Replying to Avatar Zach⚡️

It’s really on the miners to stop hurting the network by accepting this type of data.

You’re right that there is technically no stopping it with relay policy, but relay policy did reduce it and set a standard for transactions over the history of Bitcoin.

I could easily see someone fork off by changing Bitcoin so that blocks with OP Return data over 80 bytes are invalid. I think that attempt will fail, even though I wish it would succeed.
Avatar
jb55 3mo ago 💬 1

I may be a rare bitcoin user/dev but i have always been very anti filters since the very beginning , so i may have a different perspective than most core devs who are pro filters (standardness), let alone knots people who are even more pro filters (standardness+++)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Zach⚡️ 3mo ago 💬 1

Do you think that using Bitcoin for non-monetary data storage hurts the monetary network?

Avatar
jb55 3mo ago 💬 2

I think its a good way for idiot to burn and donate their bitcoin to miners

Avatar
Zach⚡️ 3mo ago

I would agree with this except that there is data which is considered illegal in most countries with can pollute the chain. What harm would be done by having a hardcoded limit on OP Return?

72
Vector5 3mo ago 💬 1

You didn't answer the question. Answer nostr:nprofile1qqstjdsvmqytynktl5p4wheavda3uck2nl4yzkkx0dk9ky00zheg6pspzamhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmn9wgh8xmmrd9skctcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz78u7ddf question!

Avatar
jb55 3mo ago 💬 1

I think it temporarily makes onchain txs harder, but that is why we need more people using lightning channels because in a healthy fee market this is inevitable anyways

72
Vector5 3mo ago 💬 1

That does not answer the question at all. Does unlimited op_return hurt the monetary network?

Avatar
jb55 3mo ago

I don’t know, is it hurting today? Because we have that today