Doesn’t this also suggest that the #1 touted reason for removing the relay limit - to get people to use the trash can instead of bloat the UTXO set - has been proven to be a useless and inconsequential argument though?
I appreciate the data collection regardless, but this doesn’t seem to a win on either side of the debate. Actually sort of a lose lose imo. The singular touted “benefit” is proving to be nonsense.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (6)
Yes both sides of this thing are gay.
I guess we’re all gay now. 🌈
Nobody said this Bitcoin journey would be easy.
It shows it doesn't matter, thus you might as well get rid of it to reduce the incentive to bypass the public mempool via centralized APIs to private mempools.
Yeah, it shows that the arguments of both sides are irrelevant in reality...
Indeed
The long term goal for bitcoin is for the chain to be full of contiguous data spam 🙂
We want cheap blockspace to help with L2 security and scaling. Therefore spam is inevitable
And contiguous data spam is the least harmful to our nodes
And, as you say, in order to defend mining decentralization we must ensure the public relay network can help the small miners to predict the next block and see which transactions are likely to get mined. To help with that, I've started a LibreRelay node today
Sure, but that begs the question again since 83 byte op return as consensus rule this would solve the same problem just a well. Bringing us back to - what is the benefit we get from 100Kb op return vs what is the cost/risk of keeping or removing it?