Which is still non-monetary use. Luke, Mechanic, et al have publicly stated multiple times Bitcoin should not be used for non-monetary transactions. They've also stated on Spaces they will continue to squeeze until they find a working solution. So they are the judge, jury and executioner of how block space can be used?

The ultimate point is BIP-110 solves nothing. Now instead of having the ability to prune that data out of the larger op_return, "bad actors" will be forced to chunk it across multiple fields/UTXOs which will then be immutable. I lose optionality as a node runner. So if they truly believed the CSAM talking point, they now guarantee it will exist.

Finally, it also keeps the same core issues they point to with the larger op_return field: 1) greater fees; and 2) blockchain bloat. When you mention this, they state the fees would then be the filter which is exactly what non BIP-110 people have been saying about the current implementation.

They've pivoted from CSAM.

I'd actually sell them on the fact that Nostr is still small and not saturated like most social media platforms they're likely targeting. For example, if they drop on YouTube, they're just one of 20M videos (on average) uploaded daily. Nostr still has the "big fish in a small pond" effect opportunity.

TL;DR: We watched SpaceX get wrecked without unlocks being able to profit off the dump and our insiders want no part of that.

And unwavering conviction.

While I appreciate the responses, not a single thing said in the video matter to the average social media user.

They want to be able to find and interact with desired content quickly and easily and they want engagement on their content. Period.

Nostr / freedom tech enjoyers suffer from the same bubble paralysis that Bitcoiners do when they can't figure out why Normie Ned and Nancy won't try it or don't stick around if they do.

Can't make it... I've got to wash my hair tonight. LOL

Posted this on my X account so just dropping it here, too.

1) If BIP-110 does block spam (by their definition) by restricting arbitrary data at the consensus layer, does that actually eliminate spam or does it just mean those "bad actors" will chunk the data across multiple UTXOs?

2) If said bad actors do this, doesn't this mean that said UTXOs could potentially cause bloat since it will cause increased UTXOs to accomplish the same task while losing the OP_RETURN prunability?

3) Finally, since CSAM is used as the defacto illegal use case, does this also mean all nodes will now store said data with zero ability to remediate?

I believe the answer is yes to all three of these questions which renders BIP-110 as a technically insufficient solution. Look, do I think Core mishandled the rollout of their changes last year? Yep, most of the devs have the situational awareness and emotional intelligence of a banana peel. They placed zero value on social consensus and it has led us to where we are.

That said, I fully support BIP-110ers in their right to fight for what they believe in and to push for its implementation... if that’s what broader consensus in the Bitcoin ecosystem ultimately wants. BUT, be careful what you wish for, especially for those that have advocated for this solution via the CSAM angle.

Because the current iterations are not AIs. Most are nothing more than statically programmed workflows.

There are some companies out there that are now offering LLM style voice agents, but adoption is low due to the cost.

The Nokia wasn't a smartphone, didn't have a bunch of Internet-connected apps continually running and blasting notifications 24/7/365. I'm with your wife.