The OP_RETURN discussion is not new and dates back to 2014 when Bitcoin Core 0.9.0 was released with the OP_RETURN policy included which was intended to discourage more egregious forms of spam. At that time, 40 bytes was the default max datacarriersize limit across all node implementations; this was and still is sufficiently large for tying data to a transaction (32 bytes for a hash and 8 bytes for a unique identifier). Core subsequently increasing the default to 80 bytes was an entirely voluntary decision and in no way contradicts the design objective that OP_RETURN creates a provably-prunable output to minimise damage caused by data storage schemes, which have always been discouraged as abusive. There are also other good technical reasons which I have chosen to retain the lower default in Bitcoin Knots, and no justification for increasing it.

It is not my intention, nor that of my team at

Ledger show is out with #[0]​, #[1]​, Harry Suddock and Ledger CEO Pascal.

There must be a limit to how much data is transferred across the bitcoin network in order to keep the ability to run and use your own node accessible. A node is required to interact with the global bitcoin network - if you do not use your own node then you must trust someone else's node. If nodes become inaccessible to run then the network will centralize around the remaining entities that operate them - threatening the censorship resistance at the core of bitcoin's value prop.

The bitcoin protocol uses two main mechanisms to keep node operation costs low - a limit on the amount of data in each block and a robust dynamic transaction fee market.

PATRIOT ACT 2.0

-------------

$1M Fine and Up To 20 Years in Prison❗️❗️❗️

The RESTRICT Act, introduced by Senators Warner and Thune, aims to block or disrupt transactions and financial holdings involving foreign adversaries that pose risks to national security. Although the primary targets of this legislation are companies like Tik-Tok, the language of the bill could potentially be used to block or disrupt cryptocurrency transactions and, in extreme cases, block Americans’ access to open source tools or protocols like Bitcoin.

The Act creates a redundant regime paralleling OFAC without clear justification, it significantly limits the ability for injured parties to challenge actions raising due process concerns, and unlike OFAC it lacks any carve-out for protected speech.

How many bank runs gonna happen before people realize the only safe way to hold large amounts of wealth is self custody bitcoin?

Clip from my upcoming interview with Michael Sonnenshein from Grayscale.