PoW@MaX bip110 on Nostr: The removal of the OP_RETURN data carrier size limit wasn't something the community ...
The removal of the OP_RETURN data carrier size limit wasn't something the community actually wanted. It was pushed through by certain developers motivated by financial gain or fear of establishment blacklisting. When it mattered, nobody had the courage to oppose it with a BIP. Yet when dedicated individuals finally did take a stand, the community turned against them with familiar hostility. Now, after the entirely predictable hard fork, many are bizarrely attacking ordinary users—having already forgotten that the root cause was stripping away the OP_RETURN data carrier size in the first place.
#bitcoin blake2b
#nostr
Published at
2026-08-12 21:49:42 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "212395a07bc0290881b7510f369e04f473d27422097c75ceb8fa91772cad9722",
"pubkey": "0f5ff4a7b2b7e3c0655ce177cd0f59a20d64cfa454b1d711e08ee7bd146ed665",
"created_at": 1786571382,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"bitcoin"
],
[
"t",
"nostr"
],
[
"client",
"Amethyst"
]
],
"content": "The removal of the OP_RETURN data carrier size limit wasn't something the community actually wanted. It was pushed through by certain developers motivated by financial gain or fear of establishment blacklisting. When it mattered, nobody had the courage to oppose it with a BIP. Yet when dedicated individuals finally did take a stand, the community turned against them with familiar hostility. Now, after the entirely predictable hard fork, many are bizarrely attacking ordinary users—having already forgotten that the root cause was stripping away the OP_RETURN data carrier size in the first place.\n#bitcoin blake2b\n#nostr",
"sig": "6b575e1e1960257faba55d0c43f2dd6c11f0844e61af4395a27ccda6acbd3a972c4cc44c4cab93e1b5e1cde0216af1412ae112425c0ad9433527aff909e79989"
}
