It’s a simple issue that is being overly complicated. If you sanction large blobs of data in the official software implementation you will get more data as a result and also much more wider attack surface. People that overcomplicate this stuff _at this point_ should be considered bad faith actors who should be either a) ignored, b) called out, or c) outright insulted. Are you a bad faith actor, sir? It sure looks like it from your recent posts I skimmed through.
1. I tried to earnestly understand and explore nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk and nostr:npub1yxp7j36cfqws7yj0hkfu2mx25308u4zua6ud22zglxp98ayhh96s8c399s’s arguments.
With Luke I just have to say “agree to disagree” when he argues that CSAM is _only_ illegal/immoral when it’s in an OP_RETURN up ‘till 100kb post-September 2025— everything else is “non-CSAM” in his view even if they’re the exact same bytes.
Super Testnet meanwhile seems to have gotten stuck on this question: nostr:nevent1qqszr45wevkva76m7ypmaklmj7wq35h8g3g0a0zcpdmf6zemzlj63pgpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr5dvlzrtf99jvzwzs2zsr549mlp00jz2n72y7gkha3lnae72j46gqcyqqqqqqg8vjxqn 2. It was never about Citrea specifically; Citrea just showed that there is demand for >80 bytes of data, and if such use cases can’t use OP_RETURN they’ll just use fake pubkeys which NO ONE should want. 3. Not a technical argument. But I’d say if anyone uses nasty triggers it’s Luke et al claiming (and this is a real quote) “Bitcoin Core is trying to force everyone who uses Bitcoin to distribute child porn”— not to mention the shit you’re throwing at the wall here yourself.
Discussion
There is nothing official in Bitcoin.
Besides, if there's more data in OP_RETURNs, there less room for data in Inscriptions; 4x less even.
Nor does it widen the attack surface in any real way-- except perhaps the attack surface nostr:nprofile1qqszq6eh3h2gyyjc0647hhrykqzsnvd0gyhcgkd5s60lp6wp0usqpmcpzamhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuegpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuervwdhh27np9ekx7mq3x3s2u describes at the end of the video, which you're helping create by regurgitating this nonsense.
This is an example of bad faith tactics. Core is the reference client. You are being pedantic. I guess that answers Tauri's question.
Core is Bitcoin's de facto reference implementation to the extent -- and _only_ to the extent -- that users treat it as such.
If you don't believe that to be true, what was the point of switching to Knots in the first place??
I'm talking about what he meant by "official" and you latching on to that word, ignoring the rest of his point. Core, as the current and original reference client, should retain a reasonable default limit on op_return. Care to respond to that or just argue semantics some more?
I’m not arguing semantics, it matters.
I and many others have explained this already, many times, including in the video this thread is a response to. I recommend watching it.
You can also read the article I myself wrote about this a month ago, in particular the “Bitcoin Core perspective” of course: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-core-or-bitcoin-knots-what-the-op_return-debate-is-actually-about
Or read what the Bitcoin Core developers wrote about it themselves: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
If you prefer that I explain it to you again that’s also ok, but then I’ll start charging for my time. Shoot me a DM in that case!