I'm not yet convinced. To bring back the free speech analogy, I would compare it to Bitcoin filters and spam in the following way: - all words are allowed = all transactions that unlock existing UTXOs and create new UTXOs with the minimum set of operations are allowed. Notice how there is no moral judgment as long are the user is actually using words - meaningless noise is not allowed = transactions embedding arbitrary data for purposes other than UTXOs transfer are filtered away. This means that, ideally, transactions that could transfer ownership of sats in a more parsimonious way should do so.

Replies (1)

BitcoinIsFuture's avatar
BitcoinIsFuture 3 months ago
I do understand your point of view. I run Bitcoin Knots node with the default 42 Bytes OP_RETURN. I understand that monetary transactions are narrower use case in comparison to email or speech. But in my opinion making the exact limits for all valid use cases is nearly impossible. >with the minimum set of operations are allowed In this case what exactly are the minimum set of operations? Look at Taproot and SegWit hacks. They use OP_FALSE and OP_IF This is what Luke is saying about the issue. "Since the end of 2022, however, attackers have found a way to bypass this limit by obfuscating their spam inside OP_FALSE OP_IF patterns instead of using the standardized OP_RETURN. This remains under active exploitation to a degree very harmful to Bitcoin even today." from here