I believe the community and the nodes determine that. I'm not exactly sure how the process works but I think we can all agree
there is no clear consensus for this latest proposal. Perhaps some kind of voting mechanism could be implemented for future BIPs,
or at least a survey or polling to help provide a more clear picture of community sentiment.


Of course there can never be 100% support for any proposal and it's not reasonable to expect 100% agreement for anything,
but there has to be a clear consensus. In the case of the op_return debate the solution is very simple. Let the nodes decide not the devs:
You do that by simply leaving the op-return limit in place. The limit can be raised or removed by the node, and the nodes should
decide how they want to run their node not the devs.

I don't know why the hell this is even a debate when the current solution is already in place and functioning well. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
 
If a node operator believes bitcoin should be a generic database capable of doing a million different things outside the scope of its
intended purpose as a monetary network they can simply raise the data limit on their node. But if you believe bitcoin is a monetary network, period,
then simply leave the limit in place. That's how it currently works and there is no valid reason to change it.
Having the choice is the compromise (between bitcoiners and shitcoiners). If it were up to me the op-return limit would be hardcoded
to 42K or 80K with no option to change it at all. But it isn't up to me. Having the option to raise the limit is the compromise.

Bitcoin is about having choices, not being told by an unknown shadowy "robust group of individuals" whothat decides what is good for us.
It is insulting and condescending.

I believe the community and the nodes determine that. I'm not exactly sure how the process works but I think we can all agree
there is no clear consensus for this latest proposal. Perhaps some kind of voting mechanism could be implemented for future BIPs,
or at least a survey or polling to help us getprovide a more clear picture of community sentiment.


Of course there can never be 100% support for any proposal and it's not reasonable to expect 100% agreement for anything,
but there has to be a clear consensus. In the case of the op_return debate the solution is very simple. Let the nodes decide not the devs:
You do that by simply leaving the op-return limit in place. The limit can be raised or removed by the node, and the nodes should
decide how they want to run their node not the devs.

I don't know why the hell this is even a debate when the current solution is already in place and functioning well. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
 
If a node operator believes bitcoin should be a generic database capable of doing a million different things outside the scope of its
intended purpose as a monetary network they can simply raise the data limit on their node. But if you believe bitcoin is a monetary network, period,
then simply leave the limit in place. That's how it currently works and there is no valid reason to change thatit.
Having the choice is the compromise (between bitcoiners and shitcoiners). If it were up to me the op-return limit would be hardcoded
to 42K or 80K with no option to change it at all. But it isn't up to me. Having the option to raise the limit is the compromise.

Bitcoin is about having choices, not being told by an unknown shadowy "robust group of individuals" thatwho decides what is good for us. It is insulting and condescending.
It is insulting and condescending.

I believe the community and the nodes determine that. I'm not exactly sure how the process works but I think we can all agree
there is no clear consensus for this latest proposal. Perhaps some kind of voting mechanism could be implemented for future BIPs,
or at least a survey or polling to help us get a more clear picture of community sentiment.


Of course there can never be 100% support for any proposal and it's not reasonable to expect 100% agreement for anything,
but there has to be a clear consensus. In the case of the op_return debate the solution is very simple. Let the nodes decide not the devs:
You do that by simply leaving the op-return limit in place. The limit can be raised or removed by the node, and the nodes should
decide how they want to run their node not the devs.

I don't know why the hell this is even a debate when the current solution is already in place and functioning well. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
 
If a node operator believes bitcoin should be a generic database capable of doing a million different things outside the scope of its
intended purpose as a monetary network they can simply raise the data limit on their node. But if you believe bitcoin is a monetary network, period,
then simply leave the limit in place. That's how it currently works and there is no valid reason to change that.
Having the choice is the compromise between bitcoiners and shitcoiners. If it were up to me the op-return limit would be hardcoded
to 42K or 80K with no option to change it at all. But it isn't up to me. Having the option to raise the limit is the compromise.

Bitcoin is about having choices, not being told by an unknown shadowy "robust group of individuals" that decides what is good for us. It is insulting and condescending.