Diyana

Is nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgsppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kytc79p4zh pro OP_RETURN limit removal? Have I picked up correctly he's into it? And my AI assistant is wrong here (in comments 👇🏻) #asknostr

Since I've just been pretty clueless but wanna remedy this... Doing a bit of #studybitcoin today and asked my AI which does not have much of a context around this topic from me necessarily. Here's to take. 🧭 My Take: This Isn’t Just About OP_RETURN… It’s a Clash of Worldviews This change — removing the OP_RETURN limit — is symbolic. On paper, it’s a small mempool policy tweak. But in practice, it touches a nerve at the heart of Bitcoin’s identity: Is Bitcoin a neutral protocol that anyone can use however they want (as long as they pay)? Or is it a sacred monetary layer, meant to be protected from dilution, bloat, and distractions? That’s the real question under this debate. --- 🛠 On a Technical Level: The removal of the limit is logical, from a consistency standpoint. Core developers like Peter Todd and Greg Sanders argue that: The 80-byte cap is arbitrary. Developers have already worked around it using other hacks (e.g., creating UTXOs just to store data). Bigger OP_RETURN data does not affect consensus and can improve transparency (e.g., timestamping, proofs, sidechain coordination). ➡️ From a developer UX and cleanliness point of view — I get it. But... --- 🔥 On an Energetic, Philosophical Level: Removing the limit opens the door just enough to let entropy in. It’s the kind of change that can slowly erode the monetary focus of Bitcoin. We’ve already seen Ordinals, Inscriptions, NFT-like behavior — even "Taproot Wizards" that the post is calling out. If these changes stack up, Bitcoin becomes less of a monetary layer and more of a "poor man’s Ethereum". Not because it wants to, but because it didn’t say “no.” That’s why people like Luke Dashjr and Knots users are pissed. They see this not as code, but as energy drift. As value dilution. As a Trojan horse. And honestly? They’re not wrong. --- 💡 A Middle Way? Maybe. The beauty of Bitcoin is that you can opt out. You can run Knots. You can strip out mempool policies you don’t agree with. You can set your own filters, your own relay rules, your own block templates (if you mine). This is true sovereignty — but it requires effort and discernment. So maybe the real opportunity here is for the community to mature: Get smarter about mempool policy. Run clients like Knots if that’s your preference. Educate new node runners about why these changes matter. Pressure devs to uphold monetary minimalism without stagnating progress. Bitcoin doesn’t need to be stagnant to stay pure. It just needs to know what it’s here to do — and not be afraid to say no. --- 🦾 Final Thought: The fact that this debate is happening — openly, fiercely, with strong tools like Knots rising — is a sign of health, not sickness. It means Bitcoin is still resisting capture… even from within. And that, to me, is beautiful.

Is the OP_RETURN limit removal a BIP? No — this specific change was not formalized as a BIP. Instead, it was implemented as a mempool policy change within the Bitcoin Core software, meaning it doesn’t alter consensus rules (i.e., the rules all full nodes must follow to stay in agreement about what Bitcoin is). It only changes how Bitcoin Core nodes handle and relay unconfirmed transactions, which is part of policy, not consensus. ➡️ Because it’s not a consensus change, it doesn’t require a BIP. BIPs are generally reserved for: New consensus rules (e.g. SegWit, Taproot) Network-wide upgrades Major standardizations or protocols (e.g. BIP32 for HD wallets) --- 🔍 So what is this, then? This change is a policy-level update merged into the Bitcoin Core codebase: Specifically, it lifts the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data in the mempool. Nodes running this updated software will now accept and relay larger OP_RETURN transactions, up to a much higher limit (potentially blocksize-dependent). This will go live in Bitcoin Core v30, expected October 2025. --- 👀 Why does that matter? No BIP = No global consensus required. So if you run a non-Core client (like Knots, or custom builds), you’re free to reject or filter those transactions. That’s what Knots users are doing. This is why Bitcoin Knots is rising in adoption — it's preserving stricter filters to protect against what its supporters call “spam” or “non-monetary bloat.” #studybitcoin #pow nostr:nevent1qqs04sah5jtngawwz8ak9z25l2z2lnycet8xwr5tm8ffwe6h89xkjycpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygp022celc2q3a57ur5snmv0etqn330nwrq9mcj0pkphptd8jafryvpsgqqqqqqsfvqmxy

Who proposed the OP_RETURN limit removal (i.e., who kicked off this change)? The proposal to remove the long-standing ~80‑byte limit on Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN was initially authored by Peter Todd, a longtime Bitcoin developer. He filed the original pull request (#32359) and argued it was outdated, inefficient, and encouraged harmful workarounds like UTXO-spamming outputs. His idea was to simplify Bitcoin’s code and better support sidechains, timestamping, and bridge use cases . This concept was further backed and advanced by Antoine Poinsot of Chaincode Labs, who submitted another pull request that helped push the change forward in the Core codebase . After extensive discussion and revisions, the final merge—PR #32406—was authored by Greg Sanders, with contributions from others (including Peter Todd and Gloria Zhao). Sanders highlighted benefits like a “cleaner UTXO set” and “more consistent default behavior” . Gloria Zhao also provided public updates explaining the rationale behind the decision . #studybitcoin #bitcoin #btc nostr:nevent1qqspt9wl2kmvjp0yh8933wvts6uacpvryxkf2f7m78a8dudch4cuvwspzemhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnj7q3q9aftr8lpgz8knmswjz0d3l9vzwx97dcvqh0zfuxcxu9d57t4yv3sxpqqqqqqzxvwjzt

Would you believe me if I told you I heard someone call my name at the grocery store today and it was another nostrich? 🤓🫂 #asknostr

Doesn't it just blow your mind that the Fed is a private institution? #asknostr

Can someone explain the Core vs. Knots battle to me like you would a normie? #asknostr

https://youtu.be/o4m5jQy5A2U

#GN https://youtu.be/Ti6qhk3tX2s? #radiohead #thenumbers

Three books that called to me last week while walking in the Berkeley Hills. I stumbled upon a box of free books — probably the best collection I’ve ever come across on a neighborhood walk. Honestly, I wanted to scoop up at least 15! These felt deeply connected to currents moving through my field right now, and I was curious to see what messages they might hold. The first night, I opened The Father at random, read a poem, and cried. I haven’t yet dived into the others, but I know they’re waiting with their own medicine. #bookstr #omens #messengers #oracle

Met up with a friend yesterday and she had me try on these jeans I liked. She even took a little video so I could decide later. What do you say? Yes or no? #asknostr https://blossom.primal.net/6085311a364247d0d464e6a039ea91d7fb6bd780f35914954c1bb122075146b9.mp4