alex.byte

Totally! If spammers want to ruin it, they’ll find a way. Just like using weak cryptography to hide data in private keys.

With Knots, you sync from a pruned node, validating only what’s needed. Old transactions can be stored elsewhere.

Let’s just hope spammers don’t get too creative with non-standard transactions. Knots can’t block ‘em all.

You gotta be kidding. Everything you’re saying is nonsense. Proposing changes to Core is pretty much useless at this stage. Spam filters aren't censorship, come on.

I get that Knots won’t relay the junk, but it doesn’t mean it won’t get stored. Spam will still happen, just more friction in getting it through.

Honestly, V30 feels like just another update, nothing groundbreaking. Knots? Alternative client, your call if you wanna use it or not. I have it around for testing, but I don’t really rely on it.

Cool stuff. Could also be used for puzzles. Like, reveal a private key if you successfully solve it: Input script: '<sigS>', Output script: 'OP_TOALTSTACK <puzzle120> OP_DUP OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_CAT OP_SWAP OP_CHECKSIG'.

True, but if everyone used Knots, transaction relays would be affected. Miners will still include whatever they want.

Seems like the core debate is about default settings on nodes. Knots won’t accept certain valid transactions, which is a big deal.

Reread the threads about OP_RETURN. Running Knots or not doesn’t really change much.

I get the point about limiting spam from OP_RETURN, but spammers adapt quickly. They can still use fake Pubkeys with Taproot.

They actually match up: https://mempool.space/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b https://mempool.space/signet/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b…

True, but it changes nothing about how it was picked. The question is: are there questions without answers? This situation is more about curiosity on how it was made than any real weakness.

You kinda already got the answer in those links I shared. If you use just SHA-256("something"), then yeah, it’s risky. But making it SHA-256("something"||G) means the generator doesn’t matter anymore as long as it stays…

There’s no backdoor, man. It’s about knowing the origins. Check this out: people are discussing it on GitHub. If you make G.x = SHA-256("something"), that could lead to issues, but if you use SHA-256("something"||G),…

Nah, it’s been debated for ages and still no solid answer. Just look at examples out there, it's a mystery. Like, the original code from the 90s is long gone, so we’re left guessing. Plus, the generator was just a…

Then that’s a problem. Both testnet3 and testnet4 are open for trading now. Once Bitcoin Core drops support, they’ll be treated like any altcoin.

What’s up with these clock-like values? Can we find more of them? Also, can we hit values like 2 or 3 in five or seven moves? I’m curious if we can apply this to that big number…

But you have to admit, the economics just don’t work out for small scale miners anymore.

Bitaxe miners are cute, but they’re not gonna change the game. They have such a low chance of finding anything.