Blockstream co-founder Adam Back has lit another spark at SO-Caled’s “client war” splitting Bitcoin. At the heart of the discussion is how Bitcoin Core and Knot software draw out the boundaries between what is permitted and filtered.
Buck’s approach awaits the next Bitcoin core update, the network that will arrive in October. Its most questionable change is to extend the limits of OPCODE op_return hasta 100.000 bytes.
that OPCODE You can attach any data in a Bitcoin transaction, such as text or images. This change increases the available space for inscriptions in the chain. “spam”given that Increases block weight Without directly contributing to value transfer.
As explained by Cryptonoticia, the founders of Blockstream had told us that a new version of Core (V.30) (V.30) would be running, arriving in October.
On August 20th, Buck, published in X, revived the debate.
“There is a debate here that considers the excess exchange between spam and network use more persuasive. As Bitcoin technology improves, the soluble nature of encryption will increase and the blockchain will need to converge towards the cryptographic accumulator.
Adam Back, BlockStream CO Founder.
Buck relies on the idea of a “crypto-storer,” a mathematical mechanism that allows many elements to be collected in a single compact value.
If you transfer to Bitcoin, this means the block works “did responsibility” data containerwithout distinguishing whether it is a transaction, an inscription, or other information.
In this way, the network moves towards records where everything appears as part of the same opaque set, making it difficult to apply filters and censorships on what is contained in the network.
The idea is that BTC soluble, that is, each unit of currency is It can be exchanged equally without marks that can distinguish it.
In the case of Adam Back, filtering of network information undermines its fibreability principles and allows you to open the door in the form of censorship.
The influence of Adambak proverbs
Bitcoiner’s Shanokaan Surem Perera considers dependency (each Satoihi’s ability cannot be distinguished from another Sati) as not only a technical or economic aspect, but also a “law of cryptographic physics.”
Under that perspective, when Bitcoin achieves that all Satosh are identical and impossible to distinguish, it stops simply being money and becomes a pure mathematical force: a kind of “a national, empire, or a cryptographic sun that a filter cannot be ambiguous.”
His ratiophor emphasizes that the true strength of Bitcoin is incense, and that it is unstoppable at his most basic level.
Bitcoinmechanic, Knots Client node operator, answered with skepticism.
“It sounds like you to trip over normal issues. Your reliable auditing ability is at a cost as it does with classified transactions. It’s not so experimental and probably extended to the community, so it remains left to projects like liquids.”
Bitcoin Mechanic, Knot Node Corridor.
In their vision, suggestions such as back can improve privacy, but public verification of transactions is at risk. This is the pillar of Bitcoin’s transparency.
On the sidewalk opposite the mechanic, Peter Todd, one of the most influential developers in the core, supported the back approach.
“The blocks were totally full of garbage that was indistinguishable. Perfect for privacy”.
Peter Todd collaborates on Bitcoin Core.
Other members of the community expanded the debate towards the field of freedom of expression. Added by:
“Now, Adam, your points, your points are very valid. Let’s add freedom of expression too. If you spend $100,000 a year on energy and equipment and earn a block, then choose what to include in the block.”
bithcoiner user of x.
The argument here is that mining gives the right to determine recorded data as long as the corresponding rate is paid.
Giacomo Zucco, director of Plan B Network, joined the debate with another nuance.
“I’m skeptical of maintaining a long tradition of spam filtering in the core memo pool and I prefer to relax it as spam attacks can be counterproductive to maintain it.”
Giacomo Zucco, De De De Plan B Network.
In Zucco’s case, it’s not just the current filter policy Don’t solve the problem spambut they can amplify it.
Participants in other ecosystems were more severe on the back. AntonBTC also reminded me that the knot node corridors are not new in filtering.
“Filtering is not censorship. It’s been going on for over a decade. OP_Return was introduced in March 2014 and since 2010 a simple filter has already been imposed. Core29.0.0 is still filtered, with OP_Return being limited to 83 bytes.”
antonbtc, knot node corridor.
Furthermore, AntonBTC has questioned the independence of core developers, and their work is Funded by companies They will match financial profits that are different from Bitcoin’s profits.
On a more practical line, developer CalleBtc wrote:
“Use the Mempool filter you want. Your Mempool, your rules. Your rules. Nothing changes, it won’t affect me. What worries me is that podcasters and people without technical foundations are driven by people who are divided into communities.
Callebtc, Bitcoin developer.
The discussion reveals that discussions about how to deal with block space are not only technical, but philosophical.
Some defend the need to filter to protect excess data networks, while others believe that filtering itself could become a censorship mechanism.
