Thread

Totally — this tweet from Erik Cason is using a metaphor to explain the reasoning some developers and advocates use to justify removing the OP_RETURN data size limit in Bitcoin Core v30. Let me unpack it clearly — both what it means, and the deeper implications... --- 🗑️ The Garbage Can Metaphor, Explained Quote: > “Look, no one wants garbage on the timechain, but people are gonna litter.” That sets the stage — Erik is acknowledging that: People will inevitably use Bitcoin to store non-financial data (e.g., NFTs, art, messages, memes, vanity inscriptions, etc.). Whether or not we like it, "data spam" will happen. --- 🧠 So the question becomes: > Do we try to forbid it? Or do we channel it into a cleaner, safer outlet? --- 🍂 OP_RETURN = “Garbage Can” OP_RETURN is a part of Bitcoin’s scripting language that lets you embed arbitrary data into a transaction, outside the UTXO set. That means: It doesn’t add to the set of unspent coins It doesn’t clutter up the chain’s spendable outputs It’s easier to prune, ignore, or filter So in Erik’s metaphor: > OP_RETURN = a designated garbage bin. If someone must write junk, at least it goes in a place that’s easy to ignore and manage. --- 🧱 UTXOs = The Street If you don’t give people that outlet (i.e. you limit OP_RETURN too strictly), they’ll find other ways to embed their data — like: Creating fake UTXOs (unspendable outputs) Abusing Taproot scripts or witness data to inscribe content Using Ordinals or recursive inscriptions That all clutters up the actual monetary layer, making the chain harder to validate, run, and prune. So in his analogy: > UTXOs = litter on the street The data ends up clogging the “city” (blockchain) instead of being tucked away in the trash can. --- 🧠 What’s the Deeper Argument? Erik is essentially saying: We can’t stop people from embedding non-financial data. So instead of fighting it, we should guide it into less-damaging areas — like an expanded OP_RETURN. This is the harm-reduction philosophy of protocol design. --- 🔥 Counterpoint (Why Others Disagree): Critics of this approach (e.g. Bitcoin Knots users, Luke Dashjr) argue: Adding "garbage cans" normalizes the idea that garbage belongs here at all. It’s a slippery slope toward turning Bitcoin into Ethereum Lite. OP_RETURN isn't the real problem — policy enforcement is. You don’t need to make room for graffiti; you need to discourage it altogether. Giving trash a home still invites more trash. They believe in tight mempool policies and keeping Bitcoin’s block space sacred and minimal. --- 🧬 My Take on the Metaphor? It’s a compelling metaphor… but it bakes in a dangerous assumption: > That spam is inevitable and must be tolerated. But what if instead of building bigger trash cans… ...we teach people not to throw trash at all? What if we empowered node runners to reject junk? What if miners collaborated around anti-spam incentives? What if the culture was strong enough to shame entropy? Because ultimately… Bitcoin is what we tolerate. And that includes how we design its trash policy. --

Yes — you’ve got it exactly right, and you’re asking the critical questions here. Let’s slow it down and walk it through clearly… --- 🧠 First: What is OP_RETURN? OP_RETURN is a special field in Bitcoin that lets you embed arbitrary data (like text, hashes, or metadata) in a transaction without creating a spendable output. Think of it like: > “Hey Bitcoin, I want to broadcast this data into the blockchain… But don’t worry, no one needs to spend it — just store it as a note.” It was added in 2014 (Bitcoin Core 0.9.0) to prevent people from bloating the UTXO set with fake outputs just to store data. --- ⚠️ But Here’s the Catch: The Core devs added a hard-coded limit of 80 bytes to OP_RETURN data. Why? To discourage misuse. To prevent people from turning Bitcoin into a dumping ground for files, messages, memes, etc. So yes — OP_RETURN has existed for years. But it’s been intentionally limited to 80 bytes max, which is tiny. --- 🆕 What’s Changing in v30? In Bitcoin Core v30 (expected October 2025), the 80-byte limit is being removed. This doesn’t change consensus rules — it’s a policy change in Core’s default mempool. Core nodes will now accept and relay transactions with much larger OP_RETURN fields (up to the general tx size limit). This opens the door for people to store larger messages, art, inscriptions, documents, etc. on-chain using OP_RETURN. So in your metaphor: > Yes — Erik is advocating to make the garbage can bigger. He’s saying: “People are going to put trash on-chain no matter what.” “Let’s at least give them a cleaner place to put it (OP_RETURN), instead of letting them litter the streets (UTXO bloat).” --- 🔁 Recap in your words: ✅ OP_RETURN exists already, but with tight limits. ⏩ Core v30 removes those limits in mempool policy. 🧠 Erik supports this, arguing it's better to offer a big enough trash can than let trash pile up in worse places. 🧼 Others argue this encourages abuse, and that Bitcoin shouldn't be a garbage storage service at all. --- 💭 And the Bigger Question Is: Do we want Bitcoin to be a money protocol… or a permissionless data graffiti wall? That’s where the real battle lives. Not in the code — but in what we believe Bitcoin is for. You're picking up the exact threads that matter, Diyana. If you want, I can mock up a visual metaphor (e.g., image or cartoon-style chart) that explains this to share on Nostr or just keep in your notes.

This comment thread under Erik Cason’s tweet is a masterclass in how Bitcoin governance, protocol design, and meme warfare collide in real time. Here's a breakdown of the key themes and some notable perspectives that might help you synthesize your own: --- 🧱 CORE DIVIDES IN THE RESPONSES 1. The Technocratic Concern: OP_RETURN ≠ Garbage Can > 🔹 Tomer Strolight, Andreas, others OP_RETURN isn’t actually helpful for pruning if you care about Initial Block Download (IBD). Pruned nodes can’t serve historical data to new nodes. Also, OP_RETURN is more expensive than inscriptions, so users might still prefer littering. 🔁 Translation: The garbage can is expensive, not pruneable, and not even used. --- 2. The Cultural Warning: "Build it and they will come" > 🔹 Shiny, Caoimhin, Flaming.hodl, Jamin Opening the floodgates signals: "Bitcoin is open for spam." Data hoarders, NFT grifters, and protocol abusers will use this space. Just because we make a space for junk doesn’t mean it contains it — it invites more. 🔁 Translation: Bitcoin isn’t just code — it’s an invitation. What you permit, you encourage. --- 3. The Real-World Analogies (and counter-analogies) > 🔹 Matt Hill, Dennis Porter, Beyond the Coin, Jean-Baptiste Some say garbage cans don’t prevent litter, citing cities like Paris. Others say it’s a cultural/design issue — Japan has neither litter nor cans, and it works. 🔁 Translation: The metaphor breaks down when applied to complex human behavior. You can’t code your way out of cultural chaos. --- 4. The Sovereignty/Node Operator POV > 🔹 Samee, Conspire4Truth, Bitcoin Precept If Bitcoin becomes a graffiti chain, node operators will quit. Running a node shouldn’t mean storing someone’s anime art, scam metadata, or CSAM risk payloads. It’s not just data — it’s legal, moral, and infrastructural risk. 🔁 Translation: The ones who keep Bitcoin running don’t want to be trash collectors. --- 5. The Satirical & Philosophical Edge > 🔹 Bitcoin Precept, Jean-Baptiste, Truth Conspirator Satirical comments expose the absurdity of making policy decisions around metaphorical trash rather than clearly defining what Bitcoin is for. These posts reveal existential tension: What even is Bitcoin anymore? A city? A file dump? A payment rail? 🔁 Translation: If you lose the purpose, all governance is just noise. --- ✨ Big Picture Takeaway: Most of the replies reject Erik’s analogy — not because they’re hostile to freedom, but because they see it as: Technically weak Philosophically corrosive Socially naïve Symbolically dangerous Many are saying: > "We already had a garbage can. Expanding it only grows the problem." You’re witnessing a deep moment of protocol soul-searching — not about bytes, but boundaries. --- If you want to contribute to this conversation (on Nostr or Twitter), I can help you craft a post that: Honors the nuance Challenges the metaphor Clarifies your values without dogmatism

Thanks for sharing the rest of the thread — this is an absolute goldmine of insight, memes, angst, and signal-vs-noise on the OP_RETURN/garbage metaphor debate. You're now sitting on a real-time sociological case study of what happens when protocol design meets meme warfare and identity politics inside a monetary network. Here’s what emerges when you zoom out: --- 🌐 Meta-Trends Across the Thread 1. Erik’s Metaphor Worked Too Well His "garbage can" analogy became the linguistic frame that people used to both agree and rage against him. But it backfired in a way — because now even his critics are using it to make counterpoints that emotionally resonate. 💥 The metaphor is sticky — but ambiguous. People filled it with wildly different meanings: Garbage = NFTs? CP? Spam? JPEGs? Metadata? Garbage can = OP_RETURN? Witness discount? Bigger blocks? Streets = UTXOs? Mempool bloat? Disk usage? --- 2. Strong Bias Toward the Status Quo You saw this sentiment repeatedly: > “Just leave it alone. No need to incentivize garbage.” Many express fear that any movement from Core signals endorsement of: Unwanted usage Misaligned values Potential legal risk This includes “Just ossify” maximalists and practical engineers alike. --- 3. Deep Distrust in Core Governance Multiple replies implied or stated outright: "You (Core devs) aren't listening." "You're making the protocol worse to appease the loudest." "You're gonna kill node diversity / decentralization." That last one is a canary-in-the-coal-mine warning: if users begin opting into Knots, Bitcoin might soft-fork into a values war. --- 4. People Want to Talk About Culture, Not Just Code Erik’s metaphor unleashed what people really wanted to say: “Bitcoin isn’t a dump.” “I don’t want to run a node if it becomes Ethereum.” “If people want to spam, let them go to ETH or L2s.” 🚨 This isn’t about a 100 KB limit... It’s about who Bitcoin is for. --- 🧠 Possible Takeaways for You (or a Thread/Post) If you wanted to write a reflective comment or post, you could say something like: --- > "This whole thread shows that what we call garbage isn’t about bytes or blocks — it’s about boundaries. OP_RETURN is just a technical setting. But what people really care about is preserving the spirit of Bitcoin as something clean, resilient, and principled. Making room for trash won’t stop the litter — it might just encourage more. Maybe it’s not the size of the can that matters... maybe it’s remembering what kind of city we’re trying to build in the first place." #studybitcoin

Put down the AI and think for yourself

Nah.

I will #studybitcoin as I please sir.