I don’t wanna be a member of a club that does not want me as a member.

Fuck those guys!

GN, nostr fam!

nostr:npub1xdxugv0dxpygjlrefj88jvg43dhj2fwwlmhuc3tsjvelpuvhvetsfez7aj what does the note in your zap mean? :))

What does it do? Blows all over?

I did not say that. It rejects them from your own mempool but once they are mined, you have to retrieve it from other nodes that know that transaction.

Having a latency in syncing with the network and losing your edge to other miners is not an upside.

😂

Down with a nasty cold/flu —haven’t been this sick in years!

But on the bright side, sick leave is the perfect time to catch up on movies my girlfriend has zero interest in.

Currently watching Total Recall (1990).

I have heard this argument from some of the smartest people around me. It’s so frustrating!

Appreciate your view on this, brother.

Saying that might make you feel better about yourself, but it is still no argument for the efficacy of the OP_RETURN cap.

I’ve been listening to every party involved in this debate. That’s the conclusion I’ve come to.

نه، کاربرد بیت‌کوین پول بودن و انتقال ارزشه. حالا این وسط یه داده‌های غیرتراکنشی هم لاجرم وارد بلاک می‌شه. چیزی که جلوشون رو می‌گیره یا دلسردشون می‌کنه هزینه‌ی تراکنش و کاهش ارزش داده‌های غیرپولی هست.

آره، نودهایی که محدودیت رو اعمال می‌کنن همچنان این تراکنش‌ها رو به عنوان تراکنش مشروع به رسمیت می‌شناسن، چون این تراکنشا با سیاست ممپول خودشون همخونی نداره، اما ناقض قوانین اجتماع یا همون

Consensus

نیست.

چنان چه توی آغاز همین متن هم توضیح دادم، نودی که این تراکنش‌ها رو توی ممپول خودش نمی‌پذیره، وقتی اون تراکنش‌ها در بلاکی ماین شدن، باید از بقیه‌ی نودها استعلام کنه که اون تراکنش‌ها رو بهش ارسال کنن.

فرض کن این نود ماینر باشه و نخواد اسپم رو توی بلاکش قرار بده. توی این مدت که داره تراکنشای ناموجود رو از بقیه‌ی نودها دریافت می‌کنه، ماینرای دیگه شروع کردن به کار کردن روی بلاک بعدی و از اونا عقب می‌افته.

بهترین کار اینه که بذاریم کاهش ارزش داده‌های غیرمالی افراد رو از شرکت در اسپم دلسرد کنه.

For the simple reason that they check out. Is it a falsehood that it causes a latency in synching with the network because a node with a lower OP_RETURN limit needs to retrieve the missing transaction from other nodes that have had them in their mempool?

Is it incorrect to say that if the limit is lowered, the transaction with a higher OP_RETURN would end up in the mempool of a miner willing to take the transaction fees from it?

I would love to learn which part is a lie and why it is a lie and I’d readily change my mind.

یکی از دلایل اینه که برای کارکردهای مختلف حدهای بالاتری نیاز هست و اگر توسعه‌دهنده‌ها بخوان برای هر بار بالا بردن حد دور هم بشینن و تصمیم بگیرن، وقتی رو که می‌تونستن روی کدنویسی و بهبود بیت‌کوین بذارن، مجبورن روی مناظره روی تغییر حد بذارن و بعداً که حد بیشتری برای یه کاربرد عملی مورد نیاز شد، مجبورن دوباره این مناظرات رو تکرار کنن.

توی این مدت، ماینرایی که حد بالاتری رو قبول می‌کنن کافیه خارج از بلاکچین پول دریافت کنن یا اجازه‌ی ارسال چنین تراکنشی روی چند نود وجود داشته باشه تا این تراکنش بالاخره ماین بشه.

این وسط فقط ماینری ضرر می‌کنه که این تراکنش رو قبول نکرده و از هزینه‌ی تراکنشش بهره نبرده.

مورد دوم ساده‌سازی کد هست و تعداد خطوط کد رو کمتر می‌کنه و نگهداری ازش رو راحت‌تر.

مورد سوم هم اینه که حتی همه‌ی نودها دست به یکی کنن (حتی ماینرها) و تراکنش بالاتر از ۸۰ بایت رو به ممپول راه ندن، تراکنشایی که نیاز به داده‌ی بیشتری داشته باشن با ارسال چند آپ‌ریترن یا، یه حالت مخرب، با ایجاد

bare multisig

و ساختن تراکنشی به ظاهر مالتی‌سیگ که پابلیک‌کیش نماینده‌ی یه داده‌ی بزرگ‌تر هست این داده رو روی بلاک‌چین ذخیره کنن. پس عملاً این کار جلوی نوشتن داده روی بلاک‌چین رو نمی‌گیره. پس بیهوده‌ست.

It became real!

Here’s a more detailed explanation of why I’ve changed my view and now support removing the OP_RETURN limit.

In a private chat with nostr:npub1s6z7hmmx2vud66f3utxd70qem8cwtggx0jgc7gh8pqwz2k8cltuqrdwk4c at the Bitcoin FilmFest , I asked if using Knots instead of Core poses any danger. He said "danger" is a strong word, but explained that when a new block is propagated, Knots may not recognize some transactions because its mempool rejected them due to default policy. As a result, there's latency—you have to fetch missing transactions from peers before you can mine the next block.

This means a miner who filters spam is slower to react and loses edge to miners who don’t. So spam ends up on-chain anyway, and only large miners benefit—whether through out-of-band payments or simply accepting high-fee transactions with bigger OP_RETURNs.

Even if most of the network runs Knots, one big miner is enough to mine such transactions. And not all OP_RETURN use is spam. Ocean, for example, used to block coinjoin transactions due to their OP_RETURN usage. I wouldn’t want to run a node that censors legitimate use cases.

When I supported the OP_RETURN limit, I even asked Sparrow to add Knots public nodes (https://github.com/sparrowwallet/sparrow/issues/1716#issuecomment-2872672114). nostr:npub1hea99yd4xt5tjx8jmjvpfz2g5v7nurdqw7ydwst0ww6vw520prnq6fg9v2 kindly responded that Knots doesn’t support BIP47, so it’d break features for users. That was another practical downside.

Also, if spam is destined for the chain, I’d rather mine it and earn the higher fees. I don’t care if someone’s NFT or bridge fails —I’m paid in sats. Let the fee market and block size be the filter. I’m not here to make economic judgments for others.

One concern I had was whether a higher OP_RETURN limit enables malicious code. But if attackers want to embed such arbitrary data required for the attack, they can use bare multisig to do so anyway. Limiting OP_RETURN won’t stop that.

I asked nostr:npub1c2d9mjwwfq0gw9jya6zesywuzzs4ngzp06wf9dcl0kdtmks706dsv6kxar whether we could disable bare multisig. He said it would require censoring pubkeys, raising the question: who decides what’s censored? A slippery slope. In that light, the cure is worse than the poison.

In my thinking, if a real existential threat emerges (for example the ability to crash the nodes by embedding malicious code as arbitrary data), then and only then a limit on OP_RETURN and bare multisig can be justified and that has to be done on the protocl level, not on the policy leve.

But if the side-effect of saving arbitrary data is higher transaction fees for a short time, I'm happy to collect those sats!

As history shows, crazes like Inscriptions fade. We’re already back to 1–3 sats/vByte. The high-fee spam phase is behind us.

And despite popular belief: mempools always clear. That’s a hill I’m willing to die on.

Thanks. Wish I had the chance to meet you IRL too. Looking forward to the next one :)

Back home from nostr:npub1rjtrs7xqdvj3588r9njrexh2n750j7jdwx9qs543nutmdsj6ljaqpfmp8a.

Had a great night’s sleep.

Now getting ready for the next #bitcoin

I’ve changed my mind—I’m now in favor of removing the OP_RETURN limit.

This shift largely came from a brief but enlightening conversation with nostr:npub1s6z7hmmx2vud66f3utxd70qem8cwtggx0jgc7gh8pqwz2k8cltuqrdwk4c at the nostr:npub1rjtrs7xqdvj3588r9njrexh2n750j7jdwx9qs543nutmdsj6ljaqpfmp8a .

Just got back from my trip and running low on energy, but I’ll share a more detailed note on this tomorrow.

Recorded an interview with nostr:npub1c2d9mjwwfq0gw9jya6zesywuzzs4ngzp06wf9dcl0kdtmks706dsv6kxar today.

Stay tuned for its release!