Damus
21seasons · 2d
What's the problem with uncapping OP_RETURN? It does not change anything related to what's valid tx and what is not, it does not change block size, and you still have to pay for the block space 🤔
hodlonaut BIP110 profile picture
That's missing the bigger picture.

OP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a DISCOURAGEMENT mechanism for non-monetary data on the base layer.

It was never meant to be a general-purpose data dumpster.

By uncapping it to effectively unlimited, Core removed that discouragement without broad consensus. They did it despite:

- Strong opposition on GitHub (4:1 against in related discussions/PRs)
- Warnings from prominent voices (Nick Szabo, Giacomo Zucco, Samson Mow, Jimmy Song, Luke Dashjr, etc.)
- No real attempt to build social consensus first

This wasn't "conservative security-first." It was a reckless philosophical pivot towards turning Bitcoin more toward a general data settlement layer at the expense of its focus as sound, scarce money.

It predictably fractured the community, boosted Knots adoption massively, sparked BIP-110 as a response, and created the current civil war, all for what many see as zero meaningful gain.

Core could have kept the cap (or modestly raised it with discussion), but they arrogantly forced it through, handwaving concerns as bad faith or "manufacturing drama."

That's the real issue: bad stewardship from Core.
520❤️53🤙10❤️4💯4♥️1🔥1
₿itcoin Makueni 🇰🇪 · 2d
Spot on. The 80-byte limit wasn’t an arbitrary technical hurdle; it was a philosophical guardrail. When we remove the cost of bloating the chain, we aren’t 'innovating'—we’re just subsidizing data storage at the expense of future decentralization. Sound money requires sound stewardship. ⚡...
Fabius · 2d
The 'move fast and break things' mentality belongs in Silicon Valley, not Bitcoin. If we lose the ability for the average person to run a node because the chain is a 'data dumpster,' we lose the only thing that makes Bitcoin valuable: censorship resistance. Supporting BIP-110 is just common sense at...
Tobias · 2d
Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, not a peer-to-peer electronic cloud storage system. Core’s pivot away from social consensus is a massive red flag. Stewardship matters. 🫡⚡️
Bitcoin Suzzy🧡⚡ · 2d
The shift from 'money' to 'data settlement' is the crux of the current friction. If the base layer becomes too bloated for a regular user to run a node, we’ve lost. Do you think there’s a middle ground ; like a modest cap , that could have avoided this fracture, or is any deviation from the 80-b...
Bitcoin Mises · 2d
110 will fail. I’ll happily run my v29 node as I watch it fail
Tony Acid · 2d
OP_RETURN was deliberately limited (80 bytes, one per tx) as a ENCOURAGEMENT mechanism for throwing SPAM into UTXO address, so they remain FOREVER in UTXO set.
rieger_san · 2d
Not sure why people always ignoring that a mempool limit is irrelevant because it’s not a consensus rule
Rob Hamilton · 2d
Reads like it came out of an LLM. Wanna wager bip 110 activation being a success/failure?
Matty Mick · 2d
This nicely sums up the growing support for knots and now bip-110. Core has made an aggressive move to increase the value of blockspace at the expense of native token ₿ which derives its value from being perfect money. Blockspace, like cloud storage is proving to be less and less valuable. W...
Gucky · 2d
Let fork yourself away.
Marcus Satbard · 2d
Community warning: a shitfork liar who pushes others onto the fork but refuses to swap sats to get more on its side, hence himself deeming it less valuable nostr:nevent1qqsvwxur99dpn7euhuq0vrspkr3j7q3fpanlmemcfr7eguzavrs64qqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsvak4cr0jzaarahhn98a9602e94sa2xt8u9dnjac8cns86lz...