Quote from: takuma sato on May 01, 2025, 03:30:54 PM

Quote from: ABCbits on May 01, 2025, 10:01:21 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on April 30, 2025, 01:40:43 PM

In fact things like this are the reasons why I've argued for the benefits of having a strong alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol to be used instead of core...

There are fair amount of alternative Bitcoin full node software, but for better or worse Bitcoin Core is still very popular. I've tried few alternative in past, but still prefer Bitcoin Core.

Quote from: xmrhopium on April 30, 2025, 04:57:04 PM

Bitcoin should stay lean. If more data is needed, Layer 2's can batch it and use OP_RETURN more efficiently.

Bitcoin L2 isn't that popular though, with varied degree of trust/centralization[1] and even falsely pretending as Bitcoin L2/sidechain[2].

[1] https://www.bitcoinlayers.org/
[2] https://www.lxresearch.co/starting-to-define-layers-a-year-later/

Looks like Bitcoin Knots may be a good way to protest against this. It has Bitcoin Core functionalities and you are actively voting against this PR by running a node. We should do that but also try to stop this on Bitcoin Core itself from being merged. Bitcoin is not some experimental blockchain to host jpegs. It's clear to me now that the whole argument for this PR is, "the blocks are empty so we must come up with ideas to fill the blocks". This is just linear thinking. The demand for using BTC for it's real use case, which is to move and store money, will be an S curve, and when it happens, you don't want the blockchain cluttered with jpeg spam. This is a huge mistake and anyone involved will have their name next to this when it becomes evident.

Good videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsiDAhq4d4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kCqwR9x24

I agree with this and the OP. One of the things I love about Bitcoin is that it is decentralized, making it more difficult for governments, large companies, and giant entities to control it. Running nodes is a powerful way to help keep Bitcoin decentralized, and many people can help protect its decentralized nature by running one.

It seems that OP_RETURN is working as a good spam filter, and I'm not convinced that it should be removed. I can see how removing OP_RETURN will contribute to the bloating of the Bitcoin network's size over time, making it more challenging for a large number of people to run a node. The more people who can run a node, the healthier the Bitcoin network will be.

Folks, running Bitcoin Core already requires more than 600 GB of storage space! That's a huge amount, and it will prevent many people from getting involved to help protect Bitcoin decentralization.