That new logo just looks like an alternative bitcoin with infinite supply and no 21 million cap. lol
FWIW, I agree with you on the whole mempool, spam, OP_RETURN, debate. But just wanted to clarify on this scenario in particular.
Are you referring to a stale channel state that's been published that is now outside of the CSV timelock period? Yes, competing for confirmation in a block in that case would be paramount.
But prior to that you'd still have plenty of time (days) to penalize a stale force close attempt due to the to_self_delay that you set for the channel when you opened it. A time-locked transaction wouldn't validate on any node prior to that.
The bitcoin conference will go the way of most conferences. It will become corporatized buzz and sales that fails to deliver actual meaningful discussion about bitcoin's real value in the world.
Just look at the RSA conference that just took place. Every year it gets worse and worse and is just corporations taking advantage of the year's latest buzz word to sell more products in a way that is just security theater for corporations. This year it was AI.
It generates emotion which is the entire basis of thinking for most people these days.
Yes it is. I am not even a fan of this genre of game. But I have been loving every second of this game. The environments are beautiful, the combat is addicting, and the story is so well written.
I love my Polestar 2. Very well built car.
This is why it is so important to understand how bitcoin technically functions before making emotional arguments about "cat JPEGs on the blockchain."
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/script/return/
The whole entire reason why OP_RETURN exists in the first place is to avoid far worse and more damaging data storage schemes to the bitcoin blockchain.
nostr:nevent1qqsg8eedsj064kfrzldy7qvk9xctt2j0haw07xkrgzvk5utyrz0eg3gx4cval
It is very clear that a lot of people don't understand how OP_RETURN functions or why and how it even became a feature to begin with.
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/script/return/
I highly recommend educating one's self first before forming an opinion.
For sure. I don't like NFTs as much as the next person, but this isn't really about NFTs. You don't design network protocols based on market sentiment. As we all know, markets will stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.
How would they be driven out if it is economically more profitable and viable?
This is what Maxwell had to say in full context. The point he is making is that you don't want to incentive alternative relay networks. Nodes, core or knots or otherwise, will still validate and relay valid blocks with valid transactions in them. But it hurts decentralization if you're validating mined blocks that have lots of txns that were never in your mempool. 
Big miners can profit more from these alternative txn relay networks and if you push profitable use cases to these alternatives simply because the public default relay network is too restrictive, then that is far more harmful than the alternative.
Every time I read something by Greg Maxwell, it is always so well thought out and reasoned. We don't deserve him, but so very grateful to have him in the community.
In what way did the *proposed* change that was proposed on its technical merits alone not fit your desired "culture?" Conforming to your desired "culture" was never a requisite for protocol development. And you say I'm the one on a high horse?
I shouldn't need to say that. If you read the originating mailing list discussion that started the debate, then you'd know who Antoine is.
https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ
Yes, he's a bitcoin/lightning contributor and more.
Your original response was you acknowledging you responded before reading my post thoroughly. Now rather than clicking the link I provided that goes into detail the rationale for removing the OP_RETURN limit, you disregard it asking me to provide you reasoning for reading it. In doing so, you expose yourself for not knowing that the person who wrote what I linked to is the one that started the debate in the mailing list and thus have shown you also haven't read that discussion there either.
The logic for removing it is sound from a protocol perspective. Keeping the limit in place risks more centralization, more transactions moving to alternative relay networks, and more censorship. Both of which harms the network more than anything that would come from having no limit with OP_RETURN data.
"Honest actors?" Please, stop with that narrative. Pieter Wuille, Adam Gibson, Antoine Poinsot, Jameson Loop, Greg Maxwell, Sjors Provoost, and more...these are all highly respected developers in the community that have worked tirelessly to build bitcoin to what it is today. To insinuate they have nothing but its best long term interests in mind is unproductive.
You've already made up your mind then.
A very well written and thought out post that every node runner (and bitcoiner) should read on the OP_RETURN subject.
You contradicted yourself by answering yes to timestamps.
Care to elaborate? Because that's not what's happening.
When you actually start to think about what a bitcoin transaction is, you realize how silly this statement is and begin to understand what Waxwing is saying.
If I just consolidate my UTXOs, is that a "financial" transaction?
What about when bitcoin had no monetary value? Were those financial transactions?
Bitcoin users have been embedding data into txns from the very first block. Are those "financial" transactions?
What about timestamps? Are those allowed?
It is a slippery slope when you start to dictate what transactions are allowed and which ones aren't.
This isn't about making sure hosting a node is sustainable. There are already size limits for both txns and blocks that keep ongoing storage requirements of hosting a node linear. What we're talking about is the fundamental ethics of whether or not certain transactions should be censored or not.
And then there are the very real consequences about what that censorship can do to the open protocol by incentivizing the use of private txn broadcast networks outside of the default mempool or incentivizing data storage in UTXOs which actually does make running a node and mining more costly.
"Easier" doesn't mean cheaper. It is far cheaper to just witness space as is being done today.
It doesn't harm node runners since the DB growth won't change and is still linear regardless of any limit removal.
Having the current arbitrary OP_RETURN limit in place does however have potential downsides though since it can incentivize alternatives to the default mempool (bad for node runners) and can lead to UTXO bloat since the alternative is to continue using witness data.
A lot of good discussion in the group where more info can be read:
BBC Verify that’s a look at DOGE’s claims about how much money they’ve saved. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
Here is another good illustration.
You pick some strange hills to die on sometimes.
If you don't uphold the law even for your enemies, then you might as well not even have law.
It is very annoying when someone's critique of bitcoin is "We're 16 years in and I still can't buy my coffee with it."
Just shows they really don't get it.
Reading more about the Griffin dilemma is enlightening. As a bitcoiner, it just reinforces even more why we need a new global reserve currency that is independent from any single nation.
It should be noted that the $44k bracket is an income bracket. That means unless you brought in $0 in taxable income for the year, you can't harvest an entire $44k in cap gains at a 0% tax rate.
He's never understood bitcoin at all. Back when it was him, Jack Dorsey, and Cathie Wood on a podcast together talking about bitcoin several years ago, it became abundantly clear he didn't know what he was talking about on the subject matter.
Any plans to ship to NY in the future?
...on a side note, NYDFS sucks.
Finally deleted my X account for good. Haven't really used it in a long time and it was long overdue for deletion.
Agreed. I wish I understood a lot of the more complicated math subjects. If I spent more time understanding it in my youth, I probably would've got into some interesting computer science fields such as cryptography which I find fascinating.
You either have to completely ignore those 4 pillar of scientific analysis I mentioned or accept that saturated fat is very damaging to cardiovascular and metabolic health. There is no other reconciliation of that.
But like I said, don't take my word for it. Eat a diet high in saturated fat and then go get your apolipoprotein-B levels checked with a blood test. If you want to conclude that maintaining high levels of apolipoprotein-B in in your bloodstream is safe, then that's your risk and not mine.