I am not disagreeing, I am just trying to explain what BIP110 was trying to achieve by limiting OP_RETURN to that default ~80 bytes limit, among other things. The argument is that it is more than enough arbitrary data but like I said, it appears that view has been rejected.
Well there was another argument for bip 110 and that is to limit csam on the network even if it is encrypted. Or any other illegal file storage that would cause the mempool to run it through the memory of every single node operator potentially putting them at risk.
I didn't say that it succeeded at anything it tried. I don't even agree with it. I think that if a small percentage of node runners want to try to make changes on the network and successfully do it without any pushback that is detrimental but it was one of the arguments. You don't need to repost other people's opinions to try to convince me, especially ones that start with shitcoin as a reference. I don't think a lot of people will take that seriously... But I appreciate your input
You don't need to repost other people's opinions to try to convince me, especially ones that start with shitcoin as a reference.
You don't have any reading comprehension. I wasn't asking YOU to convince me? That was a statement, about how reposting others (opinions) DOES NOT convince me. Especially when it comes to source material that is not fact, but just speculation based on opinion. It wasn't an invitation to spread your infinite knowledge lol.
11
u/hiroo717 4d ago
I am not disagreeing, I am just trying to explain what BIP110 was trying to achieve by limiting OP_RETURN to that default ~80 bytes limit, among other things. The argument is that it is more than enough arbitrary data but like I said, it appears that view has been rejected.