Nostr Web Client

Here's what I've collected. I feel like it boils down to this.

For:

1. Users want to degen and they are creating unprunable dust.

2. An OP_RETURN limit removal might incentivise them to use prunable utxos.

3. Unofficial relay alternatives already exist for non standard transactions and may continue to develop, reducing the transparency of bitcoin, (making it harder to identify attempts of real censorship?)

Against:

1. Filters are decentivising degen in general.

2. Removal might increase non-monetary usage of our Bitcoin nodes.

3. This does not prevent spammers from intentionally creating unspendable dust.

4. Non standard transactions has always been a thing, we can add to the standard list or expand the definition of standard when we need, but we don't have them for no reason. Why not make any valid transaction standard?

I put a part of it in brackets because I haven't heard anyone explicitly say this, I've heard "it will make it less decentralized" which is a sweeping statement IMO. But I feel like this is what the devs are pointing out, they're just not saying it. Regardless, it is something to consider.

:P 8mo ago

Nice assessment! The only thing that will be more decentralized would be spam. They are arguing that the spam itself is not decentralized. Like you mentioned there is a reason for the limit. It’s a feature not a bug. The other thing is storing data in the SW is cheaper but more harmful why would spammers voluntarily pay more to spam the network?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Big Barry Bitcoin 8mo ago

I don't think that is their argument, IMO those words in that order makes no sense. "Spam itself is not decentralized"?

Are you saying point blank that they WANT more diverse types of transactions on the blockchain?

That might be so.

Either way, I lean your way honestly. It is concerning that there is not a lot of different use cases being thrown around other than Citrea as far as I can tell.

Big Barry Bitcoin 8mo ago

So new context...

When mentioning decentralization, I have heard a clarification explaining that they were thinking about miner decentralization.

Still, I can't shake the feeling that you can't call a PR purely technical when it is a change that affects game theory. In this case the game theory as to whether a minority of miners will gain an advantage by capitalising on a private market that the overall network applies friction too otherwise.

This wasn't just a change from an int to a long, or the parallelisation of actions. This is a change that has external effects and that should affect whether you ack or nack.