Amazing! Thanks for tuning in! 🙏🏻🧡

Russian hardware from late soviet era was pretty reliable. That was precisely the period when most non-founding members rushed into NATO. Aircraft built in the 1980s were still flying real missions well into the 2020s. It’s worth asking how many 40-year-old American aircraft are doing frontline security work today without endless refits and life-extension programs.

Meanwhile, Western fanboys like yourself spent years insisting that Russian equipment would fold instantly on the Ukrainian battlefield. Instead, we’ve watched hundreds of billions in top-of-the-line Western systems get reduced to scrap by what you smugly dismiss as “Stone Age Soviet tech.”

And if you genuinely believe Maduro’s abduction happened without Moscow’s agreement, I’ve got a shitcoin with your name on it. Deals like that don’t happen by accident. Much more likely, it was another quiet backroom trade by Putin and Trump - Maduro in exchange for more favourable terms for the peace deal in Ukraine, or something to that tune.

We literally can’t. If BIP110 were implemented, the technique shown by the Bitmex Research article would still work. And there is no limit to similar techniques for any other bit of Bitcoin data structures. The more restrictions placed, the more insidious the data injection techniques will become. And the more difficult it will be to build needed layer 2 & 3 technologies on Bitcoin.

It is not FUD to say that arbitrary changes to data limits and relay policies are likely to break L2/3 technologies. Lookup “Lightning network ephemeral anchors” for a pertinent example.

Are you so fanatical that you refuse to learn new information? No, you cannot limit arbitrary data, because Bitcoin *is* data.

1. The datacarrier size field for OP_RETURN data is and always has been a setting that users of the client software can change. The default setting was 83, and as of v30 it is 100000. Users (of any version) can change it to 83 if they want. Or 300000. Or whatever. It is up to the user. Only the default value changed.

2. If by "removed the filter" you mean the option to relay transactions with arbitrary data, you are wrong - the option is still there in v30. I just verified on my node.

3. The client software (there are several available) merely relays transactions from the mempool, it does not control what miners can include in blocks. Miners can use any client software they want, with any settings they want, and are incentivized to compose blocks with the highest fees. Once valid blocks are added, all nodes will add them to their copy of the chain.

4. The BitMex article that you refuse to read proves that spam can be stored in *any* area, even private keys. We cannot ban private keys. Ergo, we cannot ban spam. It is a moot discussion, because Bitcoin is made of data, and therefore data can be stored in Bitcoin. Get over it.

So the question is one of incentives: do we want to incentivize storing of arbitrary data in a non-essential field that can be pruned, or in non-prunable, essential fields like UTXOs? You seem to want permanent spam instead of prunable spam.

As weak as client settings are for incentivizing, maybe it will make a difference in the long run to suggest a prunable field for arbitrary data, so that nodes can choose a smaller data footprint by enabling the pruning option. Unfortunately inscriptions have already been invented, so the technology is available for storing data across UTXOs, permanently.

I'll never understand how people become so enamoured with drama queen narcissist losers like Roger and Luke, who revel in the attention they get from their stupid, ill-advised causes. Restricting data sizes willy-nilly out of blind spite for spam *will* break functionality for important technology like the Lightning network, and complex signature structures that will be important for business operations in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and undermine confidence in Bitcoin, just as it is becoming part of the global financial system.

How many ordinal spam nfts on monero?

It's kinda ironic for a bitcoiner to call monero a shitcoin.

I'm pretty sure monero doesn't allow dickbutt nfts on chain

> My preference is no spam.

Yeah you and pretty much everyone. So should we ban private keys, or what is your solution to the problem that BitMex Research proved?

I don’t think it’s meaningless. The fear mongering about increasing the default limit size in the client has been proven to be nonsense so far, since only 0.001% of transactions added have used it, and Bitcoin is not destroyed.

It’s going to take awhile to scan the blockchain data for transactions with OP_RETURN data >84 bytes before and after block 930600.

To clarify your claim, do you think that there is a greater number of transactions whose OP_RETURN data is >84 bytes after block 930600 than there was before that block, or by “huge increase in numbers”, do you mean a greater amount of data is stored in OP_RETURN after block 930600 than there was before?

Because that is meaningless comparisson.

If you compare number of OP_RETURNs larger than 83 Bytes before Core V30 and now you will see huge increase in the numbers now.

Did you miss the “since” part?

> since block height 930,600 (Core v30 release)

How is that “manipulative”? It seems very clear to me.

Why did spammers go to all of the trouble of creating inscriptions, which store data in non-prunable UXTO records, instead of OP_RETURN, which can be pruned off?

0.001% of transactions are larger than 83 bytes, on a prunable field, is bloat, in your view?