pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 16h \ parent \ on: Mom and Dad are Fighting....Again (Re: Bitcoin Core OP_RETURN Restrictions) bitcoin
It comes from some of the Ocean Mining people.
Luke's argument is that the disguising of program code in Witness is "the exploit" and this code serves no other purpose than to carry jpegs and nfts and arbitrary data?
So if mempools broadly and universally recognized this code as 'unnecessary' or 'non-standard'... then those transactions wouldn't get propagated and would be excluded. I think that's the "exploit" that @unschooled is referring to
Sure, right—sorry for the rhetorical question. My point is that it is a misleading representation to achieve more clout. I have tried to lay out my thoughts a bit more above: #968695
I do have a few thoughts on that. While it causes me some eyerolling that NFT creation and trading has been such a big use of blockspace in the past couple years, I much prefer people writing data to witness stacks where it is only needs to be processed once by every node and doesn’t get stored in the UTXO set, which was the popular approach before the introduction as OP_RETURN for harm reduction. We saw a bit of that with the brief counterparty/Stamps revival last year.
And while I’m no fan, I am not blind to the data that indicates that people have spent about $280M in the past two years to purchase blockspace for Inscriptions and Runes.
I’m afraid that "if everyone would just act against their financial incentives and do what I want" doesn’t seem a particularly convincing starting point for a hypothetical.
reply