The irony of the OP_RETURN policy pull request is that it's being spammed by low quality comments, some of which are clearly generated by LLMs.
If only there was a mechanism for reducing spam... 🫠
Discussion
Not looking for a fight 😃 . I'm just a lowly node runner but I haven't heard any logical reason to remove this limitation. What good does it actually provide node runners? It only seems imho to incentivize spam by making it easier instead of "using the back door". How does removing this limit actually make Bitcoin better money?
"Easier" doesn't mean cheaper. It is far cheaper to just witness space as is being done today.
It doesn't harm node runners since the DB growth won't change and is still linear regardless of any limit removal.
Having the current arbitrary OP_RETURN limit in place does however have potential downsides though since it can incentivize alternatives to the default mempool (bad for node runners) and can lead to UTXO bloat since the alternative is to continue using witness data.
A lot of good discussion in the group where more info can be read:
Is almost like someone want raise a Blocksize war again to manipulate the markets. Strange to see it’s Peter heading the front.
Its actually the opposite. The low quality comments come mostly from the supporters of the highly controversal pull request, including yourself. I have read it all.
Bitcoin is money, Bitcoin is distributed blockchain for transactional data. What you want to achieve is some kind of NFT shitcoin storing random data. That is real bad.
Adding shitcoins like ETH and SOL to the discussion? I must stop myself of commenting this ...
For the sake of completeness you have written your goal in clear text.
Good job ignoring the next sentence.
I don't ignore it and I show your comment in full. You give shitcoins as example. There is a reason shitcoins are a fail. All of them are centralized, manipulatable, rugpull mentality garbage.
And don't get me wrong. I respect your good contributions and given the status you have its not easy for me to oppose your opinion. But I can't compromise my morale.
I want Bitcoin to stay the freedom decentralized unstoppable money it is and to fix the world for good.
And we saw already spam attacks like Inscriptions make fees high making use of Bitcoin by ordinary people harder.
What you should have seen is that spam attacks are unsustainable.
Over the long term, only economically viable use of block space can survive.
I would prefer for them to be both economically unsustainable and prevented by security controls as far as possible.
Bitcoin's main objective is monetary network, not decentralized store of random data.
have you tried not being a shitcoiner?
What is your justification for removing the existing ability of users to set a OP_RETURN limit if they want to?
You could easily allow users to set no limit for themselves and give them the functionality you are proposing.
The fact that you are attempting to FORCE them to adopt this functionality with NO OPTION is what makes everyone perceive this as a bad faith attack.
If a nation-state wanted to fuck with Bitcoin, this is the smart way to do it.
Similar to how China infiltrated the universities decades ago and slowly started to spread wokeness, for lack of a better term, and the cultural and societal changes happened so slowly that no one blinked an eye.