Thread

I don't think infighting is damaging... Its healthy. Everyone can choose to speak with maturity or immaturity, then sort themselves accordingly. I also don't think forks are damaging. Roll backs are damaging, though. And although I've been against core30, I'm actually not even against arbitrary data. 3d printer files are an example of something I want to be there. And who knows what will be good to have in the future... Plasma guns or plans to the death star. The problem is threefold : malicious data or executables ; junk data ; and the mispricing of putting it there. The first two are hard to define, and would be partially fixed if the third was fixed - meaning, more expensive. A lot more expensive. It should be stupidly expensive. Anyone considering it should feel indignant at the cost. That's the filter that would work, while keeping the potential value of arbitrary data. So then the real question is, how to make data storage expensive while keeping transactions cheap? Whatever the answer to that is, is the answer to fixing bitcoin. Yes, it needs fixing. It is broken. The witness discount broke it. Base layer transactions never needed to be cheaper. Maybe people are saying this stuff and I just don't know how to listen in. But so far, I haven't seen **_anyone_** thinking through this clearly. Every discussion - **_every one!_** gets stopped by idiots chiming in with inanities that were useful in the past but are just too low resolution for this discussion ("bitcoin is money! Bitcoin is for enemies!" Or any other short phrase they learn from podcasters). The discussions stop right there, maybe because people get bored and leave, idk.

I think you are missing the point. Being against arbitrary data seems to be the consensus. Weighing the damage spam does in terms of utxo bloat vs having a prunable place for it to go is pretty much what it comes down to. Virtue signals don’t change this issue. I believe utxo bloat is a far greater threat to the decentralized nature of bitcoin than op_return. The majority of the plebs can run a pruned node and the network will suffer no negative consequences. Anyone who thinks a capacity of 4mb every 10 minutes at a cost of over 6 grand is a realistic data storage mechanism is retarded. If you think that fundamental fact is changed by the expanded op_return capacity is now a signal to the market that bitcoin is open for data storage you are not making a serious argument. Anyone who thinks we need an emergency soft fork to change what valid transactions are fudders. Following the likes of Luke jr down his authoritarian rabbit hole of christofascist state worship is the least compatible with freedom money one can imagine so please spare us the soap box about bitcoin as money.

I think you’re an idiot.

No you

**** This just in.. pedoland under 'pedo software' "crisis" **** The U.S. is the only UN member state that has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As of July 2025, child marriage is legal in 34 states.

Fuck the UN

Reframing what 'its about' is a fallacy and malicious.

Nailed it

💯 Although I for one am looking forward to the fork. It’ll give me a way to sell my LukeCoin for more Bitcoin.

You fucker. Expanding op_return capacity for no good reason is retarded. You responding the way you have is also retarded, and not in the good old fashion bitcoin way. At least you reared your head so us plebs know who to add to the list of enemies of Bitcoin.

Yep, it's an enemy of Bitcoin, but also hiding behind an unknown name.

Unfollowed

I agree. A blockchain comes with the possibility of 'spam'. It can't have security, scalability and decentralization. You can only choose 2. In he same way it probably doesn't make sense to filter 'spam'.

Op return limit doesn’t change much of anything. That’s the point. It is a useless bit of code. You can use a myriad of other methods to stuff data into the chain. Most of those methods are worse for the node operators. I think Maxwell’s commentary on this issue is the most useful https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5539943.40 The framing of this as one side is pro spam and the other side is anti spam is not correct. No one wants the stupid jpegs except perhaps the money launderers who find them useful. But you can’t stop them because you can’t stop fake pubkeys from being use to store data, you can’t stop miners from mining consensus valid nonstandard transactions.

What the fallacy?

Dig up stupid!

The Core vs Knots framing is false. The issue is that #bitcoin has been attacked by its CoreDevs, challenging it‘s immutability. Bitcoin must do two things in the absolute. It needs to be scarce, and it needs to be immutable (can never be changed). Or it’s donezo. Core and Knots updating the code, IS the threat. We need to freeze the code. It doesn’t need features. And therefore it doesn’t need maintenance. It’s a ruleset. Not an app. Or it’s dead.

That's true. But also, "the code" has already been tampered with, and that was before v30. So which code do we freeze? The Core vs Knots may not be the issue at hand, but running Knots is the best solution we have at the moment, and currently is more of a moral stance rather than a solution to Bitcoin staying as money, but I'm all for that. Ignoring the framing of Core vs Knots is kinda giving enemies of bitcoin (most current core devs) a free pass to do the things you're suggesting we shouldn't. Call these fuckers out, make a stance, it is important despite seeming futile.

Virtue signally is not important at all. I think you have a misguided view of core development.

Freeze v28 and call everything after that an attack?

Normally I'd agree with you on the first part, but not here. Sending a strong message to people fucking with our money is important. It is virtuous, and a signal worth raising your fist for. Core development IS the problem. Why are they "developing" it? What is the reason for blowing out OP_RETURN and making that change the default for node runners? How exactly is me being against an unnecessary change that moves bitcoin away from being money, misguided? I'm not actually asking you that, and I believe you know what I'm saying regardless.

It's not Core vs Knots, it's Core fucked up.

The removal of the limit is meaningless. You’ll notice now the narrative has chuffed from spam to csam and that csam in op_return is somehow worse than csam is fakekeys or elsewhere. This is disingenuous nonsense and the people pushing this narrative are either very retarded or trying to benefit their business interests.

It’s the fact they even touch the code. Unacceptable. Too much risk.

They simplified the code. The op return limit was being circumvented by direct to miner submission which is not good for bitcoin. They don’t want to have to keep adjusting the limits as bad novel forms of bad behavior appears on the network. Run knots if you want to filter your relay or set your own parameters with core. As long as the consensus says op return is valid at any size it’s better to have relays of all transactions propagate across the network.

No. I'm just noticing your attempts to silence the issue, which again, is very telling. Before the unwanted, unwarranted change, it was difficult to store CSAM, now with the unwanted, unwarrenter change, its easy to store csam. Who's interests does this change benefit? Not Bitcoiners.

"They simplified the code". How's pivoting now?

Someone wanting to store data on chain is not going to be dissuaded by changes to op return especially if they are trying to store csam or other data that is broadly seen as illegal. This type of data is an attempt to attack bitcoin and it makes no legal difference if it is in 1 large op return or several or it forgoes op return and uses a key stuffing technique. Your attempt to make this a moral issue is the telling aspect. Bitcoin is neutral technology and has no opinion on the morality or legality of how it is utilized.

Removing things from the code is simplification. It’s not a pivot it is a fact. Every feature in the code requires(or should require) testing. The fewer features the less likely there will be issues that get missed during testing.

Code needs to be frozen or #Bitcoin is dead. Bitcoin can not be the hardest money humans have ever seen when weaklings can so easily change the code.

No. I'm not making this "moral", it simply is moral. And in my previous post I said nothing about morals and everything about the changes to code - which you call simplified, and I call unnecessary and damaging. Before the code unwanted, unwarranted code CSAM was difficult to store - after the change it is easy to store. But even worse than that is how you and may other bad actors try and tell us that it doesn't matter. Now you're pivoting to how much of a legal issue it is if there's a lot or little CSAM? BITCOIN IS MONEY. WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN.

Grasping now.

So large op_returns degrade bitcoins status as money? Sounds like you have a pretty shit view of Bitcoin. I’ll also point out that large op_returns have always been possible.

Yes. And…Code needs to be frozen or #Bitcoin is dead. Bitcoin can not be the hardest money humans have ever seen when weaklings can so easily change the code.

There are several changes that Bitcoin will have to make to survive long term. There will have to be a hard fork to address the 2106 problem. If quantum ever becomes an issue that will also have to be addressed. The very idea of freezing the code is retarded as there are existing bugs and issues with the software.

I completely disagree. Non of the BIPs are necessary, nice to have at best, weakening Bitcoin. v28 was running fine. Bitcoin doesn’t need features. It‘s a ruleset. Not an app. No maintenance or up and downloads required. Too much risk. Bitcoin solves for two things in the absolute: Scarcity and immutability (no one can change it). Having idiots mess with the code kills Bitcoin. And Quantum? Give me a break. It’s just another buzzword to scare people. It doesn’t exist. You can’t just add the word quantum in front of things and think it’s real.

No silly, changing the code (for no good reason) to EASILY allow the storage of non monetary data on chain, degrades Bitcoin. That's what I'm saying. I have a pretty shitty view about the change, and the people who support it. I'll also point out (again), that I'm aware it has always been possible to store non monetary data on chain, but it has never been this EASY to do so, especially by default, and for no good reason.

You are delusional. It’s always been easy to spam bitcoin. Any software challenge gets easier over time. Hence more spam. You fundamentally don’t u destined the tech, you need more study and less retarded podcaster energy.

Delusional? I was just doing simple math! And, nah...I listened to a podcast once. Not my thing. I might be a retard, but hear me out (again): More bigger size kilolbyte things means more CSAM (not money). Enabling more bigger kilbyte things by default means more nodes accept and pass on CSAM (horrific content, illegal content) not money. You say that's fine. I say you're the bad guy.

So you think software based system don’t get easier to use? How long have you run a bitcoin node for? It used to be sort of a pain in the ass to run a node. It’s now much easier. I really think you need more time learning the fundamentals of this network before you form such strong opinions.

Think TCP/IP. Btw your not honest here. Ease of running’s node has zero to do with the Bitcoin code.

How are you even still responding to me? Are you for real? I mean, I know I'm taking the bait, every single time, but man. What the heck kind of argument are you trying now? That software gets easier to use so let's just let CSAM on chain? You're either a bot or something's up.

No the argument is there is no software problem that stays difficult for long so worrying about a relay policy default is retarded. You can change the default or you can run knots or you can just not run a node which is probably the reality. If your argument is small op return will keep illegal material off the chain you have some growing up to do.

It was an example. Running a node used to be harder and now it can be done by total retards. Using the internet before tim berners Lee was difficult. Using the www before google was challenging. Do you understand? Anything that is software based can be made easy. Someone could vibe code a program to make embedding content into multiple bitcoin coin transactions as simple as using an op return. It’s a dumb argument to rest your case on. It’s a fucking relay policy default. Change the setting if you don’t like it.

I'll say it one last time. Before core v30. CSAM was difficult to put on Bitcoin's network. After core v30. CSAM is now much easier to put on Bitcoin's network. CSAM is one of THE most disgusting and horrible things in this world. It is vile and destroys life. It belongs nowhere, and should be supported by no one. Anything that promotes it, makes it easier or simpler to distribute or doesn't try to extinguish it, is wrong - morally wrong. Bitcoin is money. Bitcoin should not be built to facilitate anything but money.

We are having two different conversations. No one is arguing in favor of csam, you just fail to grasp reality. Putting arbitrary data into 1000 transactions vs 1 large op return is not really that different. It’s literally software…so line a script to automate things. If you depend on software being slightly more difficult to operate to protect you I fear you will live in disappointment.

I've always been having the one convo. I couldn't be clearer. You support the change to make arbitrary data easier to store on Bitcoin, I do not. I question why the change was made in the first place, and that we do not need the change, especially if it supports easier distribution of CSAM, you do not. You say I'm retarded, need to grow up and accept reality, I say Bitcoin is money and changes to it blur that line are unnecessary, and in this case, wrong.