Great privacy benefits and on chain savings, the things you people try to fight man. Get a fucking grip.

I know that’s the claim and I believe it. But in practice is it being used that much? Does that current usage or hypothetical future usage justify the unintended negative consequences that we’re dealing with now?

Yes. I supported it and regret it.

AFAIK no one suspected Taproot to create this problem. This is from Luke in a debate. The problem was the city current core devs stopped fighting spam. But this should be a lesson of more careful development.

But the reality is that it have been a net negative

Respect

The UXTO set from the spam is an issue. Which you said in another comment, but not this one?

How do JPEGs guard against a UTXO set spam attack?

“The consequence now is we have a modest amount of chain *AND UTXO set* growth.” Why did you leave that out?

You assume there will be JPEGs taking up blocks, why? What if there aren’t JPEGs taking up blocks?

Then We would have less utxo and hard drive bloat…and almost no demand for blocks which makes a dedicated attack almost a certainty. They don’t have to kill Bitcoin they just have to make it impractical to run a node on consumer hardware. If no one is running nodes except in data centers Bitcoin is captured.

Then could a compromise where 110 drops the changes to opreturn, but leaves everything else be the best of both worlds?

I honestly don’t know, haven’t gamed it out. What I do know is something sold as an emergency fix when there is no emergency and also sold wrapped in morality about csam is how the Feds work. 110 is dishonest and should be rejected. I don’t know if people pushing hard for it are compromised or if they just don’t see the threat. I do think Luke is compromised by his feelings that Bitcoin should not go against the state. He is against privacy tech. I find him disturbing to say the least.

By JPEGs did you just mean in opreturn only? Because aren’t inscriptions considered JPEGs too?

Core must be ultra-conservative, btc is fine, change nothing until (we) the users and businesses are screaming for it🤔 when ...

So, to be clear you're saying it's bad that they make invalid arbitrary sig data so they can never spend their coins? Are Satoshi's coins sitting in over 22,000 different addresses bad? You have to keep those in the UTXO set too.

when no one is demanding it loudly, it doesn’t belong in the core🔍❗️😯 (*) Stability first, (*) innovation earns its way in, (*) TO PROTECT BTC => core isn’t a playground for "too many ideas" (= it will divide us, this is what bankers want😑😓) => core is the last line of protecting the code and trust👀. (1) Every unnecessary change is an attack on reliability. (2) If the ecosystem isn’t begging for it, don’t touch the core. (3!) Why increasing the possibility to break something good, when we the users (MOST) aren't asking for it?

I mean anything that currently is allowed but would be restricted post activation. Post activation people can use the old and less utxo efficient method of P2sh wrapping to embed data. “Honest” spammers who just want their pictures on chain could choose this method and if they continued doing their spam at similar volume the chain would suffer utxo bloat in excess of the current norm. The issue I see is that in the absence of spam the lack of demand for block space makes a dedicated utxo attack feasible. Even if the attacker bloated the utxo over 2 years it would severely damage node runners. People are complaining about a couple hundred in drive upgrades because of v30…you think they are going to spend thousands for a 32gig machine?

Spam is definately an issue. Not now but two years ago main chain was almost dead for economic transaction and full of spam/scam. Im not sure we need bit110 but a reverse to v29.0 with spamfilters would go a long way.

The spam filters that did nothing because miners ignored them? Please be serious for fucks sake.