TORONTO HODL 🍁
@EnjoyingBitcoin
Followers
2K
Following
11K
Media
965
Statuses
6K
Jesus Wife & Children Bitcoin Knots
Joined January 2021
I think I understand @adam3us's argument for privacy: Privacy enhances censorship resistance by obscuring transaction details from miners. If all transactions appear identical, censorship becomes more difficult. However, what about spam and on-chain bloat? I think it's still
I assume bitcoiners realize that a well functioning layer1 privacy mechanism would typically make anti-spam filtering information-theoretically impossible. Even the committed transactions proposal from 2013 would have this effect.
1
0
6
Core filters Luke out?
NEW: Developer Luke Dashjr says he was part of the Bitcoin Core’s private security list for over a decade, but claims someone abused their access earlier this year to remove him without his knowledge.
4
5
65
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 This you, calle?
We need more unifying Bitcoiners, less divisive ones.
6
9
69
.@LukeDashjr has definitely helped Bitcoin, and shown general immunity to peer pressure - strongly independent minded. Those are very useful traits for an independent developer. I'm glad he does what he does and hope people support him. Bitcoin owes him a debt for work on UASF.
I am now a proud patron of Luke Dashjr on @patreon, and you should be too: https://t.co/O43WFRzIyV Luke may very well be the most knowledgeable person about BItcoin. Among many achievements: he is largely responsible for Segwit activation into Bitcoin (soft-fork design, #UASF)
18
93
496
Now that Core 30 is released, I want to move on. My priorities: 1. Promote running Knots/Core 29 2. Remove OP_RETURN or revert to 83 bytes via consensus soft-fork 3. Fix inscription/ordinal bug 4. Focus on Layer 2 solutions built on an ossifying Layer 1
29
51
310
@adam3us Another question: If the goal of Bitcoin is censorship-resistance (via decentralized miners and/or privacy) AND scalability (onboarding billions of people), doesn't it make sense to have an ossifying Layer-1 & build privacy and scalability into Layer-2 solutions like Lightning?
0
1
6
@LukeDashjr @adam3us Core is undoubtedly the weakest part of Bitcoin.
0
5
53
ACK this attitude NACK this specific proposal. 80 bytes is enough for everyone.
@BITCOINALLCAPS @MBronens Then let’s entirely remove OP_RETURN with a softfork.
7
5
54
Because Bitcoin has changed.
Why stress yourself out and risk your life savings when you can just buy Bitcoin?
0
1
5
@ManliusDaVius @Beautyon_ I’m for an immediate softfork to entirely remove OP_RETURN. I agree that keeping it is an unnecessary risk.
22
34
172
I know the State may object to my choice to self-custody my wealth in Bitcoin. I’m willing to accept that risk and fight, since property rights are a moral good & human right. Core 30 increases that attack surface, forcing us to endure additional risk from immoral & evil
0
0
9
Peter, joy and freedom must stem from understanding the designer's intent. Examples: 1. Rivers bring joy and freedom in the Creator's design, provided they stay within their banks, avoiding floods. 2. Forests offer joy and freedom through the Creator's ecological plan, as long
Satoshi left us 14 years ago, he’s not relevant to the current discussion regarding Bitcoin.
0
0
1
@PeterMcCormack @DigiMaestr0 Satoshi warned that arbitrary plaintext on-chain was an accident waiting to happen, and IsStandard existed to guide what gets relayed/mined. Bitcoin's value comes from it being hard to change. Defaults should narrow the attack surface, not widen it.
2
4
59
I like this idea. MONI Make OP_RETURN Nonexistent Immediately
@BITCOINALLCAPS @MBronens Then let’s entirely remove OP_RETURN with a softfork.
1
3
29