This is a good balanced explanation.
The TLDR:
OP_RETURN limits are not consensus limits.
It was to incentivise better behaviour.
Expanding the limits benefits ZK-Snark implementations
But it’s is seen as accommodating spam
Worth a watch.
@brian_trollz in his vid on “What Bitcoin Did” that if someone disagrees, then let them run knots & be done with it. But, considering ‘Core’ is “reference code” I think preservation of consensus is more important than breaking it. So why run your changes on your own fork?
We have always heard that if someone disagrees with something, they can fork their ideas on their own, so why not here then?
So we could have Core remain as is, knots with more strict filtering, & their version with OP_RETURN limits removed. Or do that in Todd’s version & be done.
I get the distinct feeling that ppl on both sides are digging in their heals & the debate has now got personal.
I personally agree with @LukeDashjr’s approach, but at this stage, a reasonable compromise would be to do nothing.
I personally think we should block spam.
I have not seen a good enough argument to push through these changes which will ultimately split the user base. The upside of the change just doesn’t seem to justify the downside of in-fighting which is Bitcoin’s biggest threat, more than quantum & being banned by gov.
