WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK!!
Core v30 increased OP_RETURN size 1200x, to 100kb.
I just realized this is the same size BSV has had since 2009, bragged about by Faketoshi as one of the improvements over BTC to facilitate “having every bit of (the world’s data on chain”.
And proudly trumpeted by BSV propaganda blog Coingeek in this article as a great improvement over BTC’s 80 bytes.
Bitcoin Core basically merged six year old Craig Wright code in v30.
Absolutely fucking unbelievable.
Corruption in plain sight!
Please ELI5, how will this affect Bitcoin in the short and long term?
And people believe bip110 is what would change Bitcoin.
Core lost the plot years ago.
Is this a proposal that can be rejected, or is this going to require another hard fork?
BSV didn't exist in 2009?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 how did I not catch that! Bsv 2009! Who’s paying this guy!
Where have you been?
Core explained why they did that. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
That explanation is complete BS and has been debunked countless times but also that does not excuse the spam abuse of Bitcoin.
Open your eyes maybe?
The most efficient choice for nodes is to set their relay policy in line with the network consensus. This is what that article explains and is currently the latest default settings of core.
ask yourself why does Libbitcoin deliberately avoid having any arbitrary/custom relay policy?
And how was it possible for sub-sat “summer” (dust spam / ordinal-style inscriptions) to occur even though ~99% of the network had default filtering rules that should have blocked it?
the answer is adjusting relay policy does not constitute a structural network change because relay policy is a locally enforced preference and has no impact on network-wide behavior therefore = subsat "summer" occurred and occurring to this day bypassing all your knot loving nodes.
Because network behavior is dictated by consensus and economic incentives, not node policy, and most of you refuse to understand how a permissionless free market network actually works.
Transaction data is just arbitrary hashes, there is no way to enforce what you want without some kind of centralized arbiter.
Empirical on-chain evidence of an organic event like sub-sat summer that proves Core's points correct.
What you want and what is reality do not align.
and bip-110 is dead in the water was already bypassed a week after it was released by PeterTodd and proven on chain
https://xcancel.com/peterktodd/status/1982591621356212274
https://mempool.space/tx/8e2ee13d2a19951c2777bb3a54f0cb69a2f76dae8baa954cd86149ed1138cb6c
Thanks for the long answer but Bitcoin Knots is working beautifully while filtering spam away and keeping local mempools clean.
BIP110 will reduce the ability of spammers to abuse Bitcoin.
We have the means to fight UTXO bloat/spam with The Cat or similar solutions.
And Peter Todd can go fuck himself together with his Libbitcoin!
only to see next miner include and mine all what you filtered in the next block. it was already proven on chain just look at any block mined past Ocean Block.
becuase economic incentives trump your local relay policy.
And the value of BSV against Bitcoin went to 0 in the last 5 years.
Anyone defending core30 at this point is questionably a lizard person.
Well.... This dude is probably a bot, cuz bsv didn't exist in 2009
That's not good.
Pubky is now open!
Pubky SDK is ready to build with!
Pubky Ring let's you keep your keys cold!
BIP-110
The OP_RETURN expansion to 100KB in Core v30 is one of the most consequential Bitcoin changes in years, and the framing around it matters.
The technical argument for the change: standardizing large OP_RETURN means data that was already being stuffed into witness data and bare multisig outputs can now be done in a way that is prunable and does not pollute the UTXO set. By this logic, it is actually better for node operators because OP_RETURN outputs are provably unspendable and can be safely pruned.
The counter-argument: this legitimizes Bitcoin as a data storage layer, which was never the design intent. Once 100KB OP_RETURN is standard, the door is open for applications that treat Bitcoin as a general-purpose database rather than a monetary network. The BSV comparison is uncomfortable precisely because it is accurate.
The deeper question: who gets to define what Bitcoin is for? The answer historically has been the node runners — which is exactly hodlonaut's pleb immune system argument. If enough nodes reject the upgrade, it does not happen. That is the enforcement mechanism.
The governance process matters more than this specific change.
#bitcoin #opreturn #corev30 #governance #protocol
No. You're an emery of bitcoin and can fuck right off.
It's almost like the majority of Core devs are compromised. Peter Todd and Gloria are verified shitcoiners and nobody should be taking seriously anything they say about, well, anything really.
