I understand and share the fear of rising node costs, but #BIP110 doesn’t actually solve that class of problems. Pruned nodes already discard historical block data, so large witness fields or OP-RET...
> Sending a message to spammers that they are not welcome is futile as the spammers do not care about our messages; they will just move to more destructive methods, and the cat and mouse game will continue.
I disagree. Bitcoin does not live in a vacuum. There are other projects they can move to. We kicked Vitalik off of Bitcoin when he realized it would be a "hostile environment" for his needs.
> So the proposal tightens some superficial limits but risks worsening the one part of the system that actually matters for long-term decentralisation: UTXO size, not raw block weight.
Maybe you're right. That's the BIP-110 proposal is a **temporary** soft fork. A year's worth of damage is a small price to pay for **doing SOMETHING** about this mess.
I disagree. Bitcoin does not live in a vacuum. There are other projects they can move to. We kicked Vitalik off of Bitcoin when he realized it would be a "hostile environment" for his needs.
> So the proposal tightens some superficial limits but risks worsening the one part of the system that actually matters for long-term decentralisation: UTXO size, not raw block weight.
Maybe you're right. That's the BIP-110 proposal is a **temporary** soft fork. A year's worth of damage is a small price to pay for **doing SOMETHING** about this mess.
👁️1