The OP_RETURN debate boils down to two arguments: harm reduction vs. don't negotiate with terrorists.
This will be my one and only post on the topic because the change being proposed is fucking trivial and does not merit the attention and divisiveness it has garnered.
Can't wait for all these bitcoiners to focus on actually important matters once again.
I agree focusing on a holistic direction on what non-spendable data goes in the blockchain is more important
lol which side is the terrorists and which side is reducing harm? I need another post!!
Sorry bro, one and done. Put on your thinking cap and I'm sure you'll work it out. 😉
.. it doesn't seems to me a few important debate .. let's assume that the PR will pass, what's the impacts on blockchain ? only knots to tamper the abuse?.. L1 works well because it simple, but it has the problem that replicate everywhere .. so i found major risk for decentralization , if blockchain will grow without controll the resources needed to run a node will be more expensive .. i will switch to knots if it'll happen
Regardless on your thoughts about the proposed change, I don’t see how you can support Core removing the option for node runners to choose their settings
Did I say I supported one side? Better check your facts before you start swinging.
When you said the change being proposed is “fucking trivial” it naturally led me to believe you supported it being merged.
Do you or do you not?
And if you do, do you also support Core removing the option for node runners to change their settings?
If removing an unnecessary option simplifies the code base, making it less prone to bugs and easier to securely maintain as I believe to be the case, then, yes! I hope that the bitcoin core developers stick to this decision, and do not succumb to this pressure from the knots team. Consider some possible incentives/motives here, Ocean is a great additional pool for bitcoin mining, but it is also a money making endeavor. Perhaps some of that money is being well spent by Ocean's "global head of sales" to create pointless dissention that benefits Ocean. Perhaps maintaining knots, a fork of core, will be more difficult for Luke when he has to maintain even more features that core has decided were unnecessary. Do we really want core devs to be maintaining features at the potential expense of the foundational security of the bitcoin node reference implementation just to make some fork maintainer's job easier? Core does not have an adjacent business to support marketing or a "global head of sales". What it does have is many of the brightest minds of bitcoin's past and present, that have shepherded it to the world changing network and money that it is today. Other implementations are great, and I am grateful they exist for those that wish to use their features, but trying to coerce core devs to make concessions to what they judge to be best for bitcoin's security and decentralization is an attack in my book!
