- Above certain size (~150bytes) [1], it is claimed it's cheaper to abuse witness exploit so not sure why you're so sure that ppl with malicious intent to embed large jpegs/data will switch to using OP_RETURN.
- When the actual UTXO bloat exploded like crazy during inscription attack, most Core devs were congratulating their ex coworker from Chaincode (Casey) on exploiting the witness vulnerability. He even asked jpeggers to donate some money to Core dev [2]. No attempt to stop him either socially OR technically. Most of them incl. Dr Wuille ridiculed actual users that they can run their node with blocksonly [3][4][5], they still say that. Now you've claims that they're anticipating some usage in more harmful ways(which hasn't happened btw) so they are correct in pro-actively proposing relaxing op_return limits. May be try to comprehend the frustruation of real users if you actually care about this particular issue in Bitcoin unless you think all of the technical stuff as told by the "experts" is something everyone needs to subscribe to?
- I'm not so sure about your claim of OOB txs atleast for non-std txs. For inscriptions may be but my very first point clearly shows you that relaxing op_return limits doesn't make it cheaper for those inscription txs so they are not going to move there.
For stats on non-std txs, it is claimed that there's only 30 non-std OP_RETURN txs out of 7 million txs this year. [6]
- "It was a limit that made sense at a different time in a different world", explain how are you quantifying that now the system is mature enough and people got educated. I would say it's exactly the opposite of your claim, inscription attack bloated chainstate faster than ever before. How can you claim people are educated, when Core devs themselves said things like use blocksonly or a bad and shaky claim that we will have utreexo or assumeutreexo in the future if there's too much bloat without understanding the adoption hurdle/trust involved in such solutions. May be that can increase, but those are then pure speculations.
- I respectfully agree that you've way more technical expertise than most ppl in this space and may be you're right about some of your concerns(block propagation etc.) even though counter arguments have been also made by people who are not just theoreticians but practically running businesses. I don't think devs living in a totally theoretical world can easily convince people/users actually running things even with their advanced math and intellectual-papers vs real evidence and experiences.
May be we need to look at the bigger picture, i.e. finding path of least resistance and making sure there's more clarity in communication between technical and non-technical users. If the issue is that ALL of the Core devs are right and ALL of the users on the other side are wrong, there still needs to be a way to bring them closer on a point that's both technically and socially sound, specially for the people on both sides who atleast agree that Bitcoin turning into Etherium is no good. Right now, that's not the case PRs are for devs, dev mailing list is for devs so moderate away the concerned users hard is not a great look at all (just saying as a user).
Not a fan of long rants, but a long rant in response to long rants
Ref:
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/122321/when-is-op-return-cheaper-than-op-false-op-if
[2] https://x.com/glozow/status/1757597995632111825
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112
[4] https://github.com/darosior/ordisrespectooor
[5] https://x.com/sr_gi/status/1918320889860403304
[6] https://x.com/oomahq/status/1917153249565565344
- When the actual UTXO bloat exploded like crazy during inscription attack, most Core devs were congratulating their ex coworker from Chaincode (Casey) on exploiting the witness vulnerability. He even asked jpeggers to donate some money to Core dev [2]. No attempt to stop him either socially OR technically. Most of them incl. Dr Wuille ridiculed actual users that they can run their node with blocksonly [3][4][5], they still say that. Now you've claims that they're anticipating some usage in more harmful ways(which hasn't happened btw) so they are correct in pro-actively proposing relaxing op_return limits. May be try to comprehend the frustruation of real users if you actually care about this particular issue in Bitcoin unless you think all of the technical stuff as told by the "experts" is something everyone needs to subscribe to?
- I'm not so sure about your claim of OOB txs atleast for non-std txs. For inscriptions may be but my very first point clearly shows you that relaxing op_return limits doesn't make it cheaper for those inscription txs so they are not going to move there.
For stats on non-std txs, it is claimed that there's only 30 non-std OP_RETURN txs out of 7 million txs this year. [6]
- "It was a limit that made sense at a different time in a different world", explain how are you quantifying that now the system is mature enough and people got educated. I would say it's exactly the opposite of your claim, inscription attack bloated chainstate faster than ever before. How can you claim people are educated, when Core devs themselves said things like use blocksonly or a bad and shaky claim that we will have utreexo or assumeutreexo in the future if there's too much bloat without understanding the adoption hurdle/trust involved in such solutions. May be that can increase, but those are then pure speculations.
- I respectfully agree that you've way more technical expertise than most ppl in this space and may be you're right about some of your concerns(block propagation etc.) even though counter arguments have been also made by people who are not just theoreticians but practically running businesses. I don't think devs living in a totally theoretical world can easily convince people/users actually running things even with their advanced math and intellectual-papers vs real evidence and experiences.
May be we need to look at the bigger picture, i.e. finding path of least resistance and making sure there's more clarity in communication between technical and non-technical users. If the issue is that ALL of the Core devs are right and ALL of the users on the other side are wrong, there still needs to be a way to bring them closer on a point that's both technically and socially sound, specially for the people on both sides who atleast agree that Bitcoin turning into Etherium is no good. Right now, that's not the case PRs are for devs, dev mailing list is for devs so moderate away the concerned users hard is not a great look at all (just saying as a user).
Not a fan of long rants, but a long rant in response to long rants
Ref:
[1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/122321/when-is-op-return-cheaper-than-op-false-op-if
[2] https://x.com/glozow/status/1757597995632111825
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408#issuecomment-1877812112
[4] https://github.com/darosior/ordisrespectooor
[5] https://x.com/sr_gi/status/1918320889860403304
[6] https://x.com/oomahq/status/1917153249565565344