Thank you for sharing and helping my #studybitcoin journey. I still needed to translate what you are saying for complete comprehension.
As in...
Crany is raising a valid technical concern about the security implications of removing the OP_RETURN data size limit. Here's a breakdown of what he's saying:
---
Translation:
🔸 If the OP_RETURN limit is removed, malicious actors could start spamming the Bitcoin network with huge 4MB transactions (the maximum block size).
🔸 These spammy transactions might include junk data via OP_RETURN (e.g. memes, NFTs, nonsense, political messages, arbitrary data blobs).
🔸 The attacker could do this over and over again, pushing the mempools (waiting areas for transactions) of most nodes to fill up quickly — flooding the network.
🔸 Since they'd be paying transaction fees, it's not technically invalid, but it would be malicious — a kind of "griefing" attack where someone with lots of money and no regard for cost just wants to jam the system.
🔸 In essence, Bitcoin’s decentralized nodes might start drowning in data, especially lightweight or resource-constrained ones.
---
🧯 Why this matters:
This is a classic tradeoff:
More data freedom → potentially more innovation (e.g. creative uses, new protocols)
More data freedom → potentially more attack surface (e.g. junk spam, DoS attempts)
Crany’s question highlights what many critics of the OP_RETURN change are nervous about:
> Will this change make Bitcoin more resilient, or just more vulnerable?
