pull down to refresh

154 sats \ 3 replies \ @Filiprogrammer 5 May \ on: Summation of retiring the 80-Byte OP_RETURN Limit by instagibbs bitcoin
Option 3 earned broad, though not perhaps unanimous, support.
perhaps
write
preview
170 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 5 May
Sorry to sound like an ass, but deciding whether a proposed code change is the right path forward is not a public vote—it’s a technical discussion. You have to make arguments that convince the project contributors to influence the outcome.
As far as I can tell, there is a lot of culturally motivated opposition and some poorly substantiated doom-saying, but I have yet to see a technically convincing argument against this change.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Filiprogrammer 5 May
I can understand the argument that this change might reduce the pollution of the UTXO set in favor of OP_RETURN, but completely removing the option for the user to easily configure these mempool policies seems a bit extreme.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 5 May
Yeah, leaving the configuration option in seems fine. It addresses one of the main reasons for this debate, and it doesn’t hurt anyone but the node operator to use it.
reply