RT ₿itcoin ₿ombadil (@BitcoinBombadil)Satoshi and the early Devs built Bitcoin as a well fortified monetary protocol within finite dimensional limits on the Internet.After Satoshi left, creeping relaxation of filters & limits started.42, then 83 bytes conceded for Op_ReturnThen we increased the block size via the witness discount and introduced new scripts without sufficient datacarrier limits and other constraints on SegWit & Taproot.We have to get Bitcoin confined and protected with narrow data limits to ...

RT Guy Swann (@TheGuySwann)"I think ossification is amazing. The video I made about Taproot, asking whether or not it was a good soft fork, I think has some merit to it, because the use case that the vast majority of people that are using Bitcoin for is savings, right? Like store of value. And why did we do Taproot, again? This is the thing that we should be asking about these soft forks: a good post-mortem of, 'Okay, did it work? Did it do what we wanted?' And if you look at 90% of the UTXOs that are using ...

RT Adam Back (@adam3us)You can send contiguous data in inscriptions too. Some wag found one of the image formats tolerates Taproot segment separators, they show as sparse red dots, but obviously a custom pallette can fix that. Also fwiw 1Mb contiguos data in op return have been consensus valid since 2014, people used transact them occasionally with miner help. There are 3.5m images some dating back a decade or more, a 2018 report saying there was illegal content before that.But this recent default change (j ...