I’m non tech but can’t see how possibly
Benefits>Risks
Discussion
The only real consequence of this imo is a more maintainable codebase and finishing this debate. This has no bearing on how large a node grows. This has no bearing on how big blocks get.
I think I can understand this…
In a way, it might make nodes and miners more selective and differentiated, no?
This could be a “plus” or “minus” to me.
I can even really determine “good” or “bad” but I feel like I’ll try.
I'd be in favor of removing it and having a few soft forks with medium and heavy filtering of their mempools. Let people run the one they think is best.
This will bloat the blockchain and artificially increase fees over time. If you can’t see that you haven’t thought about it hard enough.
Please tell me how it bloats the blockchain when they are still 4mb blocks. How is it "artificial" fee increase? If someone wants a tx with no data carrier limit, they can do it right now with a soft fork. It will be in your node once the tx is confirmed and there is nothing you can do to stop them. Right now. Before this even merges.
The no limit policy will lower the bar for spam. The OP_Return limit deters people from spamming sort of like how surveillance cameras, gates, barricades, barb wire, and security guards limit theft and vandalism.
We should not make it easier for spammers and bad actors to pollute the chain. You are saying because people can already do this by being a scumbag and going to a miner behind the scenes that we should open it up so that anyone can do it with ease.
By lowering the bar you are asking for more spam which does bloat the chain causing artificial demand which increases fees and makes it more difficult to run a node which results in less node runners.
You are advocating for less transactions per block. If the average block goes from having thousands of transactions in it to just a few transactions what is the net result?
Bitcoin is working fine with the current limit and there is no real reason to remove it other than “we can already do this the hard way so mine as well let us do this the easier way” it’s a backwards way of thinking.
It will lower the bar for "spam" on instances of core. It won't lower the bar for "spam" on Bitcoin. You can make this change on your node right now and still be in concensous right now.
Yes but this BIP is attempting to remove that variable setting. Leaving node runners no way to opt out. They either will have to stop updating core or switch to knots.
"no way to opt out" but then you state two ways to opt out...
You know what I’m saying, you are just looking for a “gotcha”
They want to make no limit the default with no way for the user to set a limit.
When bitcoin becomes a piece of shit cesspool filled with shit and can’t be used as peer to peer money you can look back to this conversation and reminisce of how naive you were.
I'm not looking for a gotcha, I don't think you are understanding this does not change anything about Bitcoin. An OP return with more data in it than is currently limited by Core is still in concensous before and after this change.
Right I understand. That doesn’t warrant the removal of a user setting.
Why is that if the user setting is irrelevant to what's included in blocks anyways?
If it doesn’t matter to you why are you insisting it’s removed for people that want to use it?
Very bizarre people are against freedom and choice.
Being in favor of its removal is not insistace that it be removed. You are insisting that it stay for reason that do not make sense. I'm in favor of removal to simplify the code base and make core more maintainable while putting this whole thing behind us once and for all. If it's not removed entirely, it's just going to be a bunch of drama just like this anytime someone wants to change it for whatever arbitrary reason.
Peter Todd created the drama. If he didn’t insist on removing the ability for users to decide for themselves this would be a non issue. He wants to force his ideology and beliefs on everyone.
Make no limit the default but not allowing users to decide for themselves is fascism
Again... There is nothing about this change that won't allow users to decide how they want their mempool going forward. No Peter didn't create the drama. Anytime there is change to this, there is drama. Doesn't matter who want to change it. There's nothing ideological about removing it. There is ideology in setting some arbitrary limit by default. You are projecting.
Removing the option to set a limit does affect node runners using core. This is the fact of the matter and you are brushing it to the side saying go run knots. Spin it up however you want but at the end of the day there will be less individual choice and more crap onchain.
I fail to see how individual choices is impacted. I fail to see how there would be anymore crap on chain than there is now. Your argument is "there would be" without being able to demonstrate how.
By lowering the bar for spam.
It’s like how California made stealing under $1000 a misdemeanor and then theft skyrocketed.
How does it lower the bar for spam?
Right now to inscribe a 4mb donkey dick butt pic a user would have to go directly to miner and negotiate an out of ban transaction. By removing the limit it makes it easier for anyone to do this. The result would be more spam, not that difficult to understand.
They don't have to go directly to a miner. They can run their own node that will hold the tx in their mempool. If you're trying to go to a miner to get your tx included in a block for any other reason than paying the most then you'll always have to go to a miner. If someone wants to inscribe a 4mb jpeg they can do it right now without going directly to a miner by paying 3 sats per vbyte. Paying a high fee IS going to the miner. The willingness to pay the fee is the economic signal to the miner. There is no need to reach out directly.
This is kind of false. If you broadcast a tx that’s over the 80 byte OP_RETURN limit as it stands today bitcoin core nodes will not propagate the tx.
The limit is not a bug it’s a feature.
Core nodes will not accept it. That's the whole point. Other nodes can and will accept it.
Only nodes that have removed the limit which today is few and far in between.
Sure, but they exist. They always will because there is no concensous issues with how large the return data is.
If core changes their policy every core node runner running the new version will be forced to accept it.
Bro... You can literally do nothing if your a core node runner and nothing changes. It takes a user to update. They don't just roll out automatically to everyone running core.
That’s a good solution tell everyone to run an old version and don’t update lol
You are downplaying the situation. Node service providers like umbrel and start 9 will give users some scary warning messages about updating their node.
Why is that not a good solution? I don't understand the issue with running an older version of core?
I look forward to you selling me your coins then.
These disingenuous core developers have created a self imposed problem (unspendable UTXO sets) and came up with a solution for the problem they created. Now they want to force this on everyone running Bitcoin Core without giving them the ability to opt out. If you are against spam there is no benefit. Additionally it’s impossible to know all the possible risks so to make this change would be reckless to say the least.