Nostr Web Client

I will gladly civilly debate anyone on the OP_RETURN saga over audio. I believe I have found the ulterior motive for why these spammers want to force their limitless OP_RETURN policy settings on as many nodes as possible and can clearly articulate why this BIP should be closed for good and never be opened again.

Right now for a spammer to get a tx with over 80 bytes in the OP_RETURN they would have to go out of band to miner that will include their transactions in the next block they find. The miners that offer this service to spammers only find a small percentage of blocks which means these spam transactions can only occur every so often. If all bitcoin core node runners were to remove the OP_RETURN limits then all miners would see these spam transactions and include them in their block template making the spam occur regularly.

These guys can fork core and make this change but that doesn’t help because they NEED as many nodes as possible to propagate their txs so they have a higher chance of it being included in the next block.

Crizzo 8mo ago 💬 2

I've been following this as best I can as a non technical person, but I don't think you need to be technical to see that the arguments in favor are weak when considering the potential tradeoff of allowing unlimited arbitrary data to be recorded on chain. I really get a sense that there is an ulterior motive from core devs and others pushing this change and they are not being honest about their reasoning.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Murch 7mo ago 💬 5

Mike Tidwell and I have collected a bunch of questions and answers around the OP_RETURN debate here: stacker.news/items/971277

I would hope that this collection helps with understanding the perspective of Bitcoin Core contributors.

Crizzo 7mo ago 💬 1

These are way better explanations than anything I've found on nostr. Thank you for the link.

Bitpunk 7mo ago 💬 2

Is there currently a discussion going on about the witness discount as well, since it seems quite related to this whole saga?

:P 7mo ago

These guys continuously move the goal posts. Once you bring up the fact that spammers are not going to voluntarily pay more to stuff spam in the OP_RETURN they shift the conversation.

Murch 7mo ago 💬 1

How so? The observation that OP_RETURNs are more expensive for larger data payloads has been a central argument why "spam" is unlikely to increase overall by this change.

:P 7mo ago

Spammers are not going to stop using SW for OP_RETURN. The UTXO sets will continue to bloat.

The only things this change will do is help spammers propagate their spam and create new types of spam.

Murch 7mo ago

Not that I know

jgbtc 7mo ago

I read through that and it made me less supportive of this change. The motivation of core devs is clearly to make spam cheaper at the request of a company that is paying the same core devs to make this change. These devs have sold out, plain and simple. It's disgusting.

Gavin Green 7mo ago

Thanks guys, super usefull to get a quick summation of the situation.