Quote from: Ambatman on Today at 06:37:49 PM

ut removing OP_RETURN limits would incentivize even more non-financial use

How?

Quote

Not to mention embedding large illegal files (e.g., pirated content) easier, burdening nodes with legal risks.

They can do so more cheaply by disguising it as other parts of a transaction, this doesn't change their ability.

Quote

But users were expecting a solution to the ordinals birth last time to protect Bitcoin monetary utility.

I'm sure if someone has one which isn't trivially evaded, working in spite of major miners being offered (and accepting) millions to mine them, and somehow can't also be used to impose a state mandated blacklist ... that a lot of people would be very interested.

Especially if the idea somehow doesn't make inscriptions even more valuable and attractive by increasing their scarcity ...

But even soooo as has been pointed out, this is *independent* of the op_return limit, because removing it wouldn't have any impact on the ordinals/inscriptions stuff.

The whole premise of Bitcoin is to escape a world where your ability to transact could be overridden by some administrator's "judgment call weighing" your rights "against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors". So it's no accident that blocking unwanted transactions isn't easy, it's nearly impossible by design. And if there were some genius way possible to do it, would we want it at the expense of potentially eroding the properties that make bitcoin valuable? "It's a poor atom blaster that won't point both ways"

There used to be a broad understanding that standardness policy was only a gentleman agreement without real force, and that as blocks filled up spam would get managed by the size limits and fees. Excluding things was always extremely controversial and fraught with drama. I've been one of the most outspoken critics of shoving non-bitcoin data in transactions since probably before some current Bitcoin users were born... and I know this. How did it get forgotten?