I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opp...

78e3e1a1b2c4b440...

npub10r37rgdjcj6yprg4fdayd58dqfxpwnr8u59nun45q4mfg3vajg0s63625r

hex

30ba11f7976bd42a9af8236b88b2bbff8a1215ff7ad433ad77d67c8cf18ceb0a

nevent

nevent1qqsrpws377tkh4p2ntuzx6ugk2allzsjzhlh44pn44mavlyv7xxwkzsprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgs83clp5xevfdzq3525k7jx6rksynqhf3n72ze7f66q2a55gkwey8cvmu23g

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-02-23T15:28:05Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

c2ff40aba83aef4d455c1e540d16b2b81162e95b575910a27c1c0fc7d824d63e...

I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opposed to BIP110: sloppy engineering forced through the community with poor arguments.

Btw, core v30 didn't enable posting contiguous harmful content on chain: it was enabled in 2013 by OP_RETURN, that was limitless at the consensus level from the start. And to be clear, the threat was well known all along. There are press articles from 2018/2019 that were FUDing about it during that bear. Anyone who's familiar with bitcoin, like Luke also is, has knew about this for years if not a decade — so why is it suddenly an emergency after all that time? Core 30 sucks and it shouldn't have happen - but it is simply not true that it made that attack viable, and anyone who thinks so is deeply miseducated about how bitcoin works.

All of this is just ego war and people wanting to feel great about themselves. If the priority was to protect bitcoin against this attack, then capping OP_RETURN size would have been enough, and much much more likely to pass. But ofc they had to overdo and turn this into a personal vendetta, and now the chances of fixing the actual important thing by the end or the year are 0.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "30ba11f7976bd42a9af8236b88b2bbff8a1215ff7ad433ad77d67c8cf18ceb0a",
  "pubkey": "78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
  "created_at": 1771860485,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "2cbe4e0a518b409692f27019b91f3f6277caed541f086a67e8649024df22b3d0",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "b21121518221b0f031bd41f010aeef1e4015c1aad5d8b2539d2ddcd60c7f8666",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "f821179bd5d691c61b4356336388adadc3cc1304f49e771a87c38de7ed4fd022",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff",
      "",
      "mention"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "a0d09a42ddf0567201c4015aebf8e6bd341efe08234702e7ddcfc12c28042cb3",
      "",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "c2ff40aba83aef4d455c1e540d16b2b81162e95b575910a27c1c0fc7d824d63e",
      "",
      "reply"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I am opposed to core v30 for the exact same reasons I am opposed to BIP110: sloppy engineering forced through the community with poor arguments.\n\nBtw, core v30 didn't enable posting contiguous harmful content on chain: it was enabled in 2013 by OP_RETURN, that was limitless at the consensus level from the start. And to be clear, the threat was well known all along. There are press articles from 2018/2019 that were FUDing about it during that bear. Anyone who's familiar with bitcoin, like Luke also is, has knew about this for years if not a decade — so why is it suddenly an emergency after all that time? Core 30 sucks and it shouldn't have happen - but it is simply not true that it made that attack viable, and anyone who thinks so is deeply miseducated about how bitcoin works.\n\nAll of this is just ego war and people wanting to feel great about themselves. If the priority was to protect bitcoin against this attack, then capping OP_RETURN size would have been enough, and much much more likely to pass. But ofc they had to overdo and turn this into a personal vendetta, and now the chances of fixing the actual important thing by the end or the year are 0.",
  "sig": "c236f8aa8b0bf4d489ebf8d040f1090bcf365294c6e04198882552d5fe26d9ac57b39794de58cdc3d1de385b70c1e710e8d4d1bbc582e3f659cd6ff9d8dfdaf6"
}