I haven't seen many arguments worth addressing. They seem to rely on bearish long-term assumptions about monetary demand. So my advice to them is generally to sell it then? The biggest technical concern I see is UTXO bloat, which the current op return drama doesn't contribute to. And the rapid UTXO bloat seems behind us now since it was based on a fad. I view the node-level filtering for consensus transactions that entities are willing to pay for as being mostly performative. Node-level filtering works well for denial-of-service type attacks, not things that people are willing to pay for, since they only have to find one miner to accept it. If that type of filtering makes people feel better then I'm for it, but without consensus changes it's pretty trivial. It's good that people can fork and run their own node software, so it's a nice network-wide reminder of that option, but it doesn't meaningfully impact what gets into the timechain.

Replies (3)

Anchorite's avatar
Anchorite 7 months ago
I heard that under race conditions the miner whose block is propagated by more nodes wins.
su-do's avatar
su-do 7 months ago
Focusing solely on fee hikes in the inscription-spam debate overlooks the real issue: culture. Bitcoin’s power lies in being a pure monetary network, and tacking on metaprotocols—NFTs, tokens, JPEGs—distracts developers and erodes its core purpose. Yes, miners could be bribed to include spam, but if the network as a whole rejects this practice, venture capitalists won’t fund those meta-protocols. Finally, Taproot’s introduction of MAST was a huge win—by only revealing the spending script, it slashes on-chain data. Abusing Taproot to scatter JPEG fragments across the chain undermines that benefit and represents a serious misstep in Bitcoin’s evolution. Last but not least, sorry for the tone I used in my previous post. I am just very disappointed right now at smart people not seeing ANY issue with the current state of the Network and its development.