Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 3
Last scraped
Edited on 14/05/2025, 23:03:11 UTC
OPnet.org can do everything Citrea.xyz wants to do
Citrea can already do everything they want to do with no changes made to Bitcoin Core or anyone else.The thing that kicked off all of this drama is that a Core dev read Citrea's whitepaper, saw the construction that they were going to use, and said "wow that's dumb, you can do better if the OP_RETURN limit was higher". The whole point is that the current construction would insert 2 unspendable outputs into the UTXO set and they were doing this in order to work around the OP_RETURN limit. And the discussion started with the thought that if the limit were lifted, Citrea could be convinced to just use a single OP_RETURN instead.
Are you sure that Bitcoin Core contributor(s) didn't write or help write Citrea's whitepaper? "Put it on paper and we will get it pushed live" type of deal. Because it is absolutely giving that vibe.
Do you or anyone you know have a financial interest in Citrea?
There isn't a BIP; this isn't a BIP-able change.
Ah, duh. Gotcha.
I have a front row seat for Testnet... I saw some REALLY weird things go on with v3 to push out a rushed/sloppy v4 for the block rewards. Then to find out Citrea is using v4 and users need 10 whole TBTC to help test their product... it just feels "weird". Lopp attacking a network to assist a private company to enable them to hopefully have plenty of coins in the network to test their startup and then these changes to Bitcoin itself... Eh... Am I tripping or...?
It's pretty smart, needless to say.
I'm seeing all types of unusual shit from yall, like GMaxwell suggesting a premined Testnet that sells to pay devs (which maybe fine, but needs to be talked about).
Also, I'm a supporter of removing OP_return.
Fuck em, ram that code down their throat...
Let's see how it goes.
Version 2
Edited on 07/05/2025, 23:33:15 UTC
OPnet.org can do everything Citrea.xyz wants to do
Citrea can already do everything they want to do with no changes made to Bitcoin Core or anyone else.The thing that kicked off all of this drama is that a Core dev read Citrea's whitepaper, saw the construction that they were going to use, and said "wow that's dumb, you can do better if the OP_RETURN limit was higher". The whole point is that the current construction would insert 2 unspendable outputs into the UTXO set and they were doing this in order to work around the OP_RETURN limit. And the discussion started with the thought that if the limit were lifted, Citrea could be convinced to just use a single OP_RETURN instead.
Are you sure that Bitcoin Core contributor(s) didn't write or help write Citrea's whitepaper? "Put it on paper and we will get it pushed live" type of deal. Because it is absolutely giving that vibe.
Do you or anyone you know have a financial interest in Citrea?
There isn't a BIP; this isn't a BIP-able change.
Ah, duh. Gotcha.
I have a front row seat for Testnet... I saw some REALLY weird things go on with v3 to push out a rushed/sloppy v4 for the block rewards. Then to find out Citrea is using v4 and users need 10 whole TBTC to help test their product... it just feels "weird". Lopp attacking a network to assist a private company to enable them to hopefully have plenty of coins in the network to test their startup and then these changes to Bitcoin itself... Eh... Am I tripping or...?
It's pretty smart, needless to say.
Also, I'm a supporter of removing OP_return.
Fuck em, ram that code down their throat...
Let's see how it goes.
Version 1
Scraped on 07/05/2025, 23:08:29 UTC
OPnet.org can do everything Citrea.xyz wants to do
Citrea can already do everything they want to do with no changes made to Bitcoin Core or anyone else.The thing that kicked off all of this drama is that a Core dev read Citrea's whitepaper, saw the construction that they were going to use, and said "wow that's dumb, you can do better if the OP_RETURN limit was higher". The whole point is that the current construction would insert 2 unspendable outputs into the UTXO set and they were doing this in order to work around the OP_RETURN limit. And the discussion started with the thought that if the limit were lifted, Citrea could be convinced to just use a single OP_RETURN instead.
Are you sure that Bitcoin Core
Do you or anyone you know have a financial interest in Citrea?
There isn't a BIP; this isn't a BIP-able change.
Ah, duh. Gotcha.
I have a front row for Testnet... I saw some REALLY weird things go on with v3 to push out a rushed/sloppy v4 for the block rewards. Then to find out Citrea is using v4 and users need 10 whole TBTC to help test their product... it just feels "weird". Lopp attacking a network to assist a private company to enable them to hopefully have plenty of coins in the network to test their startup and then these changes to Bitcoin itself... Eh... Am I tripping or...?
It's pretty smart, needless to say.
Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Scraped on 07/05/2025, 23:03:16 UTC
OPnet.org can do everything Citrea.xyz wants to do
Citrea can already do everything they want to do with no changes made to Bitcoin Core or anyone else.The thing that kicked off all of this drama is that a Core dev read Citrea's whitepaper, saw the construction that they were going to use, and said "wow that's dumb, you can do better if the OP_RETURN limit was higher". The whole point is that the current construction would insert 2 unspendable outputs into the UTXO set and they were doing this in order to work around the OP_RETURN limit. And the discussion started with the thought that if the limit were lifted, Citrea could be convinced to just use a single OP_RETURN instead.
Are you sure that Bitcoin Core contributors didn't write or help write Citrea's whitepaper? "Put it on paper and we will get it pushed live" type of deal." Because it is absolutely giving that vibe.
Do you or anyone you know have a financial interest in Citrea?
There isn't a BIP; this isn't a BIP-able change.
Ah, duh. Gotcha.