So what's next?

Next we're going to bombarded on why Bitcoin needs to softfork to fight spam.

Not a softfork to improve scale.

Not a softfork to improve privacy.

But a soft fork to fight spam. A battle that is designed to last forever.

Spoooks

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I'd be against it but not very strongly, if it was specifically OP_RETURN. But yeah it's a slippery slope to banning endlessly.

But I'd much rather be having *that* argument than the delusion we see today.

🎯

You can just ignore them. You don't owe anyone your attention.

Rule 1.

Core summarized 😂

Reality. Core isn’t a company. Bitcoin is anarchy, get used to it.

If we assume fiat/shitcoin issuers are spending several billion dollars a year to discredit the Bitcoin IETF rough consensus process, it all makes sense.

Bitcoin’s sole intent.

Keep your eye on the ball.

I don't understand why this whole thing wasn't nipped in the bud by just sticking with <=80byte op_return default relay policy. Makes zero sense.

Lol but softforking for scale isn't? At least there's spam, there's no demand for scale currently.

Just remove standardness from OP_RETURN, and the witness discount and economics solves spam. This isn't really that hard of a problem to solve.