Stating the obvious here, but… If filters work, and users don’t want Bitcoin Core 30, there’s no reason for an anti-OP_RETURN soft fork.

Running malware

As I’ve said before… Those that wish to block OP_RETURNs and whatever else they see as spam should deploy a UASF to render it invalid. Those that consider this a form of (or path to) censorship and undesirable should deploy a URSF (user rejected soft fork) to counter it. Exchanges can offer fork futures long before the actual split happens, gauging market sentiment and informing miners where to direct their hash power at fork point. (Hopefully we’ll see a winner-takes-most dynamic and minimal disruption for non-upgraded nodes, i.e. no large re-orgs.)

Last year @gladstein interviewed now-Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machad about Bitcoin and more. (Published via Bitcoin Magazine.)

“Sir, we found CSAM in the blockchain.” “CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN OP_RETURNS!? Track down every node IP, locate their physical address, and send in the SWAT teams immediately!!” “It’s actually in Inscriptions.” “Oh, never mind then.”

Still confused about what’s going on with Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots and OP_RETURN? I wrote up this overview for Bitcoin Magazine:

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Core Or Bitcoin Knots: What The OP_RETURN Debate Is Actually About

The OP_RETURN debate splits Bitcoin users: Bitcoin Core 30.0 supports bigger OP_RETURNs, while Bitcoin Knots pushes back, fearing spam, rising fees...