I looked into it months ago, and I think the argument from "bip110" was: "yes it was, and it is still possible to inscribe csam. BUT:
- default settings matter
- allowing 100k by default makes it po...
I appreciate your take FTK, and wanted to follow up on your following sentence: "I like the intention/spirit of bip110 but I don't think it's the best way to achieve it (let the fee market decides)."
In the past, I have also taken the aantonop view that "judging spam" is not the way to go. But, my view has changed as Core appears to be meddling with the base layer protocol. Thus, what do you think about the increased OP_RETURN size that Core has implemented? We wouldn't be having this discussion if they hadn't taken action that has the potential to bloat the blockchain with non-transactional data. Thoughts?
In the past, I have also taken the aantonop view that "judging spam" is not the way to go. But, my view has changed as Core appears to be meddling with the base layer protocol. Thus, what do you think about the increased OP_RETURN size that Core has implemented? We wouldn't be having this discussion if they hadn't taken action that has the potential to bloat the blockchain with non-transactional data. Thoughts?
1