just chill and keep coding.
I think there is a erudite and measured discussion to be had about the reasonableness of Luke. However, Samourai consistently goes out of their way to avoid erudite and measured discussion, opting for tribalism and discord.
He is technically correct. 40 bytes OP_RETURN should be more than enough for any and all blockchain arbitrary data storage needs. Don't let lazy programmers and greedy hype riders tell you otherwise.
Yeah I don't think the bitcoin blockchain is meant to be a data hoarding NAS either.
I think the valuable anchor/notary use cases will fix this without any intervention. But on the other side, maybe a campaign to hardfork (change rules in a backwards incompatible way) to put limits on witness sizes. The benefits to miners at the expense of all other uses should be obvious. The legacy of big blocker attacks continues.
Forgot to tag @Luke Dashjr Anyway, this thread explains it fairly well: https://nitter.net/pourteaux/status/1361821176801157122
I mean, they are STILL handling it poorly. Do you disagree with the narrative that they are *still* pushing (this very hour) that this is intentional, hostile censorship specifically against their platforms?
That is regrettable. Blockchain data storage limit disagreements date back to Satoshi times. Luke's 40 byte limit is by no means unreasonable. People should just chill and keep coding.
I think there is a erudite and measured discussion to be had about the reasonableness of Luke. However, Samourai consistently goes out of their way to avoid erudite and measured discussion, opting for tribalism and discord.
He is technically correct. 40 bytes OP_RETURN should be more than enough for any and all blockchain arbitrary data storage needs. Don't let lazy programmers and greedy hype riders tell you otherwise.
Yeah I don't think the bitcoin blockchain is meant to be a data hoarding NAS either.
I think the valuable anchor/notary use cases will fix this without any intervention. But on the other side, maybe a campaign to hardfork (change rules in a backwards incompatible way) to put limits on witness sizes. The benefits to miners at the expense of all other uses should be obvious. The legacy of big blocker attacks continues.
Forgot to tag @Luke Dashjr Anyway, this thread explains it fairly well: https://nitter.net/pourteaux/status/1361821176801157122
I think there is a erudite and measured discussion to be had about the reasonableness of Luke. However, Samourai consistently goes out of their way to avoid erudite and measured discussion, opting for tribalism and discord.
He is technically correct. 40 bytes OP_RETURN should be more than enough for any and all blockchain arbitrary data storage needs. Don't let lazy programmers and greedy hype riders tell you otherwise.
Yeah I don't think the bitcoin blockchain is meant to be a data hoarding NAS either.
I think the valuable anchor/notary use cases will fix this without any intervention. But on the other side, maybe a campaign to hardfork (change rules in a backwards incompatible way) to put limits on witness sizes. The benefits to miners at the expense of all other uses should be obvious. The legacy of big blocker attacks continues.
Forgot to tag @Luke Dashjr Anyway, this thread explains it fairly well: https://nitter.net/pourteaux/status/1361821176801157122