there is a huge discussion happening on twitter.

no changes

Lmao. Who desides what is “off topic”, and who can provide commentary? This seems antithetical to open, and permission-less project.

no.

NACK. Why suddenly such a rush to change major Bitcoin policy, after all these years of blocking every sensible proposal (which would actually enable/facilitate all these L2 pegs!!) such as CTV? Just because Citrea would like it for its bridge - that exist on a whitepaper? Major 🚩

The use of the word “arbitrary” is not arbitrary

I can teach you how to turn your $300 into $6200 in just 4hours without interrupting your daily activities and it's 100% legitimate and secure TEXT ME IF YOU ARE INTERESTED FOR MORE INFORMATION WITH THE DETAILS TEXT NUMBER. +1 352778 0492 WHATSAPP NUMBER: +1 352778 0492 Email: [email protected] T...

Ask nvk on Wednesday

https://image.nostr.build/3562970bdd480bee174ecd9bdb6025de80be188e1ebf0e870e720396e23222c9.jpg

This affects me very little, doesn't appear to be a major roadblock to Bitcoin scaling and doesn't seem to be a legit code maintenance issue. It kinda seems like change for the sake of change. Therefore I am on team no change unless I'm wrong about it being a bigger problem than I outlined above.

Just because it might end up in a block, doesnt mean it needs to be in my mempool. And defaults matter. So if retordinals are able to do a thing, then let them, but don't ask maintainers to support it or the rest of the network help propogate bullshit.

Not sure I fully understand it, but it feels like a shitcoin blockchain request resulting in larger data payloads that could unnecessarily increase the storage requirements for full nodes, possibly affecting decentralisation and the ability of individuals to run full nodes?

NACK

Ack

t *Y* 'O'DELL/*****

I don't see what the harm is leaving the code as-is. I think the argument is it can be bypassed but unless the code is actually harmful, I don't see any reason for the change

https://image.nostr.build/b7eb9d87ec4a8fa1813dffa4b383c3531dd9ff1fa441117989affb881bb63f9d.jpg

If the community's consensus is to keep Bitcoin strictly as a form of money, then there may be little to no demand for a larger OP_RETURN size. Here are some reasons why a larger OP_RETURN might not be necessary or desired in that context: 1. **Focus on Transactions:** If Bitcoin is primarily viewe...

Everyone is so driven by fear and dogma. It’s very clear… there are only 2 options. nostr:note1vynfacq3khpmm6lx00azcs3x8zuhwyjq96fjsxaawmn8ec2d7flqmw2l72

"the cat and mouse game is futile, look at all the damage the mouse did, letting the cat we-kneecapped-and locked-in-a-cage out would make it worse so lets delete the cage with the cat in it so theres more room for mice" Core continues to display a lack of leadership on the topic of arbitrary data....

discuss nevent1qqsphs2sm8xmlrvqxslrpxkxvnfg8fje99afcg3485kj6m72f6gtmacpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduzag94r

ACK

Knots

Run Knots.

Protect decentralization at all cost.

Time to start funding Knots

Peter Todd seems to enjoy being a shit disturber. I remember when he floated the idea that Bitcoin needs demurrage .. it sank like a lead weight .. I predict this will too.

I looked at OP_RETURN bot and realized I need to run bitcoin knots asap

whether you're for it or against it, it's obviously controversial and shouldn't be merged so quickly

Bitcoin is a monetary protocol not a general data storage protocol.

Running Knots

Running Knots

Bitcoin Core is the dominant (really only) client in the ecosystem. It's maintainers this have the additional duty of being good stewards of the network/project as a whole - of they want it or not. 1) With that market dominance default configs matter as much as consensus rules. But they are not jus...

NACK