Quote from: tvbcof on Today at 09:24:49 PM

From my perspective (going back a long ways) real sidechains such as liquid ARE 'bitcoin'.

I didn't mean that in the sense of anything negative, I mean you don't need to wonder about anything that complicated. The NFT/shitcoin stuff could just use some other much cheaper chain or whatever. They don't because reasons that I discussed upthread-- sidechains wouldn't help those reasons, they'd hurt. The value to the shitcoiner is that it's expensive to make their tokens.

Quote from: NickofTime on Today at 09:29:52 PM

Motivation: this was not properly addressed. From this discussion alone it seems that the choice of imposing no limit on OP_RETURN was for the benefit of the network. This is not what happened. This is not why the pull request was made. I refer you to a post by Peter Todd himself on stacker.news

Quote

For the record, this pull-req wasn't my idea. I was asked to open it by an active Core dev because entities like Citrea are using unprunable outputs instead of OP_Return, due to the size limits. And yes, that's the thing that has changed since.

https://stacker.news/items/971277?commentId=971434

Was this really for the benefit of the network or for the benefit of Citrea? Why did this anonymous developer go through Todd for the PR? Am I the only one seeing red flags here?

I'm glad you asked that-- I hadn't seen any of that discussion and I totally get why you find it concerning.

You're missing context: Petertodd's pull request points to this mailing list post: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/d6ZO7gXGYbQ/m/mJyek28lDAAJ So no anonymity. And why Petertodd? Because it's simply a reintroduction of a pull request he made previously: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130 Petertodd just copy and pasted his older change-- kind of the obvious thing to do when someone has submitted a change before that you think should be made now is to ask them to resubmit it.

(also jesus man, can Petertodd not manage to say anything without somehow causing drama? Tongue

)

As far as citrea: they already make "fake address" outputs. I don't see how the change *benefits* them, it would however make their traffic less harmful to Bitcoin which seemingly they'd prefer. Though apparently these transactions only happen when their channels fail or something it's an exceptional and not frequent case for them so not terribly important.

And if I could be so bold to make a totally wild ass guess, I'd guess that Antoine Poinsot looked into citrea saw it producing fake outputs, asked them to stop and got pointed to the op_return limit... but I dunno the history there. I do know that in the past I've done similar things may times: found some user doing something apparently dumb, asked them to change for the benefit of the network, learned of the reason for their behavior, then went to go get it fixed.

And you can see from the fact that it's been proposed before that citrea is not the driver of this. Maybe from Petertodd's perspective it's what triggered someone to ask him to try again. But the reason that people support it (including petertodd) isn't limited to or even related to that triggering event.

And FWIW. I learned about this whole thing via drama on reddit where people were posting saying Coredevs wanted to turn bitcoin into NFTs/Shitcoins, which is pretty ridiculous. I'd personally never heard of citria and commented in support of this change before even learning what it was... because it's pretty obviously the right thing to do, and I think that's probably true for many other people. I don't know enough about it to give an opinion on it. I understand it's supposed to be a payment channel thing, which is good, but a lot of the recent ones of those have a shitcoin. I haven't checked if it does, 'cause a good change is a good change even if a piece of shit likes it. (and you *have* to adopt that perspective, or otherwise enemies can harm you by liking things that are good for you

)

So from my perspective this is a change that is massively overdue. And the thing that has changed over time that matters is that now large miners are reliably accepting unlimited opreturn via direct submission, have been doing it for a long time, and are clearly not going to stop. That differences changes the filter from net-neutral or somewhat net positive to net-harmful.