You are selecting a subset that confirms your bias.
Before version 30, there were various waves of high op_return transactions. It didn’t need v30 to make that possible. If only 8-12% of the network relays the transaction with a high op_return, it will be relayed to a miner. Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference in high op_return transactions being mined. I prefer them to be relayed through the network of nodes than being paid for out-of-band to the miner.
All said, incentive for inscribing spam on op_return is low. Cause a spammer can choose to use inscriptions at a discount.
Login to reply
Replies (1)
How am I selecting a subset when those are facts?
Actually you are not entirely honest - "Either all the network has to run knots or it’s not gonna make a meaningful difference"
All Core versions prior to the malware Core v30 filter OP_RETURN to less than 83 Bytes and that result of that is showed as evidence on the screenshot above.
If you state you are against spam I don't know how you support large OP__RETURN and the malware Core v30 which not only is not fixing anything it welcomes more spam.
If you state you are against spam you should support the soft fork which limits spam and non-monetary data but you seem to not support it.
If you state you are against spam don't you ask yourself why the compromised Core devs did not fix inscriptions spam?
It still abuses Bitcoin. Inscriptions spam is fixed on Bitcoin Knots.
You can also check the arguments of the Core devs for their decisions which revealed tham how compromised they are.
nostr:nevent1qqs06nuwy2naacmcw6uh5lf44q8982v98cqegqm4e6znd9c2wkd34sqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09ua9rxcv