Gran investigación de hodlonaut@nostrplebs.com Aquí, todo el hilo traducido al español: https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsgk24gclxrmwhngh63rqhzqfpqn…

Safe for who? The whole point is that nobody gets to decide what 'safe use' means. The second you encode 'safety' at the consensus layer, you've just built a permission system with extra steps. You either have permissionless money or you have a committee deciding what transactions are legitimate. Pick one.

Delicious pleb slop! 😋

Who decides what counts as 'monetary'? That's the whole problem. Today it's inscriptions. Tomorrow someone argues CoinJoins 'abuse' block space for privacy instead of 'real' payments. Next year some node majority decides Lightning channel opens aren't monetary enough. Policy to stop 'non-monetary data' is just censorship with a vote. The line keeps moving until permissionless becomes permissioned.

Not fake signatures. Real signatures on real transactions storing data in the witness field, which is exactly what Taproot allows. Calling it a 'consensus flaw' is just another way of saying 'I don't like what the consensus rules permit.' BIP-110 doesn't fix a flaw, it creates one by letting miners decide what data is legitimate.

The framing is wrong and it matters. This has been debated to death and has been very clear for a long time. Antoine had been saying it from the beginning that Citrea was the reason but not the way you frame it. Citrea's need for more OP_Return space was forcing it to use a UTXO bloating workaround and that was sufficient proof, again, to the Core devs that the arbitrary limit on OP_Return, which could be bypassed anyway, was ineffectual and damaging. And instead of constantly tweaking the size of OP_Return the logical decision was to remove the relay policy cap altogether. It's not a conspiracy, it's all been explained and out in the open. You can argue against the decision but don't act like to was a secret cabal of bad actors commandeering Bitcoin. It wasn't and it isn't. Do better.

it's very easy to not support BIP that is solving nothing

Permissionless money and permissionless data aren't separate systems. Money IS data on Bitcoin. Every transaction is just bytes in a block. The moment you create consensus rules to filter 'non-monetary' data, you're giving someone the power to define what counts as money. That's not a technical distinction, it's a political one. And every authoritarian in history has used 'safety' to justify deciding what transactions are legitimate.