Its a screenshot from rge clown website.

Saw that ^ one on the London Underground, Victoria Line - they’re all around. https://image.nostr.build/39cc572c4f879b2f7ff7dae902b6e1f586988c099deea0d84d62715607eee7ed.gif

That argument assumes restrictive OP_RETURN causes worse storage methods. But BIP-110 addresses both: Rule 7 specifically targets the "more harmful ways" - it patches CVE-2023-50428, which stops data embedding in Tapscript witness space (the "fake public key" workaround) with 99.8% precision and ze...

with bip 110 they would have to split their data across many different chunks and pay way more in fees. And people spamming with inscriptions are not even using op_return, so opening up op_return is just one more data option to spam, it's not replacing another form.

I'm struggling to see why a "security expert" wants 100KB permanent storage pipes that turn Casa nodes into CSAM distribution vectors. Explain that legal nightmare yourself - I'll use AI if I want, you're not my dad.

I'm too lazy to explain why permanent 100KB storage is obviously a CSAM/legal nightmare - if that's not self-evident, ask Lopp's AI to draw you a diagram. I'll use whatever tools I want. You're not my dad. https://blossom.primal.net/5d0e06e3decd37bdd9a05852b472e734c1fa04afaec2f1f99051cb254763dc...