The proposal seems to be: * If a transaction contains illegal content, rather than relaying the transaction content, relay a ZKP which proves the transaction was valid without revealing the content of the transaction. * This is TECHNICALLY a hard fork, because without the actual content of the transaction, the block shouldn't be considered valid. The definition of valid is expanded to include transactions for which a ZKP is provided. * This doesn't necesarrily cause a split in the network. Nodes using the ZKP would see blocks from nodes NOT using the ZKP as valid. But nodes NOT using the ZKP might consider blocks not containing the original transaction. But presumably they could get the original transaction from another node. * There is a censorship risk, since the ZKP only proves the transaction was valid, not that it actually contained illegal content. So if nodes running NOTS recieved a directive to replace a particular transaction with a ZKP, they would stop relaying it. * Presumably it would only apply to OP_RETURN transactions.

Sup dawg? I heard you like parititions so i put a btrfs subvolume in a btrfs volume in a logical volume in a volume group in a physical volume in a luks partition in an mbr partition on a hard drive so you can split while you split while you split while you split while you split while you split.

The fiat banking system depends on enslaving the 3rd world with debt and our taxes are paying for the bombs landing on palestine.

My node is fully isolated on tor. Would it show as residential or cloud?

Well.. that stuff was on half price.

Sade to live in a country where it's illegal all the only potential countries we could move to which allow it are going through major political crisis.

Nobody wins in a civil war.

I wonder whether it increases at above or below inflation. It should be below the "true" inflation rate due to technology improvements, but regulatory capture may have cancelled it out.

I'm not doing anything personally besides discussing it. The limits really are a joke though and don't actually prevent anything from making it to the blockchain. It just limits what your own node will forward via the P2P network. Arguably it could force the attackers to spend more money on getting their data in, and hopefully run out sooner (which is the inevitable result of any spam attack on bitcoin). I have nothing against NOTS and would considering even running it myself. My problem is just the framing that core is somehow intending to "allow spam" and intentioally trying to destroy bitcoin. They aren't, it's just a different cost/benefit analysis.

If it's in the blockchain, you will be hosting it too unless you prune them. Which would be a lot easier if the attacker used OP_RETURN.

It's not really censoring. You are free to route or not route whatever payments you like on your own node. In the same way you are free to delete notes you're not cofortable with hosting from your nostr node. The network is free to route around you (and probably will).

Removing the op return limit is not aimed at allowing spam. It pushes spam into a box where it can be indentified as incidental data rather than potential transaction outputs which bloat the UTXO set. I can understand disagreeing with that approach but it is far from "allowing spam". The actual spammers are an entirely different group unaffiliated with the developers who implemented the change.

Resembling SSB more every day