Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar TKay

Here is my normie friendly analogy of the Core V Knots. Situation. Let me know how off I am.

Miners are ultimately incentivized to mine the most expensive transactions. Beyond that, whether they follow laws or moral principles is secondary (and I doubt morals play a big role here).

Storing data in OP_RETURN is costly. If someone pays to put data there → it will be mined.

Here’s how I understand the current debate: imagine email. Right now, people are stuffing messages into the To:, Cc:, and Bcc: fields, because the email body is too small in Bitcoin.

Core’s proposal is like saying: “Let’s expand the body of the email — the most expensive part, but also the part that can be pruned later — from 80 bytes to 100K. That way, if you really want to share a message, put it in the proper body instead of hiding it in the addressing fields.”

But the key is: if you want to use that field, you have to pay the real cost.

That’s the best analogy I can come up with. Does this explain the situation clearly, or am I missing something?

Avatar
OceanSlim 3mo ago

No. It's more like Cores proposal is let's get rid of the default limit because people can send emails with large bodies anyways if they want to. The default limit is pointless. There is no reason for these 300+ lines of code to exist.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.