Hes a normal fella, with normal fella opinions.

I can't remember who proclaimed that neither Core or Dashr have the community's best interests in mind. @semisol, was it you? Or perhaps @liminal 🦠? Whoever it was, who said it, I side more with their opinion. This is the pointless blocksize wars all over again. Always going to have bad actors. Bitcoin doesn't "fix" that😑.

This is something we both can agree on. I do wish we would see more Bitcoin node implementations and I've held that belief for quite awhile.

yes you dont get permission to cause damage to the chain with junk. Its a monetary network and changes can be made to defend this. It doesnt stop spam, it lowers the amount and it deters scammers from building

#bip110 is good. Obviously for those who dig deep, know the issue, are not incentivized to spam the network, understand/ buy into the promise bitcoin,

Luke dash jr anti-pedo pedophile 😂😂

So you're saying Epstein's victims were young adults by Luke-jr's understanding?

It was me that said that, but @liminal 🦠 probably did too as well. I think Luke has gone completely off the rails. The CSAM argument is not a good one as it will always be possible However, Core merging a change no one wanted, against common opinion, is a bad idea. It was always possible to have large OP_RETURNs or embed data. This does not mean we should encourage it or say it is welcome (such as via relay policy), though.

I'm not going to claim that I said it, but I'm pretty much in a similar boat. Be wary on things that spark urgency and division. Responded because of the tag, but I don't care to be a voice in these conversations.

It definitely seems like it was an overreaction to the announcement of the out-of-band offerings like Mara's SlipStream. Was it really encouraging it though? Or was it hoping that those misusing other, non-pruneable fields like witness data would take the olive branch and move their data use there so at least it could be pruned by those not running full archival nodes? Again, probably another overreaction that came out of the temporary Ordinal craze.

Witness data is more prunable than OP_RETURN. People have been sold a lie. The witness data is not included in the main txid, so it can be thrown away COMPLETELY while preserving verifiability of the supply. It is what would be pruned by a theoretical “non-archival node” You cannot delete an OP_RETURN without breaking the TXID hash and by extension breaking verifiability. So you must always store the data even if you prune it. Not that there is any incentive to use it, anyway, since it costs 4x more per byte.

Thanks for the correction. I've seen both sides misrepresent this now in arguing over what does/doesn't get stored. Think this gives me an idea to hit AI with.

Curious what country was he born in?

This is an intentional design decision in SegWit. As it is not part of the “main block” data and is segregated, it allowed increasing the effective block size without breaking old clients.