I know this is your stance, I've seen your note just above mine: nostr:nevent1qqsqqsdfnfuxua5yksjvxt60z99gadazca2txlehe9t8eddwuketwgspzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyph8tauhywtu5v54ur6v5raud6uuc7d7ska0m4tt6duzyr9gamn5uqcyqqqqqqg0wv2ex
...and I say that a father who has left the family has no say in the development of the child.
That's a fair take but the notion that currency doesn't need "more features" remains. I say this without seeking an argument. Just two people with different opinions.
I made my statement embracing all coming arguments, we surely can argue without knifing each other. That's a lost art...
If it was for Satoshi, we would have DNS resolving Bitcoin sidechains by now which isn't a currency use case either but desperately needed. With larger op-returns, we even might get to have those AND on the main chain! Maybe the Namecoin and Emercoin devs finally collapse into Bitcoin.
I was all maxi and purist once and somewhere along the way - for all the reasons I wrote down - I came to the conclusions that I just don't mind nor care about larger op-return fields and what people do with it. Bitcoin now is famous for EVERYTHING but it's use case as currency and that only now is starting to make sense with L2s... Which we wouldn't have without segwit... which opened up the possibility for "misusecases".
In other words, it seems you can't have one without the other. Bitcoin as a currency and bitcoin as a baselayer for whatever people come up with. It's not technologically possible to limit the use cases.
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion and a bit about yourself.
I agree that debating without kniving has become a lost art.
As for your opinions I can respect those too. I just believe that anything that can have a negative impact on Bitcoin's primary purpose (currency and settlement) should not be added, modified or removed from the code.
However if people are already circumventing limits (as pointed out by Peter in the PR) something should probably done to prevent this. Removing limits however seems a mediocre approach raising many questions among the community which aren't being addressed properly.
That's really all I have to say to the op_return discussion.
I appreciate your input 🫶
