"Jimmy and I agreed there is no economic incentive to use bigger up returns, right? so it's basically two sides of a coin. If nobody's going to use it, we should not enable it or we are not worried about enabling it, right? But either way, if nobody's going to use it, it's probably a pretty marginal issue." - @Murch
I would say that there's no *obvious* economic incentives to use OP_RETURN, not that there were none.
And this is an important difference. To say that there are none is to say that you know all possible future things that people might use it for. I don't think anyone can know that.
h/t @Bitcoin_To_The_Oblivion
Login to reply
Replies (5)
Not sure why the tagging didn't work: @Murch
Nice try, spam bot 😆
It agreed to disagree, missed the point.
But I'm still impressed how good it is at pretending to be human.
This is one of the reasons why I really like BIP110 (aka BIP444)...!!
It gives you little bit of space to anchor some of the data in op_return (if needed).

GitHub
BIP 110: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork by dathonohm · Pull Request #2017 · bitcoin/bips
Mailing list thread at https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8
Editor note: please post conceptual feedback and meta-commentary on th...
1. OP_RETURN became a spam war. I wouldn't call it "marginal issue"
2. If its "marginal issue" for Core why did they push it like their life depends on enabling it? There are motivitations behind and its not only Citrea shitcoiners.
3. When 21%+ of Bitcoin nodes migrate to Bitcoin Knots that is not "marginal issue" for node runners.
Its interesting how mainly shitcoiners are excited about large OP_RETURNs
View quoted note →
All of Core's arguments are in this video where it all started and because of what they censored people on Github for mentioning Citrea.