Damus
Aaron van Wirdum profile picture
Aaron van Wirdum
@Aaron van Wirdum
As I’ve said before…

Those that wish to block OP_RETURNs and whatever else they see as spam should deploy a UASF to render it invalid.

Those that consider this a form of (or path to) censorship and undesirable should deploy a URSF (user rejected soft fork) to counter it.

Exchanges can offer fork futures long before the actual split happens, gauging market sentiment and informing miners where to direct their hash power at fork point. (Hopefully we’ll see a winner-takes-most dynamic and minimal disruption for non-upgraded nodes, i.e. no large re-orgs.)

384❤️13🤙7☝️11❤️‍🔥1❤️1
Bilthon · 31w
I agree, this would probably be the best way to give everyone what they want. The problem is that I think the filter camp doesn't want this, they just want to complain and play the victim card.
SatsAndSports · 31w
What's a URSF? Those that run the UASF will build a chain, from a predefined activation height, that doesn't contain any large op_returns What exactly does the URSF do? It requires that the block at the activation height *must* have at least one large op-return?
jo 🇺🇸 · 31w
correct
Laukess · 31w
I can't decide if I like hard-forks more. Seem like a cleaner solution. You want a braking change, or can't get a soft-fork through, make a fork, it either gains adoption and becomes bitcoin, or it dies a shitcoin.
Luke Dashjr · 31w
Policy is the right way to implement spam filters.
David Cavan Fraser · 31w
Disagree
BTC-Satan · 31w
https://blossom.primal.net/a67f815f5578fd99f5ce48ca03e8698532caab38bf5b506f47752a73fab4cdfb.png
Kayne · 31w
A hard fork is inevitable once enough people update to core 30. The blockchain without childporn will retain the title of Bitcoin. This entire scenario has already played out before. Nobody wants to run a node full of spam, it costs more money to run. And when that spam includes child abuse mater...