That sounds like the right thing to do.
I'm not worried about going direct to mining pools. I think it's about the utxo set and not even the size but probably the added processing needed to do the IDB and full validation. I was trying to think of the absolute worst case scenario were every single sat is used in its own utxo and inscribed with the max 4mb of garage data. How big would that make the utxo, how long would it take to get there and how long would it take to do a full validation. Then try that scenario with what might actually be possible in reality. Like how bad could it actually get. I didn't really think it through. Full nodes need to be able to do full validation and not rely on shortcuts. So writing all that out it does seem like unlocking op return is good as it would require less processing during full validation. And then if you still see transactions using inscriptions or whatever then you can reason that it's adisguised attack on Bitcoin.
Display replies chronologically
I think your last paragraph in the answer needs some edited and expansion. It confused me a bit
I'm guessing each time it's done there's less impact... And I would bet it keeps trending that way. So no change needed.
And what greater tragic comedy could there be than the death of bitcoin stemming from a debate on mempool policy.
Ya I already screenshotted and shared this so hopefully you don't make me look like a fool
I would have to defer to the Suspicious Observer YouTube guy. I haven't had a chance to watch to any of his recent videos to see what he says about it
From the bits and pieces I've read it almost seems like there was too much power and then something went out of wack. Most people were thinking that a sudden drop of renewable power would be the problem... Like you stated this doesn't seem to be the case here.
This is his grandfather or maybe great grandfather….
Alan Watts would say the same thing basically… just replace Zen with “secrets of the universe” in the below passage
https://www.organism.earth/library/document/out-of-your-mind-7)

I support CTV and CSFS because it will help hodlers have vaults (aka reactive security) and help decentralzing mining payouts (payment pools and channels)
REF:
How can CTV or CFFS be used against hodlers and the original Bitcoin ethos? As all great things can be used for good and bad… are the people championing this change thinking long and hard about how it can be used for bad and trying to mitigate the bad? Or at least explain how it can be used for bad so users are prepared and know what to look for? Or is it really that safe that there aren’t any practical risks to hodlers when they’re ready to be spenders? I’m sure this discussion is scattered around the internet but maybe you can give your thoughts from what you’ve seen so far? I lean towards leaving it out… at the risk of it being even harder to implement later, after it’s proven to be net good.
Did you ever watch the film (or the preview) for the 2015 movie, The Walk?
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8i18zx
👌
It was the only movie that I thought the imax 3D experience actually worked well.



