An oracle pull from three years ago just popped up... Hmmm... Good timing! #alchemist #hermit #engineer #soulcontracts #archetypalenergies

A photo I took 3 years ago...

The first time I am watching this show live on Nostr and not on yt, thx to latest @primal android update. View live event →

Fuck!

I think I have utterly exhausted myself trying to understand the Core vs. Knots debate and it appears that my AI study buddy has too. 😵‍💫 So I am gonna pause for now and move onto other things and pray that whatever unfolds is for the highest and best good of all of life. GM #nostr! Peace 🫂🕊️✌🏻

Ran into three familiar faces today... One is settling back down here after a couple years in Ohio, building his massage therapy business and was stoked to have had a client return twice now for a private yoga posture alignment and instructions sessions. He said "it feels good finally stepping into owning my gifts more fully". I only waved hello to my other friend while in conversation but pinged him on message after... Huge carreer field transition. And the third conversation was with a friend who I last spoke to last before I left unexpectedly two years and a half ago who I was then encouraging and giving strategy advice around building his marshall arts workshops for kids in the area, at the time he was also driving Uber and the likes but after leaving for a while and returnjng has now apparently just started school for computer science and plans to go into cyber security. I was honest with all three where I am at... In need of a massive breakthrough! I was feeling a spark today and thinking I may need to soon get in touch with you @Derek Ross and take you up on the offer of support with building my website with Soapbox perhaps or at least ask you a bunch of questions. #GN

Let’s step inside their minds and see the world from their perspective — Peter Todd, Greg Sanders, Antoine Poinsot, and Gloria Zhao — to understand why removing the OP_RETURN limit makes sense to them. These aren’t just technical people pushing arbitrary changes — they each have a philosophy of Bitcoin that’s shaping this move. I’ll break it down for each voice: --- 🧠 1. Peter Todd — The Anti-Spam Pragmatist > “If people are going to embed data anyway, let’s at least give them a clean, efficient way to do it.” His perspective: The 80-byte OP_RETURN limit is arbitrary and ineffective. → It doesn’t stop spam, it just pushes it into more harmful places (like the UTXO set or taproot witness data). OP_RETURN is non-spendable, prunable, and easy to ignore. So if someone must embed data, this is the best place to do it. Censorship resistance means tolerating unwanted uses as long as the user pays fees. Trying to “protect” Bitcoin by enforcing tight limits creates an illusion of control — the bad behavior just finds other ways. > 🧩 In his world: better to channel trash into a sandbox than let it seep everywhere. --- ⚙️ 2. Greg Sanders — The Policy Clean-Up Engineer > “This isn’t about encouraging inscriptions — it’s about making mempool policy simpler and more consistent.” His perspective: The current OP_RETURN limit is a mempool policy, not a consensus rule. So it’s inconsistent — different clients and miners do different things. Removing the limit makes policy uniform, reduces code complexity, and removes legacy exceptions. Clean policy = less room for bugs, exploits, or accidental censorship. He believes the cost of OP_RETURN usage will still disincentivize spam, and pruned nodes won't need to store it anyway. > 🧩 In his world: it’s about protocol hygiene and neutrality — not ideology. --- 🧪 3. Antoine Poinsot — The Technologist for Expressive Bitcoin > “Bitcoin is programmable money. Let’s stop punishing expressive uses.” His perspective: OP_RETURN was originally introduced to prevent UTXO spam — but its limits are now punishing legitimate use cases (e.g., timestamping, identity proofs, cross-chain communication). Removing the size cap doesn't enable spam — it just stops punishing people for trying to use Bitcoin creatively. He believes in client flexibility — if you don’t like large OP_RETURNs, configure your node to ignore them. A more expressive Bitcoin leads to more resilient and diverse uses — without changing consensus. > 🧩 In his world: Bitcoin is a tool, and policy shouldn’t get in the way of innovation. --- 🧭 4. Gloria Zhao — The Steward of Relay Fairness > “Bitcoin relay policy shouldn’t discriminate based on message type if the fee is paid.” Her perspective: Gloria has emphasized relay neutrality: mempool policies should not favor some users or use cases over others. She’s concerned that political gatekeeping of transaction types (like inscriptions) could become a slippery slope. Her role is often to manage network propagation, and she wants relay logic to be as clean and unbiased as possible. She’s not saying inscriptions or spam are good — just that the network shouldn’t try to enforce morals via mempool settings. > 🧩 In her world: Bitcoin should not police intentions — only economic incentives. --- 🔍 Why It Makes Sense to Them Person Driving Logic Peter Todd People already embed data — this just makes it safer and cleaner. Greg Sanders Simplifies code and policy across clients — no more weird legacy limits. Antoine Poinsot OP_RETURN should support valid use cases beyond 80 bytes — it’s a feature. Gloria Zhao Relay neutrality is critical — policy should treat all paid txs the same. --- ⚖️ What They All Agree On: This does not change Bitcoin consensus. Users must still pay fees. Node operators and miners can still filter or reject this type of data locally. They’re not “turning Bitcoin into Ethereum.” They’re saying: “Let’s clean up legacy rules and treat all data equally — the market can decide what’s worth transmitting.” View quoted note →

Who Proposed the OP_RETURN Limit Removal? Peter Todd Primary initiator of the proposal (Pull Request #32359). He originally introduced the idea in July 2023, revisiting and pushing it forward in April 2025. He framed the limit as outdated and inefficient, arguing that developers were already bypassing it and that there are better tools for embedding data that don’t bloat the UTXO set. Greg Sanders Authored and merged the final pull request (PR #32406). Presented clear benefits like a cleaner UTXO set and more consistent default behaviour for Bitcoin Core users. Antoine Poinsot (Chaincode Labs) Supported and co-authored the initiative; added technical and conceptual backing. Gloria Zhao (Bitcoin Core Contributor) Provided public explanation and rationale in the GitHub discussions and on social media. She articulated the motivations behind the merged change and warned about risks of centralized blockspace deals. -- Summary Table Role Name Contribution Proposal Author Peter Todd Initiated the PR to remove the limit Merge Author Greg Sanders Finalized and merged the change Support & Framework Antoine Poinsot Co-authored/support within Chaincode Labs Rationale & Communication Gloria Zhao Articulated the reasoning and addressed governance concerns --- TL;DR Peter Todd conceived and proposed the change. Greg Sanders brought the change into Bitcoin Core v30. Antoine Poinsot lent technical legitimacy and support. Gloria Zhao shaped the public messaging and governance framing. #studybitcoin

For those not on X I just had AI dissect this post from @Erik Cason as part of my research and understanding on the topic and #studybitcoin journey. 🧵 in comments. It appeared from the comments most were not in agreement.

Is @jack pro OP_RETURN limit removal? Have I picked up correctly he's into it? And my AI assistant is wrong here (in comments 👇🏻) #asknostr

Since I've just been pretty clueless but wanna remedy this... Doing a bit of #studybitcoin today and asked my AI which does not have much of a context around this topic from me necessarily. Here's to take. 🧭 My Take: This Isn’t Just About OP_RETURN… It’s a Clash of Worldviews This change — removing the OP_RETURN limit — is symbolic. On paper, it’s a small mempool policy tweak. But in practice, it touches a nerve at the heart of Bitcoin’s identity: Is Bitcoin a neutral protocol that anyone can use however they want (as long as they pay)? Or is it a sacred monetary layer, meant to be protected from dilution, bloat, and distractions? That’s the real question under this debate. --- 🛠 On a Technical Level: The removal of the limit is logical, from a consistency standpoint. Core developers like Peter Todd and Greg Sanders argue that: The 80-byte cap is arbitrary. Developers have already worked around it using other hacks (e.g., creating UTXOs just to store data). Bigger OP_RETURN data does not affect consensus and can improve transparency (e.g., timestamping, proofs, sidechain coordination). ➡️ From a developer UX and cleanliness point of view — I get it. But... --- 🔥 On an Energetic, Philosophical Level: Removing the limit opens the door just enough to let entropy in. It’s the kind of change that can slowly erode the monetary focus of Bitcoin. We’ve already seen Ordinals, Inscriptions, NFT-like behavior — even "Taproot Wizards" that the post is calling out. If these changes stack up, Bitcoin becomes less of a monetary layer and more of a "poor man’s Ethereum". Not because it wants to, but because it didn’t say “no.” That’s why people like Luke Dashjr and Knots users are pissed. They see this not as code, but as energy drift. As value dilution. As a Trojan horse. And honestly? They’re not wrong. --- 💡 A Middle Way? Maybe. The beauty of Bitcoin is that you can opt out. You can run Knots. You can strip out mempool policies you don’t agree with. You can set your own filters, your own relay rules, your own block templates (if you mine). This is true sovereignty — but it requires effort and discernment. So maybe the real opportunity here is for the community to mature: Get smarter about mempool policy. Run clients like Knots if that’s your preference. Educate new node runners about why these changes matter. Pressure devs to uphold monetary minimalism without stagnating progress. Bitcoin doesn’t need to be stagnant to stay pure. It just needs to know what it’s here to do — and not be afraid to say no. --- 🦾 Final Thought: The fact that this debate is happening — openly, fiercely, with strong tools like Knots rising — is a sign of health, not sickness. It means Bitcoin is still resisting capture… even from within. And that, to me, is beautiful.

Is the OP_RETURN limit removal a BIP? No — this specific change was not formalized as a BIP. Instead, it was implemented as a mempool policy change within the Bitcoin Core software, meaning it doesn’t alter consensus rules (i.e., the rules all full nodes must follow to stay in agreement about what Bitcoin is). It only changes how Bitcoin Core nodes handle and relay unconfirmed transactions, which is part of policy, not consensus. ➡️ Because it’s not a consensus change, it doesn’t require a BIP. BIPs are generally reserved for: New consensus rules (e.g. SegWit, Taproot) Network-wide upgrades Major standardizations or protocols (e.g. BIP32 for HD wallets) --- 🔍 So what is this, then? This change is a policy-level update merged into the Bitcoin Core codebase: Specifically, it lifts the 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN data in the mempool. Nodes running this updated software will now accept and relay larger OP_RETURN transactions, up to a much higher limit (potentially blocksize-dependent). This will go live in Bitcoin Core v30, expected October 2025. --- 👀 Why does that matter? No BIP = No global consensus required. So if you run a non-Core client (like Knots, or custom builds), you’re free to reject or filter those transactions. That’s what Knots users are doing. This is why Bitcoin Knots is rising in adoption — it's preserving stricter filters to protect against what its supporters call “spam” or “non-monetary bloat.” #studybitcoin #pow View quoted note →

Who proposed the OP_RETURN limit removal (i.e., who kicked off this change)? The proposal to remove the long-standing ~80‑byte limit on Bitcoin’s OP_RETURN was initially authored by Peter Todd, a longtime Bitcoin developer. He filed the original pull request (#32359) and argued it was outdated, inefficient, and encouraged harmful workarounds like UTXO-spamming outputs. His idea was to simplify Bitcoin’s code and better support sidechains, timestamping, and bridge use cases . This concept was further backed and advanced by Antoine Poinsot of Chaincode Labs, who submitted another pull request that helped push the change forward in the Core codebase . After extensive discussion and revisions, the final merge—PR #32406—was authored by Greg Sanders, with contributions from others (including Peter Todd and Gloria Zhao). Sanders highlighted benefits like a “cleaner UTXO set” and “more consistent default behavior” . Gloria Zhao also provided public updates explaining the rationale behind the decision . #studybitcoin #bitcoin #btc View quoted note →