I see the problem that v30 is trying to address, but I completely disagree with the solution they chose. The concern is understandable: if users can bypass node relay rules by sending large OP_RETURN transactions directly to miners, that creates centralization pressure. Miners could start offering private submission channels for large data transactions. Over time, that weakens the public mempool and gives mining pools more gatekeeping power. After recognizing this issue, Core likely looked at different ways to handle it. In the end, they decided to align relay policy with consensus and completely remove the OP_RETURN size limit at the policy level. The idea was straightforward: if the standard relay path allows what consensus already allows, there is no incentive to route transactions around the network. Up to that point, I can follow the reasoning. But that is not the only possible solution. Why not go in the opposite direction? Instead of loosening relay rules, why not tighten consensus to 80 bytes? That would have: • Closed the bypass vector completely • Removed the incentive for direct miner submission • Kept the attack surface smaller • Avoided normalizing larger data embedding • Reduced legal and reputational risks • Made large-scale spam more expensive, since it would need to be split into multiple transactions In short, instead of expanding what is permitted at the policy layer, consensus could have been made stricter. So the real question is: Why was this option not seriously debated? Were there strong technical reasons against it, or was it simply not the direction they wanted to take?

History is usually written by the winners. Those who prevail, gain power, or occupy key positions decide how events are later interpreted. They shape the narrative and define what is considered “right.” This often creates a black-and-white view: the winners were right, the losers were wrong. Reality, however, is rarely that simple. Good arguments do not disappear just because one side won politically or structurally. The same pattern can be seen in Bitcoin. During the Blocksize Wars, certain groups won. Today, these groups are deeply embedded in Bitcoin’s structures and strongly influence both its technical direction and its ideology. The system that emerged from this has clear strengths, but also increasingly visible weaknesses. Some of these effects are easy to observe. Scaling mainly happens off-chain, often with centralising tendencies. The mempool is increasingly used for non-monetary data. The SegWit discount makes some forms of spam cheaper than normal on-chain payment transactions. Transactions are not private, and miner fee revenue remains low. This does not mean that the chosen path was wrong. But it does show that Bitcoin is not perfect, and that some arguments from the other side of the conflict had real merit. The bigger issue is not that these arguments exist, but that many of the original winners are unwilling to acknowledge them in hindsight or consider adjusting direction. One of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is that there is no permanent authority and no single group that can decide its direction forever. Developers, miners, companies, and users all influence Bitcoin, but none of them fully control it. Change emerges slowly through use, economic pressure, and real incentives. It is messy and chaotic, but unavoidable. These recurring conflicts in Bitcoin are not a weakness. They are the direct result of having no central authority. They force existing structures to confront reality again and again. That is exactly what keeps Bitcoin flexible, resistant to capture, and alive. Turbulent times are necessary to realign Bitcoin with reality until it finds its best path. Do not fear these conflicts: stand for change, and Bitcoin will do the rest. This post is inspired by the newest video from @Bitcoin Mechanic Best regards, I appreciate your content.

As competition in mining intensifies, inefficient actors are pushed out. While this is usually seen as healthy, in a world of centralized financial markets it can actually accelerate centralization. When Bitcoin’s price growth is limited and transaction fees stay low, the key efficiency advantage shifts to access to cheap capital and credit. Under pressure, miners are forced to turn to these centralized funding sources. Capital always comes with conditions and long-term influence. This creates dependency on existing power structures and makes genuine decentralization economically difficult. The result is a mining sector that is more centralized, and more reliant on centralized structures, than many are willing to admit.

I’ve often heard that the true potential of Nostr hasn’t appeared yet, that its revolutionary use case still doesn’t exist. I think I’ve found one and the name is fanfares. Create a new incentive system where valuable content is stored encrypted on Nostr and unlocked through Lightning payments. Sounds very simple, but give it a listen..

Fanfares

Digital Sovereignty

8,000 sats - The book that fixes the internet ⚡