OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
edouard8h ago
You are right ; we should continue. 20% of knots and 20% core 30 so 80 pct network running 80 capped op_return. I would have preferred consensus to have capped op_return but the conservativeness in changing consensus is very important too (and, less so but also, the simplicity of consensus rules) I disagree with changes implemented in relay policy by core. I believe it is reckless and arrogant. core has too much influence on the network through this type of changes I agree. But I am also happy that core can’t change consensus rules too easily. I also want home solo mining to increase and I believe it will and we should aim for as much as possible designing own blocks through ocean Then for BIP-110 itself I understand the motivation, the frustration etc, I am hesitating but it might be (at this stage at least) a bad precedent if it were to succeed and if does not reinforce core
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: a90f348e3a74…

Replying to: 6544b37fe186…

Replies (1)

Tauri5h ago
You’re missing the point. Models suggest that even if 99.9% of nodes run restricted policy, a toxic op_return and a motivated attacker will still find a way to embed a large file on the network. Core 30 changed everything. Prior to it was possible to limit this attack vector with stricter policy. Consensus change is the only mitigation right now. That’s why it’s more important than ever to realise the risk associated with compromised dev team. We should stop pretending consensus is effective defence against human governance. It’s good enough, but not a painkiller.
0000 sats