Subnostr

The damage example from the top of my head is the increasing cost of running a node, which is a centralising force. Additionally, the utxo bloat is a mining centralising force. Centralisation makes the network more vulnerable.

The original post is more philosophical than technical, but in my opinion, in case of bitcoin serving as money, the tech should follow the original idea, not the other way round. If we don't defend it and optimise the tech to serve the original purpose, we will lose it.

Tony Acid 2d ago

looks like you are concerned about utxo bloat, while the entire idea or lifting OP_RETURN limit is to reduce utxo bloat.

Are other BIP110 supporters also concerned about utxo bloat?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Maciek 2d ago

Bip110 is not only about the op_return. And the idea of op_return limit lifting to mitigate utxo bloat is controversial to say the least.

Tony Acid 1d ago

what's the controversy?

Maciek 1d ago

Core is negotiating with the terrorists. They are saying: let's give the spammers op_return, so they don't bloat the utxo set. Bip110 is saying: gfy, we will defend both (and patch other exploit vectors), go spam somewhere else. This is my simplified understanding.