Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 2
Last scraped
Edited on 03/05/2025, 00:25:11 UTC
The worst part for me is the removal of the config options, why should I as a user not be allowed to decide the limits for myself?
Stop with the allowed thing. That is serf thinking. No one is allowing you or not allowing you to do anything. There is the fable of an elephant held with a tiny rope. When the elephant was small it couldn't break the rope and then it was conditioned for its whole life to believe the rope held it. The option in the software is a rope, you think that the choices that it offers you are your constraints. They are not.The added complexity argument is also weak because the code is minimal and needs minimal maintenance.
I mean that's kind of a useless comment, no offense intended. If that's your position why post? It's an empty position. Anything could be done differently, and how can you know that there is a better solution unless you know of one?
I've read most of the discussions I could find on it, especially on the mailing list and it seems that this is a very controversial and flawed solution to the target problem. I wonder why cause such controversy instead of trying to design a more comprehensive solution instead? At least do it right when you're gonna cause so much drama.Lets imagine that it would not change any of the data-storage peoples conduct. Then the limitation and the option should still not be there, it is added complexity, risk, limitation without a benefit. That said, there are people who prefer data to be in outputs, for whatever good or bad reasons and presumably will be others in the future. It's preferable that they have the option of not bloating the utxo set. And when they do and yet choose not to, then it's important that it's clear to everyone that their conduct is intentional and not a result of a limit imposed on them by others.
Thereby, defeating one of the main arguments for removing the limit by the people who want to remove it. Funny circle? 
If changing something does not bring the benefits that are the main argument behind the change, then it should not be changed. Controversy and drama, what for? Or better because of what or for who? Right!. It's not like its defined or anything.
You missed my point, defined by who? Either we will follow satoshi's ideas and views or we won't. One can't cherry pick and rationalize satoshi's ideas that one likes and dismiss the others. Version 1
Scraped on 03/05/2025, 00:00:01 UTC
Quote
The worst part for me is the removal of the config options, why should I as a user not be allowed to decide the limits for myself?
Stop with the allowed thing. That is serf thinking. No one is allowing you or not allowing you to do anything. There is the fable of an elephant held with a tiny rope. When the elephant was small it couldn't break the rope and then it was conditioned for its whole life to believe the rope held it. The option in the software is a rope, you think that the choices that it offers you are your constraints. They are not.The added complexity argument is also weak because the code is minimal and needs minimal maintenance.
Lets imagine that it would not change any of the data-storage peoples conduct. Then the limitation and the option should still not be there, it is added complexity, risk, limitation without a benefit. That said, there are people who prefer data to be in outputs, for whatever good or bad reasons and presumably will be others in the future. It's preferable that they have the option of not bloating the utxo set. And when they do and yet choose not to, then it's important that it's clear to everyone that their conduct is intentional and not a result of a limit imposed on them by others.
Thereby, defeating one of the main arguments for removing the limit by the people who want to remove it. Funny circle? If changing something does not bring the benefits that are the main argument behind the change, then it should not be changed. Controversy and drama, what for? Or better because of what or for who? Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits is a huge mistake
Scraped on 02/05/2025, 23:55:00 UTC
Quote
The worst part for me is the removal of the config options, why should I as a user not be allowed to decide the limits for myself?
Stop with the allowed thing. That is serf thinking. No one is allowing you or not allowing you to do anything. There is the fable of an elephant held with a tiny rope. When the elephant was small it couldn't break the rope and then it was conditioned for its whole life to believe the rope held it. The option in the software is a rope, you think that the choices that it offers you are your constraints. They are not.