This current “debate”OP_RETURN has to be one of the absurdest situations that I have seen. This is coming from someone who has worked in Bitcoin over the past decade. The blocksize wars are nothing compared to this. It was at least based on an engineering issue back then.
Today, I would like to make a comment. You’re directing your anger and insanity at the wrong people. You’re not mad at Bitcoin Core. Instead, you’re mad at me.
No one can change your node but you. You cannot be forced to install a new version of Bitcoin Core. You can’t have it both ways. There’s no more to say. End of story You can also find out more about us on our website. Your node is responsible for what it does, enforces and enforces. Your node is responsible for you.
It is not the issue that removing OP_RETURN limits has to do with Bitcoin Core “forcing” You can’t do anything to anyone. This is simply impossible. They are merely acknowledging reality by submitting this pull request. The engineers are taking a logical decision to accommodate a small minority of users that will refuse to run applications which enforce the current OP_RETURN limit.
Never will I run a Node configured to enforce this limit. Ever. That’s it. My job or place or right is to not arbitrate, decide on the types of transactions that are considered valid by other users. Period. It’s none of my business if it is consensus valid, and it pays a charge. You should address any problems you may have with consensus-valid transactions at the level of consensus. This nonsense is often snidely remarked by someone who has become famous for it. The right tool is the best for the job.
Bitcoin This is a system that does not require permission, which means a lot to me.
It is useless to use this filter as long I, and other people who are not upset about it will not enforce the relay filters on OP_RETURN. This filter does nothing. This does nothing to stop the transactions being sent across the network. This does not prevent them being mined into blocks. The block does not accomplish anything. This feature is completely useless from an engineering point of view.
Core developers’ proposal is simply to accept this fact. You can find out more about it here. Outside of their control.
The core developers do not configure the datacarriersize at the maximum or run LibreRelay. Nor are they the ones who build private APIs/mempools for miners that give direct access to blocks without using public mempools. They are not. Nothing This is not the place to discuss it.
They are only reacting to others’ actions The network is at risk..
It’s up to you if you get mad about something. It’s your prerogative to be mad. “take action” You have the right to take action against those who caused this problem. Direct it towards the right direction, the other You can find out more about the users by clicking here. Bitcoin has caused this issue and the developers have to act.
You shouldn’t direct your anger towards a person or party who’s not at fault for the situation, just because it seems easier. Direct your anger in the right direction.
The article below is an overview of the topic. Take. The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and not those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.
“This article is not financial advice.”
“Always do your own research before making any type of investment.”
“ItsDailyCrypto is not responsible for any activities you perform outside ItsDailyCrypto.”
Source: bitcoinmagazine.com
