RT Mechanic #FixTheFilters #300kb (@GrassFedBitcoin)That's why OP_RETURN2 is a dead end.Spammers want you to treat their spam the way you treat Bitcoin transactions.They have no reason to use a method which nodes can trivially delete without having to delete other useful data (i.e pruning).The entire point is to trick you into storing their data for free.Again - parasites. You store and relay monetary activity, so they disguise their files as transactions when they aren't. ...

RT Adam Back (@adam3us)i don't want spam. how do i vote against it with my bitcoin wallet... that is the root question. ...

RT Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4)This. And the biggest cost of the spam isn't the volume; it's the legal and moral risks that come with arbitrary non-financial content, which are far larger, far less predictable, and far less manageable by the bitcoin leal community, than the legal and moral risks from merely arbitrary financial transactions. ...

RT Luke Dashjr (@LukeDashjr)Spam is anything unsolicited. Bitcoin was designed for financial transactions. By using Bitcoin, you solicit and consent to those.Bitcoin was not designed for storing or publishing arbitrary data. You might consent to it, but you can't assume everyone else has.Bitcoin _was_ designed for validation-only smart contracts.Bitcoin _was not_ designed for stablecoins or NFTs specifically, but it's debatable if they might be considered part of a liberal "financial transactions" definitio ...

RT Adam Back (@adam3us)knots doesn't fix it either, because it's unfixable. while it's satisfying to do something counter-attack minded, we also IMO need to do something that creates an economic incentive to achieve what we want - op return2 line of thinking.my line of reasoning: chopping all data structures and code into small consensus enforced or policy nudged chunks, doesn't really do much. ultimately spammers can spam as they used to pre 2014 and create tons of fake pubkeys. that's even harder to stop, ...

RT Samee ⚡️🦾 سميع (@SameeLiaei)Again, I think you are misunderstanding the motivations of spammers and malicious actors, which can be but are not exactly the same.When you say "create an incentive," I think you are fundamentally making a category error in what motivates "spammers".If they cared about incentives, they wouldn't be inscribing on Bitcoin in the first place. There are plenty of other places to do those kinds of things more effectively and affordably.It is the fact that they can do it where they ...

Bitcoin Network Policy & Market Dynamics - Node policy changes are reactive to network and market conditions, not consensus changes [2] - Market demand and miner willingness to mine transactions override filters, even for minority interests [2] - Organic user demand can significantly impact block composition, as seen with sub 1 satoshi/virtual byte transactions reaching up to 70% of some blocks [2] OP_RETURN Data & Incentives - The current network relays and mines data regardless of OP_RETURN size (80, 160, or 100kb), making size adjustments socially contentious rather than technically or economically effective [4] - There's little incentive for using larger 100kb OP_RETURN due to being 4x more expensive [3] Solutions & Mitigation - Economic solutions, such as cheaper data availability OP_RETURN with incentives for miners, are proposed as a potential solution [5] - Soft forks to limit IP return to 160 or 80 bytes are suggested, but inscriptions may be tricky to limit via soft fork [5] - Hiding data in fake pubkeys is a potential workaround for spam filters [5] Data Inscription & Validity - Contiguous data can be sent in inscriptions, utilizing Taproot segment separators [1] - 1Mb contiguous data in OP_RETURN has been consensus valid since 2014 [1]

RT Schmidty (@bitschmidty)> datacarriersize in a broken stateI assume this refers to the change to allow multiple op_returns, but maintain the total “payload” (arbitrary data) totaled across those op_returns. So the same op_return setting value in a previous Bitcoin Core version would allow the same payload as it would in Bitcoin Core v30. Greg summarizes the rationale as “The motivation for doing this is for situations where you cannot commit to all data efficiently otherwise. Think SIGHASH_SINGLE | ACP sc ...

I don't use Telegram. All those accounts are fake.Not against Telegram, but the one feature that killed it for me was anyone can message you when they know your handle. And I get spammed to the point my phone lags. Gave this feedback to Pavel directly once too. 🤷‍♂️Waleed (@waleedbnb):@cz_binance CZ , do you use Telegram or all accounts are fake? ...

Market Analysis - Gomtu's aggregator is highlighted for its ability to group-source high signal voices, considered a valuable use case for information product analysis [1] - The industry observes a trend of "disappointing" airdrops linked to low-value accounts engaging in spam and creating echo chambers, ultimately leading to FUD after token drops [2] - The analysis draws parallels between incentivized testnet sybils/botnets and current mindshare-sybils-as-exchange-criteria, suggesting a shift in manipulation tactics [2][3] Investment Strategies - The report advises lowering expectations in the current market environment [3] - The report suggests avoiding "hot trash" projects identified on a specific platform [3]