Hoshi
· 67w
In the block-size-war miners had to do what nodes wanted. It‘s said this is important for decentralization.
Now, we have hear that core should force nodes to do what big miners want.
What am I mis...
Big miners have been and are going to do this anyway regardless of what nodes want, because nodes already accept much larger OP_RETURN sizes in mined blocks
... nodes already accept much larger OP_RETURN sizes in *mined blocks* ...
This change *is not* about changing about what nodes accept in blocks (consensus)
It's changing what nodes gossip about pre-block
It's saying that if nodes ignored the gossip, then folks will just tell the miners directly at a higher cost that they are so far happy to pay (shitcoin economics, see BRC20 vs. Runes)
"Core" is saying that pretending to not listen to gossip when you're going to accept the block anyway does not meaningfully stop spam, but it does affect miner centralization
Ironically, the only thing "Core" is forcing is a change that would actually hurt miners by reducing preferential miner fees and opportunities for miner centralization through degraded block relay
Ironically, the thing they are forcing is better for decentralization (accurate mempools, predictable fee estimates, less miner centralization pressure)
____
These are the arguments as I understand them so far, but I do agree that communication was handled poorly and that they should never the option to configure in and not force a single setting on nodes
But I also agree that the default should help decentralization and network health. So I agree that raising the default size of OP_RETURNs that nodes *gossip* about with an option to configure is good, given that there is already a much larger limit nodes will already accept in mined blocks today
None of these are consensus changes that can result in any sort of fork though. Nothing here changes what a valid mined transaction is. So comparisons to blocksize war don't really make sense to me because it's not the same game theory at all
