Is the Earth printing money?
The replicator (3d print everything..ator) will lead us out of Labor/Producer matrix to the next move for humanity. I think this goes perfect with nostr:nprofile1qyfhwue69uhkcmmrv9kxsmmnwsargwpk8yq3gamnwvaz7tmpv4nkjueww468smewdahx2qpqs05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sgjmwnq thesis.
Great documentary on Apple +
A little fun with AI
Here’s a Bitcoin/sats-themed parody of “Money” by Pink Floyd, using the same rhythm and attitude of the original song — sharp, punchy, a bit rebellious.
⸻
🎵
Sats!
Get away from fiat, it’s a crime.
Stack ’em up while you still got time.
Sats!
It’s a gas —
Stackin’ sats, not chasin’ cash.
Cold wallet, seed phrase locked,
Government’s shocked, they can’t stop the block.
New money, cryptographic honey,
Decentralized and kind of funny.
If you ask, “What backs that math?”
I’ll say code and nodes, not printing wrath.
More of us need to read these.
A couple of bitcoin theme stencils for the kids.
New print. Was just a little frustrated today.
https://www.printables.com/model/1290303-the-tough-love-pill
战斗，战斗，战斗。你就是改变
might this work? 
This is an interesting problem.
The debate over changing the OP_RETURN size limit in Bitcoin Core, particularly the proposal to remove the current 80-byte (or 83-byte, as mentioned in some sources) cap, stems from a mix of technical, philosophical, and practical considerations. The proposal, notably put forward by Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd, has sparked significant controversy within the Bitcoin community. Below is a detailed explanation of why some Bitcoin Core developers support this change, based on the available information:
### Reasons Bitcoin Core Developers Want to Change OP_RETURN
1. **Improving Network Efficiency and Reducing UTXO Bloat**:
- **Current Issue**: The 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN forces some projects to use workarounds, such as embedding data in unspendable transaction outputs or Taproot transactions, to store larger data payloads. These workarounds increase the size of the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set, which all Bitcoin full nodes must track to validate transactions. A larger UTXO set consumes more memory and storage, slowing down the network and increasing operational costs for node runners.
- **Proposed Benefit**: By removing the OP_RETURN size limit, developers like Peter Todd argue that data can be stored more efficiently in provably unspendable OP_RETURN outputs, which do not bloat the UTXO set. This reduces the harmful effects of current data storage practices, such as those used by Ordinals and Inscriptions, which embed data in Taproot transactions. Supporters, including Pieter Wuille and Sjors Provoost, note that this change could also mitigate mempool fragmentation and network congestion, as seen during the 2023 Ordinals boom when Binance temporarily suspended Bitcoin withdrawals due to blockchain congestion.[](https://bitcoinethereumnews.com/bitcoin/is-bitcoin-becoming-an-altcoin-op_return-change-divides-the-community/)[](https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/04/30/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy)[](https://bitrss.com/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy-84584)
- **Example**: Peter Todd has stated, “Entities are using unspendable outputs in lieu of OP_RETURN outputs. Precisely because of the size limit. This increases the UTXO set size unnecessarily, a harmful effect of having the arbitrary OP_RETURN output limitations.”[](https://bitcoinethereumnews.com/bitcoin/is-bitcoin-becoming-an-altcoin-op_return-change-divides-the-community/)
2. **Reflecting Existing Practices and Simplifying Code**:
- **Bypassing the Limit**: The current 80-byte limit is already being bypassed through alternative methods, such as embedding data in Taproot transactions or using forked versions of Bitcoin Core. Todd argues that formalizing higher limits would align Bitcoin Core with these existing practices, reducing the need for inefficient workarounds.[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-lifting-op-return-size-limit-sparks-debate-2504/)[](https://www.cryptopolitan.com/bitcoin-devs-divided-over-todds-proposal/)
- **Code Simplification**: Removing the arbitrary size restriction simplifies Bitcoin’s codebase, as it eliminates the need to enforce a limit that is easily circumvented. This makes the protocol more consistent and easier to maintain.[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-lifting-op-return-size-limit-sparks-debate-2504/)
3. **Supporting Legitimate Use Cases**:
- **Sidechains and Bridges**: Developers argue that relaxing OP_RETURN limits would benefit applications like sidechains and cross-chain bridges, which often require embedding small amounts of metadata in transactions. These use cases can drive more transaction volume, increasing fees for miners and potentially strengthening the network’s economic model.[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-lifting-op-return-size-limit-sparks-debate-2504/)
- **Market Demand**: Supporters like Pieter Wuille have noted, “The demand exists,” suggesting that restricting OP_RETURN pushes data storage to less transparent or efficient methods outside the public relay network, which could cause greater harm.[](https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/04/30/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy)[](https://bitrss.com/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy-84584)
4. **Reducing Miner Centralization Risks**:
- **Out-of-Band Transactions**: Some posts on X suggest that the current limit encourages data-heavy transactions to be sent directly to miners or processed outside the public mempool, potentially leading to miner centralization. By allowing larger OP_RETURN outputs, these transactions could be handled within the standard relay network, promoting transparency and decentralization.
- **Example**: A user on X noted, “Part of the rationale for this OP_Return change is reducing the risk these kinds of transactions happen out of band/out of mempool and are sent to miners (miner centralization, etc).”
5. **Historical Context and Precedent**:
- **Evolving Limits**: The OP_RETURN limit has been adjusted before. Introduced in 2014 with Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 to allow 80 bytes of data, it was reduced to 40 bytes due to spam concerns but later increased back to 80 bytes in Bitcoin Core 0.11.0. This history shows that the limit is not set in stone and has been modified to balance network needs.[](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29554/explanation-of-what-an-op-return-transaction-looks-like)[](https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/0.11.0/)[](https://btcinformation.org/en/developer-guide)
- **Prunable Outputs**: OP_RETURN was designed to create provably unspendable outputs that nodes can prune, reducing the long-term burden on the blockchain compared to other data storage methods. Supporters argue that expanding its capacity aligns with this original intent.[](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN)[](https://blog.bitmex.com/dapps-or-only-bitcoin-transactions-the-2014-debate/)
### Counterarguments and Context
While some developers support the change, others, like Luke Dashjr and Jason Hughes, strongly oppose it, arguing that it could:
- **Encourage Spam**: Removing the limit might lead to excessive non-financial data (e.g., images, JPEGs, or illegal content) being stored on the blockchain, increasing block sizes, transaction fees, and node operating costs.[](https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/04/30/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy)[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-community-divided-proposed-op-return-change-2504/)[](https://99bitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-news-who-will-win-the-op_return-war/)
- **Deviate from Bitcoin’s Purpose**: Critics view Bitcoin as a financial-first protocol, not a general-purpose data storage system. Dashjr called the proposal “utter insanity” and warned it could degrade Bitcoin’s monetary focus, likening it to turning Bitcoin into a “worthless altcoin.”[](https://bitcoinethereumnews.com/bitcoin/is-bitcoin-becoming-an-altcoin-op_return-change-divides-the-community/)[](https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2025/04/30/bitcoin-debate-on-looser-data-limits-brings-to-mind-the-divisive-ordinals-controversy)[](https://bitcoinethereumnews.com/bitcoin/bitcoin-community-divided-over-op_return-proposal-as-experts-warn-of-potential-risks/)
- **Set a Dangerous Precedent**: Opponents like Willem Schroe of Botanix Labs argue that changing standard rules for convenience could undermine Bitcoin’s conservative development ethos, especially since workarounds already exist.[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-lifting-op-return-size-limit-sparks-debate-2504/)[](https://www.cryptopolitan.com/bitcoin-devs-divided-over-todds-proposal/)
### Why the Debate Matters
The OP_RETURN debate reflects deeper tensions in the Bitcoin community about the protocol’s identity: Should it remain a minimalist financial layer, or evolve to accommodate broader use cases? The proposal (GitHub pull request #32359) is still under review, and its outcome could influence Bitcoin’s scalability, decentralization, and role in the cryptocurrency ecosystem. The intensity of the discussion, reminiscent of the 2014 OP_RETURN Wars and the 2017 Bitcoin Cash hard fork, underscores the stakes involved.[](https://www.ainvest.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-proposes-lifting-op-return-size-limit-sparks-debate-2504/)[](https://99bitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-news-who-will-win-the-op_return-war/)
### Critical Perspective
While supporters argue for efficiency and practicality, the opposition’s concerns about spam and mission creep are not baseless. Bitcoin’s blockchain is a scarce resource, and unrestricted data storage could strain its decentralized nature, especially for smaller node operators. However, the claim that this change would “turn Bitcoin into a worthless altcoin” seems hyperbolic, as the core monetary functions would remain intact. The truth likely lies in a balance: acknowledging the demand for data storage while enforcing mechanisms (e.g., fee structures) to prevent abuse. The 2014 precedent shows that compromises, like adjusting the limit rather than removing it entirely, are possible.
Why are most banksters socialists? Is it a fiat thing?
American industrialist vs Canadian banker.
Bring it on!!