It is sad to see calle being dishonest and manipulative liar. I undestand why Jameson Lopp is an evil shitcoiner and corrupted fiat cuck, but calle? Sad. The work of the OP_RETRUN filters for the last 16 years is evident. Until the Core got compromised.
Super Testnet's avatar Super Testnet
> There may not be many oversized op returns to begin with In total, there are about 10**4 op_returns on the blockchain of size 76 bytes For 77 byte op_returns, the count is also ~10**4 (i.e. ~10k) For 78 byte op_returns, the count is also ~10**4 (i.e. ~10k) For 79 byte op_returns, the count is also ~10**4 (i.e. ~10k) For 80 byte op_returns, the count is slightly higher: ~10**4.1 (i.e. ~13k) For 81 byte op_returns, the total count is 9. Not 9k, *9 in total.* That's the data for the last 16 years, which I hope is a long enough time frame for you. Why do you suppose there is a huge drop from tens of thousands to 9?
View quoted note →

Replies (4)

This is how the shit started, after the talk between Citrea and Antoine. See the video. Lopp the shitconer is investor in Citre see the screenshot. Citrea goal is to turn Bitcoin into Ethereum like shitcoin, read the article.
FreedomMoneyIsFuture's avatar FreedomMoneyIsFuture
Connecting dots ... Citrea, Chainway labs, others ... View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Akashi Hyogo's avatar
Akashi Hyogo 1 year ago
Citrea does not need the OP_RETURN increase. Here is explanation from sb from your tribe:
Super Testnet's avatar Super Testnet
It was Citrea, and AFAIK they plan to use utxo stuffing only if a bitvm contract is challenged. This is designed never to occur, as it requires someone to manually create and submit a "cheating" bitvm transaction, whereas "honest" bitvm software is designed to try very hard not to let you do that. Besides the disincentive of manual work, it also carries a huge monetary disincentive: your counterparty in the bitvm contract is meant to be running software that automatically detects cheat txs and responds by taking all of the money the cheater put in the bitvm contract. (It works a lot like a lightning penalty tx, but more complicated because bitvm is complicated.) Despite being designed never to occur, this potential for extremely rare utxo stuffing by one party has been leveraged to relax the op_return limit for everyone. Which I think is silly.
View quoted note →
Well, did you see the video? I am sure there are ways to improve UTXO stuffing. Also what Super says is the abuse on the UTXO would not be so significant so thats less of a threat than blowing up OP_RETURN to 100 000 Bytes. Also there were mentions that other companies manage to do their tech with less than 80 Bytes OP_RETRUN. But what we see from the compromised Core devs are intential malicious actions - not fixing inscriptions spam for example.
FreedomMoneyIsFuture's avatar FreedomMoneyIsFuture
See the compromised Core devs who rejected Luke's PR that fixes inscription spam. They are the bad actors (the NACKers) They revealed themselves with their public comments on OP_RETRUN being dishonest and manipulative. The guys that ACKed are the good guys we have. image https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29187 Bitcoin Knots has fixed those issues.
View quoted note →
↑