RT Jeevs (@jeevsthecurious)Thank Core for allowing inscriptions. Now we have to fight to keep crap away in the network. The hardest asset tainted with scribbles and what not.Use the other "currencies", indeed! ...

RT Mechanic #FixTheFilters #300kb (@GrassFedBitcoin)Let's talk about filtering inscriptions.Because if it's possible - the main rationale for blowing out the OP RETURN limit to such an absurd degree no longer exists.It is achievable.28408 needs to be reopened and merged into Core.No one running a node wants to relay inscriptions.Give them tools to that effect, make them configurable and set a default policy that makes Bitcoin as a whole more conducive to monetary activity - not JPG storage.Controversy clear ...

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]