Replying to Avatar BitcoinIsFuture

That is the result of OP_RETURN filter prior to Core v30.

And this why we need filters and we need the soft fork that makes sure Bitcoin is used as much as possible as Freedom Money and not as decentralized file storage.
Avatar
Momo 1mo ago

You are selecting a subset that confirms your bias.

Before version 30, there were various waves of high op_return transactions. It didn’t need v30 to make that possible. If only 8-12% of the network relays the transaction with a high op_return, it will be relayed to a miner. Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference in high op_return transactions being mined. I prefer them to be relayed through the network of nodes than being paid for out-of-band to the miner.

All said, incentive for inscribing spam on op_return is low. Cause a spammer can choose to use inscriptions at a discount.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago

How am I selecting a subset when those are facts?

Actually you are not entirely honest - "Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference"

All Core versions prior to the malware Core v30 filter OP_RETURN to less than 83 Bytes and that result of that is showed as evidence on the screenshot above.

If you state you are against spam I don't know how you support large OP__RETURN and the malware Core v30 which not only is not fixing anything it welcomes more spam.

If you state you are against spam you should support the soft fork which limits spam and non-monetary data but you seem to not support it.

If you state you are against spam don't you ask yourself why the compromised Core devs did not fix inscriptions spam?

It still abuses Bitcoin. Inscriptions spam is fixed on Bitcoin Knots.

You can also check the arguments of the Core devs for their decisions which revealed tham how compromised they are.

nostr:nevent1qqs06nuwy2naacmcw6uh5lf44q8982v98cqegqm4e6znd9c2wkd34sqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09ua9rxcv

Avatar
Momo 1mo ago

OP_RETURN has practical uses too. Coinjoin transactions are valid transactions, but limiting OP_RETURN filters them. Imagine if the whole network imposed the same limit as Knots, then no coinjoin transaction would have been mined. Not all the applications of data transfer are limited to storing images or data.

Apart from OP_RETURN, BIP444 blocks OP_IF, which is used in nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsqgxv43pk4mqurmp2u522mc9cvn3n0vzv6vxvy8zs6ulq46cdf7khz53utk7y . It's a valid use-case which enables inheritance planning on Bitcoin. The choices made in BIP444 are not limited to OP_RETURN and those choices are detrimental. It goes against the principle of "Don't fuck with people's money".

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago

The spammers fuck with peoples money and abuse Bitcoin. Coinjoin are valid transactions and Knots allows them. No one is against storing hashes of up to 80 Bytes in OP_RETURN. 100 000 Bytes is abuse of spammers. Inscriptions are abuse of spammers. BIP444 fixes those things as much as possible or at least limits the abuse on Bitcoin.

Avatar
Momo 1mo ago

Transaction fees automatically take care of this problem. Inscriptions were a problem, but for almost a year. Economic incentives disincentized jpeg enthusiasts. They are not a problem anymore.

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago

Not true. Spam is still huge problem on Bitcoin, now with OP_RETURN blown up is even bigger problem and fees alone are not enough to prevent it.

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago

With the soft fork in place those huge spam bloats that got recently mined won't be even possible.