🙌🏽

You are missing a crucial point. Right now as it stand it is difficult to coordinate an out of band transaction with a miner. Once you arrange for a miner to include your transaction you have to wait for them to find a block. The miners who offer these spam services only find blocks every so often. If bitcoin core removes the limit on the OP_RETURN then the nodes that run the updated version will pass spam to their peers, this would mean that miners would see these spammy transactions and can include them in their block templates thanks to the node runners who relayed the spam. The only things a limitless OP_RETURN will decentralize is spam.

nostr:note1ya0tncxud82rr9w8lht9muz2evxsul6axezf6h5pwccmx5scpxeqkx4mkn

Not sure thus argument taking place is technical. Mission creep is a thing

Impressive propaganda. Almost convincing.

Same energy as the degeneracy pushed by the joo propaganda to weaken the moral and social fabric of America.

The node runners have standards and morals that spammers will have to battle with. Sorry not sorry

💯 Amen.

So your argument is nobody uses the chain so we need to remove filters to make way for these new L2s? Doesn't make sense. Plus you can just hash things into the existing 80 byte limit to anchor anything you might want.

And the part about mining centralization is a psyop. Miners will compete for out of band spam transactions and spammers will pay a fee premium because they can't get it relayed any other way. It would actually help the long tail of small miners who'd mine spam for cheaper than the big miners would because they'd take longer. The fee premium also helps spammers run out of money faster.

This is nothing but money trying to turn bitcoin into ethereum.

Perfect analysis! One of the most beautiful I've read on this topic 😉🤝

I don't get it. You say:

"""Are there good reasons to store arbitrary data on #Bitcoin?" Absolutely. L2s and scalability solutions depend on on-chain proofs."""

But you also say:

"""You know why “spam” increased so much? Because most people stopped using #Bitcoin on-chain. Today it’s all custodians: Strike, Wallet of Satoshi, Liquid… Less usage = more free space = more arbitrary data on the timechain.""""

So...

The villain, in terms of increased SPAM, is the use of L2s, since it decreases competition for the registration of transactions and consequently decreases fees. However, your argument is that data registration is required because L2s rely on on-chain proofs.

In short, we should avoid or at least use less L2s to raise fees, which would protect timechain from spam. However, at the same time, the OP Return field should not be limited in order to not serve as an obstacle to the creation and evolution of these L2s, whose use we have just concluded is not "healthy" for timechain.

So the increase in OP Return does not generate spam, it only creates a good scenario for L2s which the more we use, the more Spam we get.

Is that really the argument?

Don't forget these other large custodians: coin base, blackrock, fidelity, binance

Bitcoin's design inherently discourages SPAM, as demonstrated by fees stabilizing at 1-5 sat/vB after the alleged "attack" on the network.

Andrew Poelstra, a renowned cryptographer and Bitcoin developer, eloquently addresses whether arbitrary data storage on Bitcoin can be prevented:

Hey I agree bitcoiners should use bitcoin more often! But taking away options from node runners and devs forcing their will on us is bullshit. Full stop I’m running knots because of the elitist behavior of the core devs. If “influencers” (I think bitcoin mechanic is a key contributor to the decentralization of the network and deserves more respect) are opposed to a change, core devs shouldn’t censor and just push through a contentious update. That’s worrisome behavior to me. Core devs are ignoring the people that run their software and are instead placating to shitcoiners. When they could instead work with miners to implement more ways to block spam. Keeping the network monetary focused will maximize decentralization because running a node will stay affordable. I’m running a node to track all the transactions on the most robust, decentralized ledger, not a cloud storage database for shitcoiners. Maintaining the integrity of the network will benefit everyone involved in the long run, not these short term fee gains for dumbass NFTs.

Take it up with Matt Hill. I agree with him that filters aren’t perfect but they do help.

Bla bla bla… gaslighting… bla bla bla… gaslights again… bla bla bla… I don’t care.

Running knots.

nostr:nevent1qqspnkf7jknpwqc7xckf4cjyw87tdqnm7myakndg00vrwne2nzenm2gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgcfmlrv

You are retarded.