BitMEX Research

10.5K posts

BitMEX Research banner
BitMEX Research

BitMEX Research

@BitMEXResearch

Filtering out the hype with evidence-based reports on the cryptocurrency space, with a focus on #Bitcoin - https://t.co/pgRGU9D2Ac

Katılım Eylül 2017
200 Takip Edilen118.9K Takipçiler
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
Seems that some people are deeply disappointed that the 83 byte OP_Return limit wasn't a consensus rule and they think it ought to have been. Therefore they act as if it was a consensus rule. Very similar to how the larger blockers were deeply disappointed that the 1MB Blocksize limit was a consensus rule and tried to act as if it wasn't, act as if there was no such thing as consensus rules or act as if consensus rules are fuzzy. Maybe the OP_Return relay limit should have been a consensus rule, but it isn't. They need to accept that reality and accept the reality of what consensus rules mean.
English
0
1
5
600
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
> we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles Perhaps @hodlonaut should read chapter 4 of "The Blocksize War". Despite what some people want, Bitcoin nodes do not enforce "principles", "visions" or "economic changes". Nodes only enforce the literal technical rules on block validity. The literal technical rules enforce a 1MB OP_Return limit. That is what nodes enforce, nothing more and nothing less. amazon.co.uk/Blocksize-War-…
BitMEX Research tweet media
hodlonaut #BIP-110@hodlonaut

By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles. Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project. You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself. Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay. When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater. Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard. As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact. It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice. The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.” Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience. The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.

English
10
7
38
10.1K
hodlonaut #BIP-110
hodlonaut #BIP-110@hodlonaut·
Core has serious issues. That does NOT mean that walking dead shitcoin corpses are suddenly more relevant or valuable. ONLY BITCOIN MATTERS.
English
22
34
254
5.1K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
@hodlonaut In the Blocksize War, the large blockers were desperate to pretend the 1MB Blocksize limit wasn't a consensus rule Today @hodlonaut is desperate to pretend the 83 byte OP_Return relay limit is a consensus rule The consensus rules are what they are, not what we want them to be
English
0
0
1
143
hodlonaut #BIP-110
hodlonaut #BIP-110@hodlonaut·
By repeatedly adjusting default mempool policy to match what miners will accept anyway (large OP_RETURN uncapped because “they’ll just mine it via bypasses like Libre Relay, or direct APIs”), we are implicitly conceding that miner greed + economic incentives are the ultimate rule-setter, not node-enforced principles. Meaning a (cleverly hidden) capitulation of Bitcoin as a decentralized project. You could say that the “CENSORSHIP!” argument from Core and their supporters on the concept of nodes filtering is a roundabout way of critizing decentralization itself. Nodes were always supposed to be the sovereign check, they decide what they accapt and relay. When we keep loosening policy to align with whatever is the current grift “use case”, and by extension what is short term profitable for miners, it trains the entire ecosystem to treat restrictive node behavior as pointless theater. Over time this hollows out node sovereignty: running a full node becomes more about passively observing the chain that miners + L2s + data-spammers have already decided on, rather than actively enforcing a monetary-first standard. As a cuck bonus it also leads to higher resource costs for every honest node (bandwidth, RAM, storage) à fewer independent verifiers in practice Decentralization starts looking like a performance act. Miners produce the blocks, a handful of relays and L2 sequencers steer the flow, and nodes just… validate after the fact. It’s not a hard-fork capitulation (consensus rules haven’t changed), but it is a cultural, philosophical and operational one. The most profound capitulation in practice. The philosophy flips from “Bitcoin should resist non-monetary garbage even if it costs us some short-term fee revenue” to “whatever pays miners gets standardized because resistance is futile.” Once you accept “miners will do it anyway” as the justification for policy, you’ve already handed the character of Bitcoin over to the highest bidder. Nodes stop being the immune system and start becoming just a polite audience. The OP_RETURN uncap looks a lot like another quiet step toward a two-tier network (miners + insiders set the tone, everyone else just watches. Keep doing this and running a node risks becoming a branding exercise instead of the actual source and guarantee of Bitcoin’s decentralization.
English
56
139
472
63.4K
Dimitri-H 🇧🇪
Dimitri-H 🇧🇪@Dimi_h·
Wrong. Node policy, up until Core V30, limited OP_RETURN to 84 bytes with possibility to further restrict it. This, despite consensus allowing higher limits. That sole fact implies nodes DO enforce visions and principles. It implies nodes set and enforce rules. You're gaslighting.
English
2
0
9
282
Hendrik Gerstung
Hendrik Gerstung@hendrikgerstung·
In Deutschland werden jährlich 300.000.000.000 Euro vererbt. Wenn jeder Erbe nur 10% abgibt (ohne Freibetrag) ist die Finanzierungslücke im Haushalt gedeckt! 🤝🪙
Deutsch
1.8K
58
452
177.9K
BitMEX Research retweetledi
Bisq
Bisq@bisq_network·
Bisq Protocol Exploit Update This is a brief update on what we have learned so far, the current state of reimbursement planning for affected users, and some broader observations about the growing role of AI-assisted attacks.
English
10
91
312
46.6K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
bitnod.es Update * Bitcoin Core v31 adoption now at 2.4% (finally putting Core v30 behind us) * The BIP-110 activation chart now has a little number in the corner showing the number of signalling blocks (feature inspired by @w_s_bitcoin's charts)
BitMEX Research tweet mediaBitMEX Research tweet media
English
1
1
16
4.3K
TFTC
TFTC@TFTC21·
MARA Foundation announces @256FOUNDATION as recipient of its $100,000 inaugural community contribution.
English
10
19
105
12K
nic carter
nic carter@nic_carter·
Almost spit out my coffee reading the WSJ this morning
nic carter tweet media
English
22
3
98
12.5K
BitMEX Research retweetledi
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
@Cipherhoodlum @tuftythecat @hodlonaut @MrHodl @adam3us Everyone is against spam The question is do you want to fight spam in a weak, lefty, ineffective way with harmful side effects Or to fight spam in an elegant, robust, sustainable, scalable and market based way. The fee market
English
12
37
99
17.6K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
Was great to visit the @ProductionReady stand at @TheBitcoinConf Question for @ProductionReady Why not raise funds for developers to work on Bitcoin Core and then in the event that Bitcoin Core doesn't merge the work, launch an alternative competing client? What is the point of launching a competing client BEFORE there is a disagreement? How does that make sense?
BitMEX Research tweet media
English
5
0
15
7.1K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
As someone watching Bitcoin development in this period, this comment grossly overestimates the power and influence of Newbery It is true that there is a risk that social cliques form and that these groups have too much influence. However, I do not think this comment or the article correctly establishes the nature of the cliques at the time
English
13
0
11
2K
hodlonaut #BIP-110
hodlonaut #BIP-110@hodlonaut·
"During the first two years, it had become clear what the deal was: Be a loyal supporter of Newbery, his initiatives — Optech, Bitcoin Core PR Review Club, and others — and the chosen people being groomed for power, in exchange for being part of the clique." - Jon Atack
hodlonaut #BIP-110@hodlonaut

CAPTURE An investigation across four articles into how informal power over Bitcoin Core was assembled, exercised, and defended. Article Two: The Lever citadel21.com/the-lever

English
3
41
197
8.1K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
@cryptoquick: "Will we come back here every year bickering about this? Instead let's do the engineering work"
English
1
0
9
3.2K
BitMEX Research
BitMEX Research@BitMEXResearch·
How real is the quantum threat? @jamesob: "Project11 did a quantum hoax, using a classical computer to find the solution" ... "If you are quantum experts, why did you market this as a quantum break through?" (Had to sneak into a special David Bailey section at the front and still too far away to see)
BitMEX Research tweet media
English
11
14
155
22.2K