Nostr Web Client

Interesting to see so many long time bitcoiners flush their reputations down the toilet right before a massive bull run

I have seen a number of people I actually respect now openly supporting core. I slept on this and realized I might have jumped to one side of the OP Return debate faster than necessary.

The debate has been framed by the knots team as Bitcoin being transformed into a platform by adding more non-financial uses to the blockchain. After 15 years of watching non-financial shitcoins trend towards zero with no practical uses cases emerging from the carnage I have absolutely no desire to add that functionality to Bitcoin.

However, it is possible that I am missing something so I'm going to ask a few questions for clarification if anyone wants to offer a response.

FYI I have no interest in debating with salty keyboard warriors. Please take a deep breath before posting. I just want to read the positions.

1. Is there a technical reason why the code needs to be altered now?

2. Who stands to benefit the most from OP Return space increasing?

3. Outside of BRC tokens and Inscriptions, what proposals are in place use of the added OP return space?

#asknostr

At the end of the day I'm not going to get upset about this, but my understanding will determine how and when I upgrade my node software. These discussions are valuable for bitcoin and will make it stronger in the long run. Much love 💜🧡

nostr:nevent1qqsf486nhzm5d6mdd8k4087zf33xl9ayg8mllfsxsreq3fccc75mkgqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygyjva2962ghhq8hqllak39gl7terqjk3mmm4gzwuattruqafcmg3gpsgqqqqqqsr8evs9

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 7mo ago

I can't answer your questions but here's a reply anyway

If the OP_return increase damages Bitcoin, the people who stand to gain the most are the people who print money and get idiots to do stuff for them using the printed money

If it doesn't damage Bitcoin, the people who stand to gain the most are probably Bitcoin users

jtown 7mo ago

1. Core claimed they wanted to "clean up codebase" by removing the OP_RETURN limit.

2. I would predict miners and degenerate shitcoin schemes.

I switched to knots when this first kicked off. I think the only way bitcoin lasts for centuries is if node runners are prioritized.

Dave🐸 7mo ago

nevent1qqsxpvaywns2ghkkprwyq6szfmwhzf6yyqzz4yluqv933l8u5pu5lkspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdue5eh2v

Brisket 7mo ago

I'm in favour of Bitcoin ossification.

That is, no more "improvements".

No further changes to the Bitcoin protocol or the incentives that drive it.

Bitcoin core software still requires maintenance. This is a boring & thankless task & I'm grateful to the Devs that take it on. I think this is where the support for Bitcoin Core is aimed at.

Small changes to the incentives can have a massive impact to how Bitcoin operates. Nobody can predict what downstream effects will arise from removing or increasing the OP_RETURN filter from the bulk of validating nodes. The downplaying & trivialising of these effects is concerning.

I will not be upgrading my node software unless there's a compelling reason to do so.

I'm never running knots.

Sourcenode 7mo ago

Makes perfect sense. I'm not convinced that ossification would be great. Last time I looked into it, there seemed to be legitimate improvements in covenants and it's possible we could unlock greater scaling solutions at some point in the future.

However, if I had to choose between keeping Bitcoin as is or potentially fucking it up I would pick the conservative route every time.

semisol 7mo ago

1. There is not, from my perspective. The relay policy for OP_RETURN takes minimal effort to maintain and has no risks.

2. Lazy developers that want to store less than 1KB of data on-chain. With inscriptions, they need 2 TX, while now they can do 1 TX.

Otherwise, large inscriptions still are 4x cheaper if done with SegWit instead of OP_RETURN, so no one will stop doing that for jpegs.

3. There are none so far I am aware of that do not involve the sole purpose of data storage or tokens.

Current use cases such as OpenTimestamps, Silent Payments, etc can all operate within 80 bytes.

Sourcenode 7mo ago

Very funny to see your reply now because I was scrolling your feed after your last note to see if you took a public stance.

While I'm not super technical I can see the incentives and I agree with what you said here. I might add that miners could potentially benefit by increasing demand for block space using non-financial (shitcoin) activity. All seems hypocritical and dangerous in my opinion. Even the accidental loophole created by Taproot caused a big mess for a short period of time. This seems like it would open the floodgates.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why anyone wants to increase OP Return or support Core's desire to do so, but I'm remaining open to hearing an explanation that doesn't sound like nonsense.