> think from the outside perspective, your framing of the "definition of Bitcoin" is a bit worrisome.
To be clear, there I was referring to the consensus rules. The consensus rules are, literally, the definition of Bitcoin. So I was drawing a distinction between the code that literally defines Bitcoin and the rest of the code in Bitcoin Core.
> And as we've learned from the discussion, defaults are incredibly sticky.
I think this is very much the wrong takeaway. Rather, if we look at actual network behavior and the transactions that get mined, our takeaway should be “if Bitcoin Core doesn’t relay it, and its consensus-valid, someone will build some shitty centralized relay alternative that will be used”. Yes, Bitcoin Core’s defaults might largely decide the P2P relay rules, but those don’t matter if transaction creators are just routing around that network!> think from the outside perspective, your framing of the "definition of Bitcoin" is a bit worrisome.
To be clear, there I was referring to the consensus rules. The consensus rules are, literally, the definition of Bitcoin. So I was drawing a distinction between the code that literally defines Bitcoin and the rest of the code in Bitcoin Core.
> And as we've learned from the discussion, defaults are incredibly sticky.
I think this is very much the wrong takeaway. Rather, if we look at actual network behavior and the transactions that get mined, our takeaway should be “if Bitcoin Core doesn’t relay it, and its consensus-valid, someone will build some shitty centralized relay alternative that will be used”. Yes, Bitcoin Core’s defaults might largely decide the P2P relay rules, but those don’t matter if transaction creators are just routing around that network!
> I think we are giving too much credit to that being a reality and not enough credit to the reality that the majority view Core as Bitcoin, and having to "prove" them wrong would be much more harmful than not.
Where are you getting this from, though? Every day, many, many non-standard transactions get confirmed. With turning off RBF it was clear that if Bitcoin Core doesn’t provide something, someone else will, and many miners will use it! (In this case Peter Todd’s patch set). With Slipstream it’s similarly evident that any policy rules Bitcoin Core makes just don’t add up to anything but giving Mara more money at the expense of other miners.
matt / Matt Corallo
npub185…swrdp
2025-05-05 17:35:48
in reply to nevent1q…h75u
Author Public Key
npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdpPublished at
2025-05-05 17:35:48Event JSON
{
"id": "f5cfcbd3d2eee80c50f4df598f2f9b3779fba158f215258eb3b74d0dfa627772",
"pubkey": "3d2e51508699f98f0f2bdbe7a45b673c687fe6420f466dc296d90b908d51d594",
"created_at": 1746466548,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4bbdb72ac1fdf9731b58dfce37572bde10e14290ec1e8e46cc5a07099a9dec",
"wss://nostr.oxtr.dev",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6223b334078470e5d45aefea6db25009e101e87ced79b52a1dff3a2680b13af0",
"wss://nostr.oxtr.dev",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7d0f45e1179d5f7c47001684c7d20e8c38f82ee6fdb2104609c5c61ebf9dbbc8",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"472f440f29ef996e92a186b8d320ff180c855903882e59d50de1b8bd5669301e",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"020f2d21ae09bf35fcdfb65decf1478b846f5f728ab30c5eaabcd6d081a81c3e",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "\u003e think from the outside perspective, your framing of the \"definition of Bitcoin\" is a bit worrisome.\n\nTo be clear, there I was referring to the consensus rules. The consensus rules are, literally, the definition of Bitcoin. So I was drawing a distinction between the code that literally defines Bitcoin and the rest of the code in Bitcoin Core.\n\n\u003e And as we've learned from the discussion, defaults are incredibly sticky.\n\nI think this is very much the wrong takeaway. Rather, if we look at actual network behavior and the transactions that get mined, our takeaway should be “if Bitcoin Core doesn’t relay it, and its consensus-valid, someone will build some shitty centralized relay alternative that will be used”. Yes, Bitcoin Core’s defaults might largely decide the P2P relay rules, but those don’t matter if transaction creators are just routing around that network!\u003e think from the outside perspective, your framing of the \"definition of Bitcoin\" is a bit worrisome.\n\nTo be clear, there I was referring to the consensus rules. The consensus rules are, literally, the definition of Bitcoin. So I was drawing a distinction between the code that literally defines Bitcoin and the rest of the code in Bitcoin Core.\n\n\u003e And as we've learned from the discussion, defaults are incredibly sticky.\n\nI think this is very much the wrong takeaway. Rather, if we look at actual network behavior and the transactions that get mined, our takeaway should be “if Bitcoin Core doesn’t relay it, and its consensus-valid, someone will build some shitty centralized relay alternative that will be used”. Yes, Bitcoin Core’s defaults might largely decide the P2P relay rules, but those don’t matter if transaction creators are just routing around that network!\n\n\u003e I think we are giving too much credit to that being a reality and not enough credit to the reality that the majority view Core as Bitcoin, and having to \"prove\" them wrong would be much more harmful than not.\n\nWhere are you getting this from, though? Every day, many, many non-standard transactions get confirmed. With turning off RBF it was clear that if Bitcoin Core doesn’t provide something, someone else will, and many miners will use it! (In this case Peter Todd’s patch set). With Slipstream it’s similarly evident that any policy rules Bitcoin Core makes just don’t add up to anything but giving Mara more money at the expense of other miners.",
"sig": "74ad166618323f6c6058b129b3ebcc95ea830e5717aed234aea3b9c340afb9b3ee35ed7d3aa3fe9f2e605e0f15e3964c819011244b24aad8e4bed7f6ec6d0c1d"
}