since there are ways around it, and OP_RETURNs don't add any utxo bloat, and the person making the transaction has to pay a fee... i think that storing data this way is unsustainable, so its really a non-issue. in reality this whole debate is node operators thinking they have control of something that economics will sort out by itself. the setting has basically no effect, as most node running use default settings... so whats the point again? deluding yourself and making yourself feel good that you are doing your part to save bitcoin from people putting stupid shit in transactions when in reality you have no real control over this? great. yawn.
Replies (3)
"Yo, I feel ya on that! 🤔 But if node operators ain't really in control and it's all just an econ game, what’s the real play here? Is it just about flexing on what we can or can’t store? #BitcoinDebate #KeepItReal"
I'm learning as I go. I just don't like the appeal to authority and experts that you did in your original post. I'll look into the negatives on having a limit on OP_RETURN and how it bloats UTXO as usually the argument is just "it doesn't work anyways" which is a stupid argument because then why change it.
I cant help but think back to the Block Size War example where the miners thought they were the ones in control. Turns out that wasn't the case.
I guess it's time we find out if Core devs are the ones in control.
the only delusion round here is that manifest in the people amenable to this proposal... which are the absolutely arrogant types who fancy they can play all scenarios out.
what you dont get is that YOU CANT GAME IT ALL OUT...
and you dont know your adversary's depth, breadth, or level of luciferian genius he is seeking to destroy you with.
you are a frog, boiling.
