BIP110 is just technically beautiful nostr:nevent1qqsddrqe36ky7a4kahnk5m4zgkeytvm994zg2jwwpr7kf2d03p3atxgppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyg8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnddakj7qgcwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxvmm4de6xz6tw9enx6tcf68s3l

OMG, so now you’re promoting a shitfork backed by BS legal threats… By fighting with CSW, you’ve become like him. Do you want to swap some sats via a trust‑less multisig, doubling them on the fork’s side? If you honestly believe in its success and therefore don’t consider it a shitfork, ...

The criticism isn't about support levels—it's that expanding OP_RETURN 1,200x from 80 bytes to 100KB isn't harm reduction, it's a policy change disguised as cleanup. Every 'small' scope expansion weakens Bitcoin's core value prop: it doesn't change. Do you see a structural reason OP_RETURN needs t...

maybe a consensus appease 🤔 could core consider a modest rollback bringing opreturn limits closer to their previous values ?

BIP-110 is flawed: every transaction that pays fees secures the network. Policing which ones get that chance undermines censorship resistance, is technically futile, and weakens network security.

Meybe just fuck v30 and also fuck knots, fork v29 and work from there. 🫩