Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Edited on 07/09/2025, 13:27:39 UTC
Quote
These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.
How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way? Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat?It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol.
P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bitcoin? It is my largest position by a huge margin
OK, but you fail to understand the underlying, and what makes Bitcoin censorship-resistant. WHICH, if you do, it makes everything more complicated. It won't be merely about decentralized, censorship-resistant "money" anymore.
People may or may not agree in removing OP_RETURN limits, but Bitcoin is a network that could be used for arbitrary data too. Didn't Luke Dash Jr. embed a bible passage once? Luke would probably approve of that use case if the community shared their favorite bible verses through the blockchain.
- "That's not spam, saying it's spam is a Sin".
People may or may not agree in removing OP_RETURN limits, but Bitcoin is a network that could be used for arbitrary data too. Didn't Luke Dash Jr. embed a bible passage once? Luke would probably approve of that use case if the community shared their favorite bible verses through the blockchain.
- "That's not spam, saying it's spam is a Sin".
I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the blockchain at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly.
Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW:
[1]: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/09/04/crypto-hackers-are-now-using-ethereum-smart-contracts-to-mask-malware-payloads
Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using crypto - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.
Original archived Re: What is your take on Bitcoin Knotz? Bitcoin node and wallet by Luke Dashjr
Scraped on 07/09/2025, 12:57:11 UTC
Quote
These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.
How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way? Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat?It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol.
OK, but you fail to understand the underlying, and what makes Bitcoin censorship-resistant. WHICH, if you do, it makes everything more complicated. It won't be merely about decentralized, censorship-resistant "money" anymore.
People may or may not agree in removing OP_RETURN limits, but Bitcoin is a network that could be used for arbitrary data too. Didn't Luke Dash Jr. embed a bible passage once? Luke would probably approve of that use case if the community shared their favorite bible verses through the blockchain.
- "That's not spam, saying it's spam is a Sin".
People may or may not agree in removing OP_RETURN limits, but Bitcoin is a network that could be used for arbitrary data too. Didn't Luke Dash Jr. embed a bible passage once? Luke would probably approve of that use case if the community shared their favorite bible verses through the blockchain.
- "That's not spam, saying it's spam is a Sin".
I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the blockchain at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly.
Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW:
[1]: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/09/04/crypto-hackers-are-now-using-ethereum-smart-contracts-to-mask-malware-payloads
Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using crypto - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.