Replying to Avatar Dr. Bitcoin, MD

I don’t agree with core jumping from 80 bytes to 100,000…but eventually bitcoin will need this ability for zero knowledge proofs for layer 2 networks. I think they should have gone to 160 bytes and just watched and waited to see how it was used and what the consequences are.

But please don’t forget, the real issue here isn’t about data, it’s about mining centralization…the status quo guarantees miner centralization in the long run.
Avatar
steepdawn974 4mo ago

Yes, they should have stayed put, or slightly increased the limits. But they didn't act rationally and totally insecure, pushing this through just to prove a point.

ZKPs don't need that much data; fun fact, Citrea, cited as ine of the beneficiaries, rather uses Inscriptions instead of the op_return. Core burned all their social capital, and it was all for nothing.

At the same time, they are stalling what would be the right way to enable proper two-way pegs and thus scale bitcoin: CTV+CSFS.

It all makes no sense 🤷 (unless one subscribes to the theory this was a deliberate sabotage)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD 4mo ago

Nobody uses inscriptions on purpose. They do so because opreturn requires slipstream payments and they don’t want to pay slipstream and would rather pay more to stuff it in opreturn (out of band payments cause miner centralization)