Ironically, both sides of the v30 vs BIP110 debate use the same principle to establish a limit.
The only difference is the accident of what the limit is: 80 vs 100k
If one limit is “cEnSoRInG” then so too is the other.
“I want to make a full block single transaction and am willing to pay a miner for it.
How dare the network censor me!”
Arguing the limit of 80 censors while the 100k limit does not is a performative contradiction.
It’s non-rational and invalidates itself.
No matter what possible limit is in place, they all are subject to the same scrutiny.
What are the tradeoffs?
Why not 160? Why not 100k?
Why not 200k? Why not 4mb? Hell, why not 8mb?
What are the benefits?
Why is the limit placed were it is?
Why is the placement best for the network?
What changed?
Before v30, relay policy functionally prohibited OP_Return >80. There was no issue then.
If protocol consensus enforces the same functional prohibition, why is that an issue now?
These questions require affirmative answers and would have answers if we were engaged in good faith rational discourse.
That’s the principled root at the bottom driving this entire mess.
It’s probably the only producive debate anyone could have.
All the other shit is a literal circus.
🤮
BitcoinUniversity (nprofile…5hgl) Danielprince (nprofile…hw9w)
GrassFedBitcoin (nprofile…stwk)
dannyknowles (nprofile…ql08)
Jameson Lopp (nprofile…xxx2)
walker (nprofile…g6jt)
knutsvanholm (nprofile…y689)
brandon_gentile (nprofile…wncc)
w_s_bitcoin (nprofile…tnt2)
Peter Todd (nprofile…tqyx)
TomerStrolight (nprofile…c90s)
tenaciousgreg (nprofile…hqk9)
Tauri (nprofile…krmc)
#BIP110 #v30 #Core #knots
#bitcoin #nostr