David Freeman

hehe

@TioPepeee 'Did you studied it??'

@_DavidSFreeman That’s what your beloved influencer told you???Did you studied it??Don’t trust!!Verify!!

knots user: the concern about quantum and bitcoin is actually about my spam war and my conspiracies about bitcoin core

@sr_gi @_Knotzi x.com/_DavidSFreeman…

@_DavidSFreeman @_Knotzi

Except for Brink bribing Core devs 😬

Working on a non-wallet, zero-dependency Bitcoin command line utility to: - broadcast transactions with strong network anonymity - visualize the mempool in realtime What else should I consider adding? I'm writing it in Zig.

@_Knotzi @murchandamus has already addressed this

Core and her fellow spam apologists are centralizing Bitcoin by leaving the inscription bug unfixed, thus forcing miners to buy expensive RAM hardware.

@BitcoinMotorist > People will not transact in Bitcoin if they have to compete with other use cases. nearly all of bitcoin's existence has had 'other use cases' meanwhile bitcoin still thrives

People will not transact in Bitcoin if they have to compete with other use cases. People will not run nodes if they are running a free service for shitcoin scammers.

@TioPepeee study bitcoin and youll conclude spam is just annoying not an existential threat

@_DavidSFreeman Yes you are!!!Study Bitcoin!!Don’t trust, verify!!

@TioPepeee no i dont but please let me know how it kills bitcoin

@_DavidSFreeman Yes you want more spam on Bitcoin!!And Yes it’s an threat!

@cguida6 @murchandamus @CatoTheElder17 @knutsvanholm @lukedewolf IBD taking a day longer or so, while not ideal, doesn’t really matter to low time preference bitcoiners. Why are you bringing it up

@murchandamus @CatoTheElder17 @knutsvanholm @lukedewolf The bottleneck is ram during IBD, not disk space But you already know this

Knut's conversation with @murchandamus is out now. If you've been following us, you can imagine the topic of conversation. I was mentioned a few times, which was a nice surprise when I was editing the episode. Murch and I have had a number of interactions here, most of them productive. We still disagree, but I think we have a decent amount of respect for one another (definitely that's true from my side). I don't intend to reopen any debates or defend specific points. My position hasn't changed very much. And I think some of the specific disagreements I have with Murch come down to a difference in perspective. I maintain that arbitrary data is an attack on the availability of the Bitcoin network for monetary transactions. I also maintain that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Script. On the other hand, I understand better the limitations of attempting to reduce spam. I still see value in closing the inscription loophole. Just because the spammers would go somewhere else doesn't mean that we can't take specific action to close vectors that are being exploited. As to the current fork proposals: I am not in favor of freezing UTXOs, as much as I would like to argue that freezing non-monetary UTXOs is fair game (if self-identified). I would absolutely support some proposal to remove dust from the UTXO set. I'm cautiously pro BIP-110 but not in the sense that I would follow it all the way to a fork scenario. I've made clear that I don't agree with the implementation 100%, but I think it's directionally correct. I also think it's perfectly valid to force tradeoffs in other areas of Bitcoin in order to put limits on specific sources of arbitrary data. Ultimately, conversations like this one show the limits of policy level filters. Consensus is the real backstop. I support a consensus-level change, if it were to be adopted by the network and avoid a chain split. I still hold that Core set this whole furore off by making the change to OP_RETURN. The supposed benefits are so minor in comparison to the social uproar. Listening to users is a critical part of software development. At the same time, I have more understanding and empathy for the technical challenges and realities faced by Core developers. I've actually started to explore the technical side of Bitcoin more than I had previously. More on that soon. We need the technical side of Bitcoin. We need the monetary side of Bitcoin. I'm a monetary maximalist. That isn't going to change. Conversations like this one between Murch and @knutsvanholm help to bridge the divide between these two camps. I encourage you to give it a watch or a listen. Let us know what you think. And thanks, Murch, for taking the time to explain your views and to educate about Bitcoin Core development. This is needed. Maybe we'll have a conversation ourselves, recorded or otherwise. I hope we can make it happen. Until then, see you out there!

If the size of the UTXO set is such an emergency that you want a fork Bitcoin to delete outputs, what size actually breaks your node? Show the benchmark/simulation. Otherwise you’re proposing consensus changes based on vibes.

@w_s_bitcoin this would seem to be a disagreement that wont be solved outside of an eventual split?

Under no circumstances should we ever confiscate or freeze coins. The Bitcoin protocol is not the place to mitigate matters of real-world ownership.

Who wants to tell Mathew that the reward from the block subsidy will be lower than the dust limit in core today?

@ultraticum @murchandamus @cguida6 @knutsvanholm @lukedewolf looks like 'node overhead' is basically the same as late 2022 then? and bitcoin is thriving

@_DavidSFreeman @murchandamus @cguida6 @knutsvanholm @lukedewolf Node overhead has increased substantially. But spam apologists either don't care or don't have the humility to realize there may be unintended consequences of turning bitcoin into a bloated shitcoin.

@secsovereign you are failing to distinguish a threat of what could happen from the fact that it doesnt happen currently for your audience you are welcome to do so and i know your motivations why. but i will continue to object to this misleading wording from you when i see it

@secsovereign again no. they can exercise control against the will of contributors, but dont. this is clearly the truth. 'maintainers control' is false. you are misleading your growing followers to influence them against core who has 'final say' on the repo is actually github & microsoft btw

We have 5 years before Bitcoin Core's governance becomes completely unsustainable. 10 years before everyone hates Bitcoin. Not because the protocol fails. Because the civil wars over layer one will be so vicious, so constant, so public that Bitcoin becomes synonymous with dysfunction. 3 maintainers control everything. As Bitcoin scales into institutional adoption, every protocol decision becomes a political battlefield. Every upgrade becomes a potential nation-state capture attempt. Every fork threat becomes an existential crisis. The current model only works at small scale with aligned actors. But you're building global money. That means unaligned actors with guns, lawyers, and unlimited resources. They're coming. Some to co-opt. Some to control. Some to destroy. And your defense is "rough consensus" among 3 people with no formal accountability, no distributed authority, no structural resistance to capture. This isn't FUD. This is physics. Concentrated power attracts concentrated attack. Always. Fix the governance now or spend the next decade watching Bitcoin tear itself apart while the world cheers its failure. The clock is running.

@matteopelleg The Cat's approach has a fatal flaw: destroying other peoples BTC. ftfy

@secsovereign if capability is threat, then state it as a threat. but you deliberately avoid saying this is a threat and instead state it as 'maintainers control' as if its not a threat but some active ongoing attack

@_DavidSFreeman In security analysis, capability is the threat. Current behavior is irrelevant. When nation-states come with guns and lawyers, 'but they're good people' isn't a defense.

@secsovereign no theres a difference between ability to merge against the will of contributors and regular exercise of such control. its a huge distinction you deliberately fail to make because 'maintainers control' sounds better for your cause than 'maintainers could merge against devs will'

Having final authority on what merges IS control. Using it wisely doesn't change what it is. And 'could be abused but hasn't' is exactly the problem - you're defending the structure by saying the people are good. That's not how you secure a trillion dollar protocol. And for the record - I recovered life-changing Bitcoin. I don't need to do this. I'd rather be traveling and eating pupusas than spending 50 hours a week reimplementing Bitcoin and analyzing governance. But Bitcoin pulled me from poverty to financial stability, and I'm not going to watch structural vulnerabilities threaten it because pointing them out is uncomfortable. Someone has to do this work. I wish someone else would.

@secsovereign so '3 maintainers control everything' isnt substantiated. its sensationalism to drum support for your project. instead you can say it isnt formulaic. you can say merge access could be abused, but hasnt. that merges could go against devs wishes, but hasnt. yet you claim 'control'

@_DavidSFreeman You're asking me to prove they abuse power. I'm showing they have it. Those aren't the same thing