OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
walker190d ago
Posting this thread from @020f2d21…81a81c3e here on Nostr for everyone's reference and my analysis of it: https://x.com/adam3us/status/1963830548012372324 My take: **ADAM BACK DID NOT MENTION KNOTS** People who called Adam “pro spam” (and worse) for weeks are now celebrating that “Adam is back.” NEWSFLASH: he never left. Obviously Adam freaking Back is not “pro spam” and never was. He simply did not agree with the efficacy of the proposed "solution" (Knots node implementation) from a technical perspective (and still does not agree that node filtering of spam is a viable solution, based on my reading of his thread). Instead, Adam is trying to lay out the *economic* case for how to deal with incentives to filter spam at the *miner/pool* level, while clearly stating “bitcoin is about money, spam has no place in the timechain. what defaults the bitcoin core project puts in the reference client matter in this." Again, clearly Adam is not "pro spam." A key line that jumped out to me was “to prevail, we have to make economic sense (or we work against our own objectives)”. Adam focuses on *miners/pools*—and their economic incentives, or lack thereof—not on node implementations. If you’ve spent the past weeks bashing Adam because you think he is a “spam apologist,” now is a good time to check your assumptions and consider that Adam wants what is best for bitcoin... as do you... as do I. We ALL want what’s best for Bitcoin to make sure it succeeds as unfuckable sound money and a censorship-resistant medium of exchange. No serious person is like "OOOH YEAH I LOVE SPAM! MORE JPEGS ON THE TIMECHAIN, PLEASE!" It is possible to disagree with the efficacy of a proposed solution *without* being a "spam apologist." Just because someone has a different opinion than you do about a solution does not mean that person is your enemy or has been "compromised." This should be obvious but apparently it needs to be said... @020f2d21…81a81c3e -- I hope I have not misrepresented anything you said -- just trying to help parse your thread for my fellow plebs. Thanks for all you do.
💬 8 replies

Replies (8)

average_bitcoiner190d ago
Lol. People thought the inventor of PoW spam prevention likes spam?
0000 sats
Drea190d ago
The persistent asterisks helped me hear mean girl “no duh” tone and, ya know, it was effective.
0000 sats
Ferris Bueller190d ago
Respectully, thats not how that works. If you broadcast a transaction to the network through your node, it goes to all the nodes you are connected too in order to be included into their mempool. The nodes will recieve that transaction and decided to included it or not. If one of the nodes that receives your transaction has a mempool policy that doesnt allow transactions with more than 80 bytes of op_return data (just an example) and your transaction has 120 bytes of data, that node will not included it in its mempool nor broadcast it to its peers. However, if there are enough nodes in the network that accept 120 byte transactions into their mempools and it makes it to a node run by MARA, MARA can decided to include that transaction in a block if it fits with their block template and mempool policy on their node. I hope that helped
0000 sats
Brinkman190d ago
What is Back saying to do specifically?
0000 sats
Leurico8190d ago
The main issue here is core attitude.
0000 sats
Ferris Bueller190d ago
Just curious, do you expect to be spoon fed all the time, or are you able to chew on your own?
0000 sats
Brinkman190d ago
Ah. So “Respectfully” was a lie then 🖕
0000 sats
Ferris Bueller190d ago
My bad. I figured somebody would be a bit more techinally inclined but I got you! Take your thumb and out and put it at the top of the screen and move it to the bottom until you see a link. Don't go to far though cuz you might miss it. What he said is in a link to another website called X where Adam put down what he said in English. I believe in you man! You got this!
0000 sats