Economic incentives crush all your local relay policy settings and does not affect global bitcoin network That’s why core aligned relay policy with consensus by increasing op_return value Because we already bypassed it by having sub sat summer fees currently when 99% of nodes were filtering them but there were still propagated and confirmed in the block.

💯. Which is why it always made sense that the big funders of all the knots advocates were the big mining companies like Mara.

Slipstream existed to bypass filters, wich means filters had an effect, Slipstream bypassed the p2p network, that comes with downsides like higher fees to Slipstream and lack of censorship resistance. Core change was not because of that, it was because of citrea needs, citrea could not rely on something like slipstream, that's why core changed op_return.

LOL Core is a decentralized group of developers that have no affiliation or contact with Citrea and these ridiculous conspiracy theories type of FUD helps nobody.

Core is not a "decentralized" group lol. wtf does that mean? lmao Can I merge something to Core? Core are devs and some have control over the repo and merge access, not all of them, I can submit a PR and ultimately someone decides and allows a merge. So there is a well know group of Core devs and guess what they talk and get to consensus on needed changes. Antoine Poinsot said on record that citrea would need to include extra data and op_return would be the less harmful way.

"... the demand for inscription incentivized people to build private bridges to miners to bypass other standardness limits such as the maximum transaction size in order to store even more data." "While these restrictions are not binding anymore for whoever wants to store data onchain, they still unnecessarily restrict constructions with time-sensitive transactions. Protocol designers want those transactions to be standard for a good reason: they don’t want to rely on private bridges for security-critical transaction broadcast. Those transactions need to relay properly on the more censorship resistant public network. It was recently brought to my attention that Citrea faced this situation with their Clementine bridge." source:

Antoine Poinsot

On relay policy and recent OP_RETURN drama

Relaxing restrictions on OP_RETURN is fine. Bitcoiners need to stop being so gullible.

Core is a decentralized group of devs with contributions from 100s of people all over the world, check the github. If one person said something that doesn't represent all of Core, you've bought into the psyop, congrats.

It's pretty clear what that means, it means there's no leaders. There are maintainers, but these people do not speak for or override the rest of the core developers. If you're curious how core development actually works there are plenty of how-to articles to help you because it seems you need to start from the beginning.

TY but I know exactly how it works, as you can see changes are aprroved/merged by the maintainers like I said, who have permissions to do so. The fact that you think there are no leaders just because there is a flow chart on how to submit PRs and think they don't have contact with anyone is naive, since there are owners of the repo/project, they also decide who gets what permissions on the repo. People need to get this in their head Core is not a democracy or decentralized. If Core maintainers decide to go against a community decision they can, they can and SHOULD be opinionated on what kind of implementation they want. It would make things clearer for everyone and push others to make their own node implementations, and that is what helps decentralization over node implementations. But back to to your OP check the link i shared.

or maybe you are falling for the gaslight I guess I will never know. the problem is what Antoine, a core dev said was exactly what ended up happening a change in the op_return and so happens that it was what Citrea needed, and guess what, his rationale makes sense and the solution makes sense, and there were other solutions or approaches. Maybe if this were clear and transparent from the start people could discuss what actually matters, the citrea use case. Instead Core is gaslighting everyone that it's about slipstream, or fee predictions or the best one, mempool consistency lmao.

Once again whether it's what Citrea "needed" or not it's what the reality of the network demanded and that's the point, the change is harm reduction to prevent large miners from gaining an advantage, not "sanctioning spam" and certainly not "gaslighting everyone".

There are no leaders, those maintainers didn't get magically anointed they proved their worth and were selected by the entire Core team like pretty much every other FOSS project, you clearly have no idea how Core's development process even works. Like I said, go back to basics before buying into psyops.

it is gaslighting and it matters because it's different. increasing op_return because of slipstream is just stupid for many reasons that I will not bother explaining, mempool being consistency is even worse and saying it's to give a better path for spam is also false..Network demand from who? not from node runners certainly, if we go to 2017 the network was "demanding" bigger blocks from users to miners. things change if we say listen there is a legitimate, business, use case wich is Citrea weather people like or not but we have to decide how to accommodate their need, either 1-do nothing and they will harm the network in other forms but let them be. 1b- take hostile measures if they harm the network. 2 - increase op_return for their needs with a tailor sized for them. this discussion is focused on the actual use case, instead Core lead people discussion about the sex of the angels with things like what is spam after all, do filters work and all kind of crap. it's has nothing to do with spam mitigation, or miner centralization or whatever, it's a specific, clear, and legitimate use case that no one discussed, bc Core could just say hey this is what we need to discuss, we propose op_return increase, and if most of the community was against it they would need to come up with a solution, instead core blownup op_return limit way more than it was needed when if everyone knew the why and the need they would be better informed to provide solutions.

Ah yes ok, you're right, any project on GH with a handful of people that have merge access is decentralized.

Yah that's not what I said but hey keep misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth and see how well that works out for a discussion.

LOL

LOL "Economic incentives" 🤡

A core dev advised a company using bitcoin how to use bitcoin better, OMG NO YOU DON'T SAY! You are a clown 🤡

Muting your ridiculous conspiracy theories.

No you are wrong. Increasing the op return was issuing harm reduction into a new reality whereby the social contract of a public mempool had been already broken by miners like mara with slipstream. Learn your history because right now you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey Moron, OP_RETURN was increased after this meeting between Core and Citrea. Which you are saying its FUD you stupid clown 🤡🤡🤡

🤡🤡🤡

I don't remember agreeing to increased OP return size, but it's a decentralized team of devs aka I'm not part of it so my vote doesn't matter 🤡.

You don't remember agreeing huh, well were were you even in the discussions on the mailing list, in IRC or in delving in the first place? Do you even understand this discussion goes back to 2014? Or are you just an internet troll who can't even code?