I don't think the OP_RETURN limit changes were made with the expectation of attracting use cases that currently use UTXOs and the witness discount.
I think they were made in anticipation that there would be layer 2 solutions that need more immediate ways to anchor their state to the chain, like Citrea zkp's; using inscriptions would require two transactions across two different block heights (I thinl).
I think the case for Core bending the project to fit a specific business model chain use is pretty strong. That would be unfortunate, since the block size war was won by people who didn't think that the project should be led around by someone's short-sighted profit model.
If you hold #Bitcoin, do you have a stake in Citrea or any other business hoping to profit on L2?
No. So why should the HODLers, running the nodes, which are the network, give a shit what Citrea or anyone else wants on L2 on top of their network?
They shouldn’t.
Core have completely gone rogue here. All 5 maintainers need to go, that will be a signal to all the morons who have supported them that their input on Bitcoin is no longer desired and will not be accepted.
But does it really matter? It seems like the pushback to this move was anticipated and preemptively countered with shoring up installation base librerelay, which will be able to get these non-standard transactions to miners anyways.
Yes, it matters.
This is a social issue, not a technical one.
Money is a social technology and the network is saying - this is a monetary network.
You give these socially retarded halfwits FAR too much credit if you think they thought of any second or third order effects; they just want to exercise power.
That’s what leftists do, ie the blue haired fagg brigade at Core who are all leftoids and should be nowhere near my money.
Ding ding ding.
Vote no on social consensus for more liberal mempool policy! Keep bitcoin great!
