Thread

What BIP is the soft fork proposal to upgrade the 80-byte policy limit to consensus rule?

But will not spam filters automatically be a centralizing force. For it to work people need to get used to updating their nodes more often, or refreshing their spam filter at least (if it is not hard coded). The spammers find new ways aroud it, it gets updated etc etc. So we get a gatekeeper (Luke?). IMO the centralizing risk is much worse than the spam.

No

He stated they want a social disincentive. They should fork off and call it statecoin. Or lawcoin. Lol.

No, Knots just leaves people the ability to set whatever parameters they want. Core is eliminating said ability. One facilitates decentralized behavior, the other attempts to dictate behavior in a centralized way.

Knots is leaving in options that have always been there and core is removing options in a top down fashion... Which sounds more authoritarian?

Yeah. Because Luke is soo anti state and implementing something which needs constant updates since adversaries know how to sneak in "illegal" content is cool and fo sho works. And now some folks are waking up from the dead and a bot/new but I can fix bitcoin brigade running around and scream: it's the end of the world if we don't follow the law As I said a dozen times now and others did too: Statists will always be able to store sthg "illegal" on chain. And to me it's no coincidences whats going on worldwide with the surveillance/control retardation that this drama is being so hyped and the solution is a piece of software by a person which is probably captured but for sure questionable. Storing pics on chain is retarded. But so far I haven't seen anything that works WITHOUT getting even more centralized.

Bitcoin is a network that is defined by its users, who have ultimate freedom in choosing what software they use (fully-validating or not) and implementing whatever policies they desire. https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

This shit really has nothing to do with statism. It's about whether you get to set the rules on your own node or not. I think people who want to make it easier & more welcoming for others to store arbitrary data on all nodes (whether the node runner wants to relay & facilitate that crap getting into the chain or not) are either making a serious mistake or are malicious actors. If nodes can not set their own rules then bitcoin becomes less decentralized. You can currently accept & relay whatever garbage you want. I can currently refuse to relay things. Core wants to remove one of these options in a top down fashion.

O rlly? Nothing to do with statism? So Luke and friends want to be compatible with 'the law' Maybe they should ask the state how to deal with proper filtering of 'illegal' stuff because that's where it went. From monkey jpgs to 'illegal' (probably not everywhere) stuff. Run whatever you enjoy but my opinion is that since data ends up and blocks anyway and filters tend to centralize this drama is retarded. If I'd be a betting man I'd make a bet now. But I don't. And this seemingly manufactured 'crisis' will end just like the others before.

Glad that bitcoin isn't a democracy

Does this mean it will not be possible to change the Op Return default to 80 mb on Core v30?

Yes, my understanding is that the option to filter what is being relayed by Op return size is just gone. When someone suggested that a plugin could be built to add filters back if people wanted them (so that things of this nature didin't have to be decided by core) some of the devs freaked out about that too.

Not wanting a repeat of what happened to BSV has nothing to do with "the law," it's simply a rational understanding of incentives & history to want to limit arbitrary data storage. Filters centralize nothing. Datum is actually helping to decentralize mining. Lowering the amount of data that each node has to relay also increases decentralization.

Thank you.