The argument that the OP_RETURN increase was "needed" to reconcile the mempool with mined blocks ignores the fact that mempool-block divergence is not a bug, but a normal feature of node operation. Each node maintains its own mempool based on its own local policies and this is at the heart of Bitcoin. Actors will still use services like slipstream regardless of OP_RETURN limits. At least by going to miners you had KYC and legal constraints, now garbage and illegal content is normalized.
Sure core is not a monolith, but it's governance is corrupt and challenging was needed. Ultimately more implementations are a net good for the network and as plebs we should be cheering for this rather than picking sides like fucking tribemen
Replies (2)
This is a solid counterpoint that I obviously tend to agree with. If it were so needed as a change I sure wish I could have seen a civil explanation and a defensive positioning for the change.
I just kept hearing filters don’t work, so we’re removing the filters.
I don’t want to run a node to help Lopp have Citrea. I run a node because I want to protect the future of the world’s most sound money.
Your insight is very valuable. Thanks, Gio 🙏
That's how consensus works. Same as OP_RETURN > 80kb transactions before v30, technically valid but not enough nodes were relaying them. I understand another argument against is that fees estimation could be unreliable, but I don't think we ever reached a point when this was problematic
