pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @clr 10h \ parent \ on: Summation of retiring the 80-Byte OP_RETURN Limit by instagibbs bitcoin
Basically all this drama is about making standardness rules for OP_RETURN outputs identitcal to consensus rules.
Yes.
So why was the 80-byte OP_RETURN limit never a consensus rule in the first place? I suppose that because Core never made it so.
This is the danger we are facing. That the Core church is getting to define what bitcoin is, because most people just run Core's software and go along with whatever they do. We need competition in churches. It's a shame that in 2017 and later many developers went on to making competing forks that have gone nowhere. I hope they come back to bitcoin and help people understand that bitcoin is not Core.
PoW isn't the only thing that counts. It's not the only consensus rule.
How so? When bitcoin gets widely used, let's say the majority of miners start awarding themselves more bitcoin. They would just need Core to provide a convenient excuse to distract people. After all, with which other coin that nobody uses do you intend to trade?
Some might say: "The people would revolt!" Well, now we have central bankers and their cronies stealing >2% of humanity's output every year (the inflation target, and this doesn't even account for productivity increase due to technological progress), and I don't see anyone revolting (in fact, most people love this system).
write
preview
260 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd 10h
Limiting OP_Return outputs would be a soft fork. Also, an utterly pointless soft fork: you can easily bypass any consensus limit we could reasonably come up with, e.g. with unspendable outputs.
The whole point of OP_Return was to encourage people to use a less harmful, prunable, output format rather that growing the UTXO set.
reply