Replying to Avatar π–‹π–Žπ–†π–™π–‰π–Šπ–“π–Žπ–Šπ–— (Β―`◕‿◕´¯)

Yes, but if 99% of the nodes drop them, they won’t be reliably propagated.

A block can hold 3000 to 4000 txn now, if you make it to 100k OP_Return the default settings, then a block with max 100k OP_Return can only hold 40 txn.

You would increase the blockchain bloat and make it more expensive for everyone.

Why is that good for anyone?

What is a good use case for 100k OP_Return that you can’t do with a hash and storing the data somewhere else?
Avatar
rieger_san 3mo ago

It can, that’s the point πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

And what you idiots always ignore is that the current setting can be changed and is not fixed

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
π–‹π–Žπ–†π–™π–‰π–Šπ–“π–Žπ–Šπ–— (Β―`◕‿◕´¯) 3mo ago

In order for a transaction to be mined, it must reach the miner who will include it in a block. If 99% of the nodes reject that transaction, it will severely delay its propagation. You are simply too ignorant to comprehend this. πŸ€¦πŸΌβ€β™€οΈ

Furthermore, removing this limit will not reduce spam because Segwit is still 75% cheaper when storing large payloads.

You have yet to provide me with an answer regarding a good use case for 100k OP_Return.

WHAT IS IT?

Avatar
rieger_san 3mo ago

Les than 1% is needed to relay transactions without a delay

Avatar
π–‹π–Žπ–†π–™π–‰π–Šπ–“π–Žπ–Šπ–— (Β―`◕‿◕´¯) 3mo ago

Then why force this change? Are you really this stupid?

Avatar
rieger_san 3mo ago

Because the setting is useless! Are you really this stupid?

Avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 3mo ago

No, he is not. But you, Monero shitcoiner, are a disgusting provocateur.

How are you coping after the second 51% attack on Monero?