Topic: nft censorship and what power the programmer has on the network! (Read 228 times)

I believe it has already been said but Bitcoin is a consensus protocol and if all the participants in the network do not converge in the majority to change there can be no censorship through filters by a single individual.
The only thing I want to clarify, however, is that at the moment there is a lot of attention towards these inscriptions but the truth is that the images on the bitcoin blockchain have always been present the only difference is that now a way has been found to number the satoshi and create a gamefication.

That's an expensive way to troll him since someone paid almost 10k for that, but Luke lost a lot of bitcoins in a recent hack, so that could be his own money paying for the inscription that he wants to censor. That would be one twisted plot, don't you think?
Luke is not the creator of bitcoin. I don't know why somebody would think that and he can't do anything alone. It's fun to watch the guy being trolled but he's giving us an option. He's showing that it's possible to filter these. Maybe if this trend catches on there's going to be so much trash in there that we'll have to.

In what seems like a paradoxical twist, someone made a Digital Artefact with Luke’s code that implements the said node patch to filter out Ordinals, auctioning it at one of the few sites that have started to auction-off these Digital Artefacts.

Luke has gone in rage, and explained in detail both how he opposes these shitty practices, and how he was offered a 90% cut in the aftermaths (100% according to a note on the below auction entry) which he declined:

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1630027219878699009
https://scarce.city/auctions/inscription-666
(just in case it gets deleted:) https://web.archive.org/web/20230228170639/https://scarce.city/auctions/inscription-666

The title is wrong, Luke-jr did not create Bitcoin. But anyway...


He can't do that without consensus from the other developers and the community at large anyway, which doesn't look like it's going to happen for him after that fullrbf debacle.


That doesn't really give him back any lost credibility if you ask me, it will likely just make other node operators scream at him on Twitter.

the white paper says peer to peer
the white paper says consensus

the white paper does not say censorship resistance

please take some time to learn what consensus is. meaning consent
learn about the byzantine generals problem and how consensus solves it
learn the difference between peers vs opponents

learn how consensus unites nodes/people under a common set of rules by consent

where as idiots and yes im going to strong imply this: IDIOTS think the network is about non-consent and opposition. and/or want the network to become a network that doesnt need consent

they say its a non-consent network because thats how they want it TO BECOME
they want it to break rules and not follow rules and not conform to rules

bitcoin is made of rules. as thats what code does

A. the network wont move value without the keypair owners consent
B. a user couldnt(until recently) solely change network logic without majority consent

understand the principals of A and B and how the IDIOTS are breaking B and soon want to break A

That would be true only if we had a pool or two that also worked with each other and miners had no other options. But that is not the reality. In reality we have many pools and many solo miners and they don't work with each other and if one pool starts acting maliciously it will shoot itself in the foot.

Each time you say bitcoin is "peer to peer" you are also saying it is "censorship resistant" without using the fancy words. It is nothing new. Even the bitcoin whitepaper's title has the words in it "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

bitcoin is a 'immutable consensus network' not a censorship resistance network. there is a big difference

pools decide what goes into a block. its not censorship resistance because pools can:
-empty block
-meme fill
-bias fill with just segwit (avoid legacy)
-elitist fill with only tx paying over $1(avoid low fee/sat-dust)
-[insert hundreds of examples]

and nodes are not set to just reject blocks for biassedly selecting what does or doesnt go in, especially recently

bitcoin is(more so was) a consensus network of a decentralisation, which is completely different to what you have been buzzworded.. where there are multiple pools to reduce the chances of pool colluding to perform 'empty block' or 'meme filling' blocks or [insert many examples]

we know you are probably getting buzzwords like "censorship resistant" from a certain group.. kinda too obvious how that word has suddenly become viral in the last 2 months
and getting overly used and mis-used by the certain group (you know who im talking about)

mining pools collate transactions to their choosing. and they are and do "censoring"
heck the group you get your buzzwords from love the idea that pools should censor transactions unless people "pay more"
they love the idea that legacy should be censored unless they pay 4x more then segwit
they love how transactions should be rejected and instead only store meme spam instead

they want less transactions on bitcoin so that people are irritated by bitcoins limits, to get people to then use a sub/alt network instead

yep bitcoin is not censorship resistant. it actually has rules
its why you dont see litecoin, bch, bsv, vertcoin, ethereum transactions broadcast around the network and then collated into bitcoin blocks. its why sat-dust transactions are not spammed. because yep there are rules. which do limit what transactions are accepted.

bitcoin is a CONSENSUS network. of people agreeing(consent) to a ruleset.
its the group (you know who) that want to break bitcoins consensus/rules and turn it into a network with less rules/no rules thus breaking bitcoin. just so they can make people want to use other networks which they can profit from

so dont believe their BS* scripts about freedom. becasue its not YOUR freedom they want. its THEIR freedom to ruin bitcoin to promote their greedy self serving networks that make them profit

the investors that sponsor the devs and their fans that sing the songs you keep hearing, want ROI on thier investment. they dont make profit from a p2p network. they make profit if users are forced to use middlemen services that charge fees (custodians/hubs/routing) so learn who is saying what and for what motivation

*BS acronym has multiple meanings

@Cz-Silk, this is the english part of the forum, so the links you post should be in English - most of us don't speak Spanish

---

I think this is the strongest sentence in the article, because it implies that Luke is the creator of Bitcoin, and if we continue in this direction, maybe all possible creators could write their opinion, so every day of the week we would have a new topic about someone's opinion about something that is so stupid and pointless that it's not worth wasting your time on. In fact, it doesn't matter at all what someone thinks about ordinals, because it's a passing thing that some people are trying to profit from, and these are the same ones who have already gotten rich promoting NTF as the next big thing.

When talking about bitcoin, there should always be this remembrance that makes it a decentralized network, this fact is what tackles against any means to censorship, just ad others had mentioned here, bitcoin work by consensus, these are the protocols that guide and run under every bitcoin transactions on the blockchain, NFT itself is an entire different game from that of bitcoin because censorship can work on it the more facts to why some tokens go down to hell from existence.

IIRC Luke was also the one who had his node set not to accept transactions from some gambling sites (could have been somebody else) this is no different.
Your node, your choice. Miners have always also had the ability to ignore whatever transactions they wanted to and make blocks the way they want.

This is no different.

FYI we are also talking about this guy: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developer-lukedashjrs-wallet-was-hacked-5432665

So at a guess he is trying to get back some of his credibility by making changes his way.

-Dave

Bitcoin is censorship resistance but that doesn't mean the protocol should allow everything!
Censorship resistance in bitcoin means whenever you want to send "money" to someone else, nobody can prevent you from doing that. Otherwise if you want to for example store data on the blockchain (practically in other people's computers), it should be prevented and it has nothing to do with censorship resistance, it is all about protecting this unique payment system called Bitcoin.

miners is the first point.  as they collate data into blocks in the first place which means that they have to mould themselves to what full nodes should store as valid

doing it as a lame user pruning thing just makes two levels of usernodes.. full nodes that keep full data and a subset that prune off data (which can cause many other issues within the network)

the idea is if mining pools agree and consent then no harm, user nodes dont have to reject certain blocks or set themselves apart as different levels. because mining pools wont be putting any crap into a block in the first place

however merchant nodes(economic nodes) can say they will reject blocks containing such crap data which would make mining nodes comply if they want to have their rewards recognised and seen rather than rejected and unable to be spent with the majority of merchant services(exchanges)

yep.. its using the same 2017 tactics which core loved using. to undo a flaw core allowed in.. they cant really justify now saying its a bad idea. seeing as they invented the method to push rule changes in

News about the Ordinals or Bitcoin NFTs are now widespread. I have read some of them even though I really don't understand the technical part. But what is quite surprising to me is that some are talking about rejecting transactions carrying Ordinals. It seems some consider these NFTs as nuisance and they are not what Bitcoin is for. Somehow it is justified to censor these transactions. So there must be a way to censor. And I have read that either the miners or the node operators could do it.

it used to be the case that full nodes (important definition of full nodes) would need to be ready to fully validate, (have new code and a flag that shows readiness before activation) where the nodes would fully remain able to continue to FULLY verify, archive and re-distribute all verified data before a rule can change, to protect the network, and still able to afterwards
where a new ruleset would only change/ be a valid new rule IF the network was majority ready for it

but that consensus got softened to allow core to throw in new feature without mass node readiness..
which allowed another dev to then slide in crappy memes. which changed bitcoin to now (not main feature /purpose/ethos) becoming a meme library

.. funny part is when another dev team and even some core devs now want to use cores backdoor to stop this flaw. though some idiots are pretending that sliding in a rule change without mass readiness is bad(calling their own method of adding the flaw (irony->) bad) and even if mass readiness was ready... doing so, changing the rules in their mind is bad.. again even though they themselves changed things without consensus

I'm sorry if I'm being rude because I'm new to the network and I wanted to understand more how it works, can you explain to me how the consensus works within the network is there any voting in the community before making any decisions in the core?

bitcoin is not a censorship resistant network. it never has been

its a consensus network
there is a difference

the network has rules which the network participants agree on (or used to agree on before consensus got softened)
it stopped things like allowing already spent outputs from being re-spent
it stopped silly small 'satoshi-dust' transactions
it stopped trying to broadcast altcoin transactions into the bitcoin network
and it did stop random meme stupid images

bitcoin is a network for peer to peer payments. its ethos is not a meme library. and so the rules that protect bitcoin from crap transactions can actually be done to stop crap transactions that were not meant for bitcoin

if you want every lame piece of data imaginable be allowed on bitcoin. then the results will harm bitcoin more then the stupid idea that bitcoin was always letting in stupid data.. because bitcoin never was about letting in every piece of stupid data

yep code=rules and code is what bitcoin is. there are actually rules..
trying to suggest bitcoin has no rules and should not have rules is a bad bad judgement to make

I saw on a website the following article "Possible creator of Bitcoin suggests censorship of NFTs" from what I understood Luke Dashjr proposed a filter to censor nft, as I am new in this area and believe in bitcoin, I wanted to know what power he has to censor because as a programmer if he can do that and if the community is against this proposal he can apply this filter. Because it works in a decentralized way, I believe that the community has to be communicated in any change.

https://www.criptofacil.com/luke-dashjr-dev-do-bitcoin-core-cria-filtro-para-censurar-nfts-no-bitcoin/