Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 3
Last scraped
Edited on 21/05/2025, 09:03:02 UTC
*Possible* - I don't know if it fixed all the possibilities, but it certainly addressed the main one that was being abused.
Please do your homework and read either this thread or the mailing list discussion (at least the first message there). One has to repeat and repeat things like a parrot it seems 
As ABCbits already wrote the main problem is that besides from OP_RETURN there are more harmful ways to store data. The way you mentioned (Taproot witness abuse) is only slightly more harmful than OP_RETURN, but the remaining case, fake public keys, is the real problem -- if we had a real spam wave with these techniques, this could become a serious problem for decentralization due to UTXO set bloating.Calm down, my friend. I'm just intrigued that, even though there is obvious exploitation and a known fix for one of the ways the network
The network is open and permissionless, by the way.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
...so we should allow whatever spammers want to do with the network, as long as they pay the fees.
I think the real problem here is not finding a solution - because, as we can see, they are not being applied - but the broken consensus around updating the protocol and priorities of what Bitcoin was supposed to be - Digital Cash, and not Digital WhateverYouWant...
I have a feeling it's all due to the fear of a falling block reward and insufficient network fees to cover expenses, so they don't want to remove any source of revenue - even if it comes from abuse.
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin code looks like Swiss cheese...
Version 2
Edited on 14/05/2025, 09:33:07 UTC
*Possible* - I don't know if it fixed all the possibilities, but it certainly addressed the main one that was being abused.
Please do your homework and read either this thread or the mailing list discussion (at least the first message there). One has to repeat and repeat things like a parrot it seems As ABCbits already wrote the main problem is that besides from OP_RETURN there are more harmful ways to store data. The way you mentioned (Taproot witness abuse) is only slightly more harmful than OP_RETURN, but the remaining case, fake public keys, is the real problem -- if we had a real spam wave with these techniques, this could become a serious problem for decentralization due to UTXO set bloating.Calm down, my friend. I'm just intrigued that, even though there is obvious exploitation and a known fix for one of the ways the network
The network is open and permissionless, by the broken consensus around updating the protocolway.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
...so we should allow whatever spammers want to do with the network, as long as they pay the fees.
I think the real problem here is not finding a solution - because, as we can see, they are not being applied - but the broken consensus around updating the protocol and priorities of what Bitcoin was supposed to be - Digital Cash, and not Digital WhateverYouWant...
Meanwhile, the Bitcoin code looks like Swiss cheese...
Version 1
Scraped on 14/05/2025, 09:07:55 UTC
*Possible* - I don't know if it fixed all the possibilities, but it certainly addressed the main one that was being abused.
Please do your homework and read either this thread or the mailing list discussion (at least the first message there). One has to repeat and repeat things like a parrot it seems As ABCbits already wrote the main problem is that besides from OP_RETURN there are more harmful ways to store data. The way you mentioned (Taproot witness abuse) is only slightly more harmful than OP_RETURN, but the remaining case, fake public keys, is the real problem -- if we had a real spam wave with these techniques, this could become a serious problem for decentralization due to UTXO set bloating.Calm down, my friend. I'm just intrigued that, even though there is obvious exploitation and a known fix for one of the ways the network
I think the real problem here is not finding a solution - because, as we can see, they are not being applied - but the broken consensus around updating the protocol.
Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Scraped on 14/05/2025, 09:02:55 UTC
*Possible* - I don't know if it fixed all the possibilities, but it certainly addressed the main one that was being abused.
Please do your homework and read either this thread or the mailing list discussion (at least the first message there). One has to repeat and repeat things like a parrot it seems As ABCbits already wrote the main problem is that besides from OP_RETURN there are more harmful ways to store data. The way you mentioned (Taproot witness abuse) is only slightly more harmful than OP_RETURN, but the remaining case, fake public keys, is the real problem -- if we had a real spam wave with these techniques, this could become a serious problem for decentralization due to UTXO set bloating.Calm down, my friend. I'm just intrigued that, even though there is obvious exploitation and a known fix for one of the ways the network can be spammed, some people are still against taking any action because - you know - it's "permissionless," so we should allow whatever spammers want to do with the network, as long as they pay the fees.