Nostr Web Client

Regular OP_RETURNS?

See this the gaslighting and lies I am talking about.

We dismiss the possibility that you are just brainwashed because you have good understanding of Bitcoin tech.

So you are just dishonest actor.

nostr:nevent1qqs00m6p6x6z3vcswc2etg30g5yhuclp37x25nrkceapezrr0ch27hcpzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcpzpmhxue69uhkumewwd68ytnrwghszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz770e8un

nostr:nevent1qqszh4g2au6a09xj57t5g3nnzvwsffvgln6d6nd8zwhqn89q8787glgpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3qamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd4hk6tc8c6pqf

saunter 1mo ago 💬 1

I can grant you, it wasn't regular.

For 2 reasons, one I mentioned before, and they are related to each other:

1. Other to store data are cheaper

2. There was no economic demand to do this in OP_RETURN

No economic demand is the only scenario where filters work. If there is economic demand, filters do nothing

Now, it would actually be BETTER for the health of the network/noderunners If shitcoins/jpgs moved to use OP_RETURN instead of witness:

1. OP_RETURNs can be only up to 1mb, not 4mb

2. OP_RETURN consumes less resources than alternatives

3. Alternatives produce unspendable UTXOs, which grow UTXO set - the absolute worst outcome for node runners

So by preferring (because you cannot stop it) witness/inscriptions instead of OP_RETURN you choose a result that has 0 effect if there is any economic demand, but harms all node runners and the network much more than OP_RETURNs

So much for protecting node runners

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago 💬 1

Did I tell you, you are spam supporter? This exact BS led to the porn video in OP_RETURN and will lead to much more spam.

You just excused spam instead of realizing from the given EVIDENCE that OP_RETRUN filters worked and kept OP_RETURNs less than 83 Bytes.

The only way to add it was a miner directly to add it to a block which was more expensive and they are obligated to filter out CSAM.

BIP444 can fix consensus too in addition to the filters.

saunter 1mo ago 💬 1

Yes, I hear that strawman in any conversation with Knots side, got used to it and ignore it

That porn video would never land If you guys were not screaming everyday for the past 6 months about possibility of this. The possibility which was always existed in bitcoin. v30 haven't changed it one bit.

As I already told you, filters worked great when there was no demand, but you guys work hard to create the demand by constantly shedding light on this stuff.

Besides, given the alleged content of the mentioned video, it's hard for me to find a reason any Core supporter would upload it, cui bono?. It looks like someone from Knots side wanted to "prove a point". But ofc this is speculation.

I do not excuse any spam. Another strawman, hard to even argue with that, please find one sentence of mine where I am happy about spam in bitcoin

Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion 1mo ago 💬 2

Moron risk doesn't go away if we don't talk about it enough.

Maybe remove coretard mask first before you response.

Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion 1mo ago

Maybe you should have told you coretard friends to not blow up op_return limit in the first place.

Why didn't you mention that part?

saunter 1mo ago 💬 1

I see you are out of arguments, nice talking with you

BitcoinIsFuture 1mo ago

Seccurity through obscurity. Great argument. Not.