Maybe need more devs and better management on knots or roll back 30 on core and do some soul searching.

I wouldn't fund "infinite bitcoin development" either, but the network depends on a minimum required maitanance. If the developers do not maintain the software, the bitcoin will die.

If the choice is between:

a. Fund no development

b. Fund extra fancy development

b. is the game theory optimal solution for the developers.

a. funds no development, therefore giving developers an incentive to fund extra fancy development.

If Saylor is correct and I am correct in my belief that human action is based on incintives, both scenarios will eventually kill bitcoin.

The game theory optimal solution, assuming we want bitcoin to survive is to fund the changes you want to see in the world.

If I had $200,000,000 to buy #bitcoin in 2014 instead of $20, I would pay huge bounties for software maintanance and critical bug fixes to change the incentives.

There’s a company that has a Bitcoin utility use case (not pics or vids) that can’t use cheaper witness data for some reason, and won’t fit in the 80 byte filtered OP_RETURN limit, and they really want to use the P2P network of nodes because their data is time-sensitive and they want to get it to as many miners as possible as fast as possible.

So they are creating transactions that are technically valid with unspendable outputs because there’s no filter on that. But it means every node must carry all these unspendable UTXOs forever, which is bloaty and not nice.

Whether you agree with this company or not, they found a way to do what they want to do while getting around current filters and they probably won’t be the last ones to do so.

The hope is that this company or others that come along later with similar ambitions would use a bigger OP_RETURN instead, if that were an option.

It is also possible that someone will come up with a use case for bigger OP_RETURN data that is less time sensitive. If lots of nodes are filtering those transactions they could go around the mempool and submit to large miners directly. IF this got valuable enough it could put smaller miners at a disadvantage to bigger miners in fees.

If someone just wants to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin, it already costs much less to put it in witness data, so “spamming” OP_RETURN doesn’t make a lot of sense and if you REALLY want to, its technically valid right now anyway.

i forgot knots people don't do their own research, they just consumed regurgitated nonsense from podcasters

sipa and others have already explained it in detail on stack overflow. I am frankly tired of explaining it. go there to learn why the change was made

I have a highlight on my feed that explains this

because it's actively harmful to the network

Yes. It's part of the protocol and many clients support it. You can always choose to use clients that ignore user reports. Up to you.

also filters don't stop these anyways

Bitcoin needs to win the convenience war. It doesn't matter how good a technology is - people are so lazy that even the slightest friction in adoption will completely turn them off. Oh and the network effect of course. As usual.

#bitcoin

The ever increasing Knots node count, and decreasing core node count, is a reason to be hopeful. This is bitcoin's immune system in action. Bitcoin has survived other civil wars and it will survive this.

Yeah, this is the most uncertain I’ve been about #bitcoin ‘s future…it’s a very strange and uncomfortable uncertainty indeed. The whole thing just feels like a state-sponsored attack.

Here is my normie friendly analogy of the Core V Knots. Situation. Let me know how off I am.

Miners are ultimately incentivized to mine the most expensive transactions. Beyond that, whether they follow laws or moral principles is secondary (and I doubt morals play a big role here).

Storing data in OP_RETURN is costly. If someone pays to put data there → it will be mined.

Here’s how I understand the current debate: imagine email. Right now, people are stuffing messages into the To:, Cc:, and Bcc: fields, because the email body is too small in Bitcoin.

Core’s proposal is like saying: “Let’s expand the body of the email — the most expensive part, but also the part that can be pruned later — from 80 bytes to 100K. That way, if you really want to share a message, put it in the proper body instead of hiding it in the addressing fields.”

But the key is: if you want to use that field, you have to pay the real cost.

That’s the best analogy I can come up with. Does this explain the situation clearly, or am I missing something?

CSAM, spam, shitcoins, willingly or unwittingly relaying any, all are concerns. Ultimately it's about core devs pushing changes originating from a technocratic elite representing corporate interests that the community objects to. Knots is the vote against the logical fallacy *argument from authority*, the condescending tone of ignoring the community, and the apparent direction core is taking toward turning bitcoin into a shitcoin freeway.

I thought Walker talked a lot of sense and was a monetary maximalist, but seems that he was just faking it. I bet he was cheap to buy too.

open source software is powerful because anyone can verify, modify, distribute, and use without permission

a robust open source ecosystem empowers all of us to take agency over our lives

fighting with people over what software they run is mostly unproductive, run what you want, thats the whole point

There’s a generational blind spot happening with money that’s wild to witness. The older generation lived through decades of slow currency debasement and can’t see it for what it is, a systematic wealth transfer from regular people to those closest to the money printer. They think inflation and declining purchasing power is just “how economics works” because it happened gradually enough to feel normal.

Meanwhile, younger people are looking at Bitcoin and seeing something their parents can’t: that money doesn’t have to be controlled by governments, and that maybe, just maybe, we’ve been getting quietly robbed our entire lives through monetary policy. The changing of the guard isn’t just about age, it’s about fundamentally different beliefs about who should control the money supply and whether citizens should have a say in their own economic destiny.