Next scheduled rescrape ... never
17/05/2025, 17:51:36 UTC POST DELETED
Version 2
Edited on 10/05/2025, 18:21:39 UTC
Could the removal of OP_RETURN be applied to Testnet first and then see how "bad" people can fuck it up there first?

As i stated on earlier page, it just mean people will switch to OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness script (this is what Ordinal does). You'll see bloated blockchain since Ordinal need to create 2 on-chain TX to do an operation and spike on UTXO growth if people use it to create token/NFT where the owner representation using an address/UTXO with small amount of Bitcoin.

It's been like this for ~11 years.  I still don't grasp the rush besides what appears to be a Bitcoin Contributors company threatening to do something.

woooWooo, no new news, but a lot of shoving shit down peoples throats.  It's weird.

That white paper clearly made it to Greg and others' desks because that company has paid/financially incentivized influence to get it there.  Who tf cares about a .xyz charging people 10 whole testnet coins to test, except for someone paid?  Nobody.

Feels like a low priority thing that maybe should have never happened in 2014 that now has a Startup with a fund to payoff who they need.  At least one if the people they have paid off has openly attacked Bitcoin Testnet and is now threating to attack Bitcoin... and the answer is to roll over for this fuck?

If anyone wants to see an example of the sloppy shit Bitcoin Core reviews and approves in a rush, look at Testnet 4.  It was decimated/pwned within 2 weeks of being released because it was poorly thought out.  Plus, it was rushed by the *same* people doing this!  It 100% did come with unintentional consequences... so much so that Maxwell can't compete, so he wants to premine and start selling Testnet coins!

Quote from: GMaxwell in the mailing list
Part of the root cause is violations of the gentleman's agreement to not trade testnet coins for money, this results in predictable chaos with people sniping the low difficulty blocks. Some believed that resetting alone would discourage the conduct, but even if it had (it hadn't people are selling them now) it was still likely that people would hoard up coins just in case they became tradable in the future.

There is a simple fix for this which doesn't result in an operating difference from Bitcoin, just an economic one.   Hard fork in an ultramassive premine, as large as possible but what stays with existing value overflow logic. (so maybe an additional 21 million testnet btc?).

This also resolves the 'actual developers can't get coins problem' and if someone starts trading tnbct for money, whomever has the premine wallet should feel feel to sell into it what they can.  Once they run out of coins it'll be time for another testnet reset.

It may just not be possible to prevent degens from trading tn coins for money, -- I mean consider the altcoins that some people spend money on Smiley,  there is basically no low bar on how crappy you can make a cryptocurrency where some scammer won't try to sell it to some fool.  But what can't be prevented can at least be turned into a benefit.

Anyways, good luck, everyone.  Even you, Greg!  You lying manipulative shitcoin developing fuck. (And maybe a pedophile?  You seemed pretty emotionally charged about that.  If someone called me a Chomo, I'd just laugh it off... You seem upset dude.) Kiss

PS:  I mayyyyy have sold guns to that crowd. Maybe... who knows.  Cool
Version 1
Scraped on 10/05/2025, 17:56:47 UTC
Could the removal of OP_RETURN be applied to Testnet first and then see how "bad" people can fuck it up there first?

As i stated on earlier page, it just mean people will switch to OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness script (this is what Ordinal does). You'll see bloated blockchain since Ordinal need to create 2 on-chain TX to do an operation and spike on UTXO growth if people use it to create token/NFT where the owner representation using an address/UTXO with small amount of Bitcoin.

It's been like this for ~11 years.  I still don't grasp the rush besides what appears to be a Bitcoin Contributors company threatening to do something.

wooo, no new news, but a lot of shoving shit down peoples throats.  It's weird.

That white paper clearly made it to Greg and others' desks because that company has paid/financially incentivized influence to get it there.  Who tf cares about a .xyz charging people 10 whole testnet coins to test, except for someone paid?  Nobody.
Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Scraped on 10/05/2025, 17:51:31 UTC
Could the removal of OP_RETURN be applied to Testnet first and then see how "bad" people can fuck it up there first?

As i stated on earlier page, it just mean people will switch to OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness script (this is what Ordinal does). You'll see bloated blockchain since Ordinal need to create 2 on-chain TX to do an operation and spike on UTXO growth if people use it to create token/NFT where the owner representation using an address/UTXO with small amount of Bitcoin.

It's been like this for 11 years.  I still don't grasp the rush besides what appears to be a Bitcoin Contributors company threatening to do something.

wooo, no new news, but a lot of shoving shit down peoples throats.  It's weird.