Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 01:50:46 PM

The exploit Ordinals Attackers are using is not related to OP_RETURN and if it did we would have never had this problem to begin with because:
- OP_RETURN is part of the protocol that everyone has agreed with. Ordinals is not part of the protocol and only scammers like it.
- using OP_RETURN is not an "exploit" while what they call Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol, an oversight by the developers introducing SegWit
- most importantly OP_RETURN has a limit on how much arbitrary data you can push to the chain while the exploit Ordinals attack is using has virtually no limit
- even more importantly OP_RETURN does not create UTXO bloat since said outputs are provably unspendeable while Ordinals attack will create dust outputs that can not be spent nor be pruned.

You're missing the point here. We were talking about the rationale as to why Luke is rejecting txs with OP_RETURNs beyond 40 bytes. Its because he thinks such transactions are spam. Obviously he didn't agree with the 80 byte limit so he implemented his own.

Regardless, its hard to take you seriously when you continue to mischaracterize Ordinals as an "attack". Its like you don't understand what the word "attack" means and it doesn't help your argument. They are not trying to damage Bitcoin, they are simply trying to profit off it. And saying "only scammers like it" is just ignorant.

Quote from: southerngentuk on Today at 03:01:05 PM

Removing ordinals from Bitcoin is a necessary step.

You can't "remove ordinals from bitcoin". Its just a numeration system for satoshis, so in a way they've always been there since the first mined block. As for the rest of your post, holy moly, that's all I have to say.