Pretending that attacks on bitcoin are fine is very sad to see from Lyn. Of course we all know it's not a threat right now, we are thinking years down the road.
This type of low key thinking might be great for views on X, but it's just bullshit here on Nostr. 
OP return size doesn't affect UTXO bloat, which was/is the biggest issue.
Node-level filtering doesn't realistically affect what gets put into the timechain for consensus transactions that someone is willing to pay for.
So I think those who are concerned about those issues and are bearish enough on monetary transactions (i.e. they don't think they'll price those other things out over the long run) should focus on consensus changes. Those likely won't get anywhere either, but it would be less performative.
Lyn..tons of respect for your intellect
But don't you think it is hard to appropriately price storing data FOREVER?
The issue is fiat agents can bloat the network with NFTs and pass on the fiat mispricing to node runners. The OP RETURN debate can be a bit of a red herring bc it does not adequately address the root problem. BUT there is an unadressed problem introduced by ordinals and it HAS to be addressed. Filter afficionados are directionally correct.
i think this post describes the disconnect between the two camps perfectly:
On one side we have the autists who are like: "this doesn't solve the problem, so let's remove it"
on the other side we have the idealists who say:
"even if it doesn't work, we have to virtue signal some kind of anti spam message"
There should just two blockchains, one for transactions, and another for everything else.
it's not about it being fine or not. Of course it's not "fine".
The question is, is the countermeasures effective or not
The core Devs don't think there needs any countermeasures.
I'm not sure if that is true. Maybe some of them do think that, I don't know.
I think they mostly just have a different opinion on what is effective and what is not.
They mostly have outside VC interests to expand opsec and profit from spamming bitcoin.
who specifically? this seems like a wild claim, but I'm open to beleive it if there are receipts
You can read their social media posts. Guy Swan has made podcasts about it too.
That's not very specific... but thanks anyway, I will try to learn more about it
You need to check for yourself and make up your own mind. It doesn't matter what I think at the end of the day.
Yeah agree with that. I kinda understand both sides argument, but I don't think that malicious intent is part of it, at least i haven't seen any evidence of it. that's why i asked for a source for those claims
