1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
the tx’s in question today are clearly identifiable as data anchoring being their PRIMARY purpose, unlike all of these examples
Discussion
You contradicted yourself by answering yes to timestamps.
yes well that’s what happens when you shotgun a reply after reading the first two questions, the point remains and this statement doesn’t counter it
also if you wanted to timestamp a tx with some or other use of OP_RETURN or something that could be a totally legitimate financial transaction.
the point is it isn’t that hard to actually look and apply judgment, and even when you do you can’t apply network-level consensus for your view, only update your mempool policy for your node
i’m not reading this without some explanation as to why i should or what to look for..
You've already made up your mind then.
all i was asking for was a “this guy is a core contributor and this debunks what you’re saying”.
i read it anyway because, no I haven’t made up my mind, and I am an honest person here who cares about this deeply!
i don’t know if I can agree that we are dealing with “honest actors” here.
the technical perspectives are correct but i’ve not disputed them, somewhere in my replies you could find my statement that I think the limit should be set to max by default.
the logic behind removing the option is not good enough imo.
I shouldn't need to say that. If you read the originating mailing list discussion that started the debate, then you'd know who Antoine is.
https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ
Yes, he's a bitcoin/lightning contributor and more.
Your original response was you acknowledging you responded before reading my post thoroughly. Now rather than clicking the link I provided that goes into detail the rationale for removing the OP_RETURN limit, you disregard it asking me to provide you reasoning for reading it. In doing so, you expose yourself for not knowing that the person who wrote what I linked to is the one that started the debate in the mailing list and thus have shown you also haven't read that discussion there either.
The logic for removing it is sound from a protocol perspective. Keeping the limit in place risks more centralization, more transactions moving to alternative relay networks, and more censorship. Both of which harms the network more than anything that would come from having no limit with OP_RETURN data.
"Honest actors?" Please, stop with that narrative. Pieter Wuille, Adam Gibson, Antoine Poinsot, Jameson Loop, Greg Maxwell, Sjors Provoost, and more...these are all highly respected developers in the community that have worked tirelessly to build bitcoin to what it is today. To insinuate they have nothing but its best long term interests in mind is unproductive.
sigh man get off your high horse..
you are nobody to me.
I am nobody to you.
you put a link here as a response with no context and I had no idea who it was from or what it was. I saw that antoine posted this on twitter and that’s when I read it.
i am not referring to core devs or contributors being bad actors. citrea et al, yes. Lopp has a conflict which is part of what started this all. he is also a shitcoin supporter generally so fuck him, sorry not sorry.
i agree the technicals are all sound. you can find my support for the maximization of the limit in various replies I’ve given, I will link them if you want.
it is the direction of the culture of the project that is in question for me.
I believe we are catering to bad actors on false premises, such as the premise that these transactions offer legitimate demand for block space.
In what way did the *proposed* change that was proposed on its technical merits alone not fit your desired "culture?" Conforming to your desired "culture" was never a requisite for protocol development. And you say I'm the one on a high horse?
Taking the freedom of choice away from nodes and centralising control over Bitcoin so that bad actors can add bloat ware to the blockchain makes no fucking sense man.
It's a bad idea
yes, actually. the project has a culture as all groups of people do.
having concern for its direction is a valid concern as a user of the software produced.
These "highly respected" developers you speak of are driving people away from Bitcoin and making it easier for bad actors to hurt the network.
It seems like a huge conflict of interest going on