7fc628…3e8772

@ODELL

@ODELL - this sounds like something opensats should fund as an alternative to both Core and Knots.

I’m going to assume you’re trolling. Most spammers don’t use OP_RETURN because they get a 75% discount if they embed their spam using SegWit. OP_RETURN is about VC-backed spammers who want to “comply” with the “mainstream BTC standards” so their investors don’t get spooked. E.g. Citrea that is VC-backed by Lopp.

For those reading the thread (because you obviously already understand this - and that’s why you keep pushing it), 1 BTC for you is far less of a commitment than 1 BTC for many other people. That’s if the bet makes sense. I’m not sure this bet even makes sense. I think the issue people are raising is that spam is bad and that we should discourage spam. Your response should also be that spam is bad - but you refuse to say that, so people reasonably conclude that you have a financial interest in spamming the Bitcoin blockchain. We can define spam as non-monetary use of Bitcoin - then legitimately argue about how to identify that via dust outputs etc… We should also agree that fighting spam is not really hard (it’s tedious, but not difficult from a technical perspective. Knots has some very simple spam filters Core could adopt - that would need to be periodically updated as spammers change tactics).

Who was claiming that “Bitcoin Core v30 was going to result in a massive node crash / network outage”? It seems like you offered a bet that nobody would reasonably take and now claim it means people were wrong about something vaguely related. Instead, can you please explain the rationale for the Core v30 changes to OP_RETURN and why they are beneficial for Bitcoin as money? I still have not heard a single rational explanation for that change.

We should not be arguing about this. Spammers say you can’t define “spam”. It’s not that difficult- if you need to attach large amounts of arbitrary data, or hide it in massive amounts of unspendable “dust” outputs, then it’s not a financial transaction, and belongs somewhere else that’s not on the bitcoin blockchain. I agree there’s a bit of a slippery slope here - like how side-chains anchor on the base layer blockchain, and we should periodically reconsider how much arbitrary data is needed for financially adjacent use-cases.