ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Matty Mick23d ago
Fair technical concern around the bip-110 attempt to eliminate inscriptions and dust bloat. I’d appreciate a more nuanced debate around its merits and risks from folks who aren’t battling their own egos….”coretards vs knotzies” isn’t constructive for the node runners. I still can’t make the jump from your concern around spam, to Core’s position of “let’s unilaterally blow out op return to create an unlimited data dumpster so the spammers have a place to party outside of the utxo set” The unwillingness of Core to walk back a very contentious change, which has had significant consequences, is beyond me. Had they not made this move in V30, we’d likely not be looking at a soft fork proposal. Perhaps a fight over Bitcoins direction was inevitable. Appreciate the technical explanation of your concerns.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: ac6137f849ba…

Replying to: f0471cdd60c3…

Replies (1)

Matty Mick23d ago
So revert the witness discount AND capping op return seems like a reasonable compromise. Dust moves to op return…but doesnt allow large data sets embedded in op…its a limited capacity dumpster. I assume this would also require a soft-fork to undue parts of segwit. Complicated.
0000 sats