apologies, i forgot devs don't want to talk to normal node runners. i don't want *more* arbitrary data stored on my drive. i don't want *more* avenues for spam or denial of service for normal transactions. at worst we should have options for our mempool and node so we can decide, not be told, how things will be.
Discussion
That feels unfair, I didn't say I didn't want to talk to you because you were a "normal node runner". I indicated that your answer did not match the topic I asked about.
I get that people don't like data in the blockchain—I'm not excited about that either—but I've already heard all about that for the past two weeks. Here, I'm specifically trying to I understand why people argue that OP_RETURN transactions make nodes more expensive to run. I don't get where that is coming from or what the line of thought is.
the issue from the normie side is pushing changes on node runners and taking away config options. this started getting on people's radar when the inscription spam kept going on and on with no action taken.
op_return as is today is fine but increasing the limit just invites more spam and more cost. this is what upset everyone.
as far as op_return existing at all, yeah those people are unserious or not informed. thank you for being patient with me in your responses, this spam debate has everyone worked up, including me with having a lot of skin in the game for Bitcoin's success.
Yeah, I get that all the hype around silly pictures in the blockchain gets on the nerves. FWIW, all the Bitcoin Core devs are working on the native currency for the Internet, as far as I can tell, they largely feel the same.
To us it mostly feels like a question of priorities and benefit per cost. Except for Luke, I don't know if any Bitcoin Core contributors that think filters have any effect at all on transactions for which there is sufficient economic demand. 53% of all transactions in the last year have had inscriptions or op_return outputs. These transactions paid hundreds of millions of dollars in transaction fees.
I don't think there is an appetite for crippling Bitcoin Script over this by soft forking in mitigations. So, Bitcoin Core devs mostly choose to spend their time on other things.
Most Bitcoin Core devs have plenty skin in the game, with their careers tied up in Bitcoin for many years. Don't get too worked up, it's not as big of a deal as some make it sound.
I wrote a longer response to Leon here, that you might also find interesting: https://njump.me/nevent1qqsd9h3yau0zzev5zel30jkztvhluw9us6anhnvlqj28wxqc9runa8qpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygy4xcdzks4zds3t4sakk6aych9vf5mfqm4se7ucy6rgr3z6xqw9rqpsgqqqqqqsfk9w40