Message from the Bitcoin permabulls 🐂 $126.1k ATH vs recent local dip was -21%. Zoom out! prior bull markets had a dozen 30% - 35% drops. Now at -17.7% from ATH already 4.7% up in 18 hrs. Zoom out, and then zoom out some more. Buy and Hodl.

Yes! Buy Bitcoin and pray! Pray that Congress does not act on porn entering the blockchain every week. Warren et al would love an excuse to heavily regulate. Thanks Gloria and Core for giving the bureaucrats lots of ammo!

This thinking is silly. There are 3.5million spam images in the chain. This quirky developer theory about encodings isn't making sense to most users. But that's ok people can be helpful and help you address your perceived risks, with local policy or node code changes.

There is no silly thinking. Stop it. This attitude caused the current community split. @ Knots and @ Core, we move on. Run your nodes with the filters you want. @ Core, learn to listen. Don't push ineffective tho highly controversial changes because you are "smart".

Core's steadfast support of SPAM and Porn is absurd! Core's reluctance to acknowledging their v30 mistake says it all. Core can't fix v30 because it was likely a VC requested favor? Evidence points to Core being a VC captive, nasty sabotage? Bitcoin is Money! Knots + BIP-444!

They don't support SPAM nor Porn. They are just too "smart" to understand what are controversial changes and why they should not do them. What they did is also ineffective because Citrea will not even use OP_RETURN since the other spam channels are cheaper.

Citrea and other bitVM anchor using layer2s can indeed use op return. And it's cheaper to do so as they are small, and simpler to make ZKP of via op return than a pair of transactions it takes to make a inscription.

They can, but will they? @citrea_xyz, will you use OP_RETURN? I think they won't, so the controversial change was completely unnecessary.

They may or may not. But there are other layer2s that will logically look at using bitVM, bitVM2, bitVM 3, Glock. And so the fix is useful, also it's just clearly an incentive bug, so fixing it was the right thing to do.

It's surprising how many just don't understand the challenge response model even of lightning which critically relies on proof of publication. See even developers wrongly arguing PoP is not needed. Bad intuition, completely wrong conclusion.

Does it need a full blown open OP_RETURN? No it does not. Was it just pushed through because you are all just "too smart to get it"? Yes it was.

The proof of publication needs to be in the chain, obviously for the same reason lightning requires the preimage to be published. It could be in many different formats, but op return is the least wasteful of node resources.

Does anyone have a *real* use case for more than 83 bytes (or at the extreme outside 192 bytes)? Other than silly (or dangerous) pics I don't see the need for 100KB! Why is Core so adamant about 100KB? Why not v31, simply roll back to (semi-original) 83 bytes?

I just explained 256b to @MalachiRevolts. Did you not read. And explained why 100kb is logical. Why not change it to 83b or 0b ... Obviously because it was an incentive bug that needed fixing. All that does is reintroduce or make worse the incentive bug, and doesn't prevent bitVM

100k is illogical, core Devs are overdue some corrective actions! At this stage their ego needs to face reality and running knots is an excellent alternative pushing through BIP444 to exclude spam transactions at the consensus level! The soft fork solves this neatly!

you are incorrect, it's fully logical for reasons elaborated at length. the soft-fork is highly risky, "temporary emergency soft-fork" is IMO very unlikely to get consensus. running knots is a moderately risky alternative because it has 40k lines of little reviewed code. and

This change was logical but a strategically dumb move at the same time. Good luck winning trust back for Core. You all failed to take all aspects in perspective.