bitcoin OP_RETURN shitshow

[void]

anyone paying enough attention to this and willing to share the view and discuss the topic?

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Censorship should always be condemned.

“It is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties.”
John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, 1689

 

[void]

Censorship should always be condemned.

I'm afraid it's more complicated than this

the "Lukes's side" would probably easily argue that all the rules built into the protocol are a censorship of it's kind which is hard to contradict...
an example is not only the status quo (OP_RETURN limited to 83 bytes) but also the block size and heaps of others

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Problem is they muted Luke and Mechanic

 

[void]

Problem is they muted Luke and Mechanic

yes, big mistake

 

[JosephLL]

What's going on? Who's after Luke now??

 

[void]

What's going on? Who's after Luke now??

it's a bit complex and nobody is after him this time
google "OP_RETURN limit Todd" or so

long story short... it seems that certain interest groups (including and allegedly led by Jameson Lopp who started a company that would benefit) are pushing on bitcoin core developers to merge the change of certain parameters which would improve the implementation of non-monetary use-cases on bitcoin blockchain (like NFTs, inscriptions, runes... in general data storage)
at this moment it's about the lates pull requests by Peter Todd that basically removes current size limit on OP_RETURN - this would have consequences in the size of blockchain, fees, block space scarcity and impact on the resources necessary for running a node and hence the level of decentralization

the Ocean/Knots gang is against (same as before) and quite vocal about it as usual... which lead to a ban of Luke, Mechanic and some others from the bitcoin core github which is something unprecedented and many heavy weights from the bitcoin space are not happy about it

for now it seems that the reputation of Lopp will take a hit, many supporters of bitcoin core devs are pulling back and the bitcoin knots implementation (alternative bitcoin node software forked by the "opposition") is gaining bigger share

it's way more complicated on a philosophical level though

 

[W Fish]

I had not paid attention, thanks for illuminating.
Is there a fork emerging?
What is the philosophical level dilemma? Pure money versus data storage?

 

[void]

Is there a fork emerging?

not really... for now it looks like an impulse for a desirable rebalancing of the space when it comes to bitcoin node implementations

What is the philosophical level dilemma? Pure money versus data storage?

I guess you could put it this way...

in other words - is bitcoin a purely monetary system or should it be allowed/supported to use it as a multipurpose data storage and implement whatever the market desires (images of cats, document storage and other ballast aka spam?) on top

there is a status quo that is close to the former, there are flaws/properties that still allow for the latter in a limited way

Todd's pull request would lead massively to the latter use-case

the other side would like to strengthen the former one by even potentially decreasing the OP_RETURN size - but it's not even on the table at the moment - however the bitcoin Knots node software allows one to do this unilaterally and exclude inappropriate transactions from the node mempool and not mine them (if used by the miner)

 

[void]

current bitcoin core stance is apparent from this https://gist.github.com/instagibbs/c436110890ab25aa9997b13c2270d5ce

 

[JosephLL]

Yes, I am one of those who treat NFT as an attack on the network. Usually the worst kind of desception is always served to you as "freedom" . What deeper philosophical question did you have in mind? Maybe that the so beloved John Lock and his kin were the initial british imperial scam of "free" trade and "free" markets ?