The changes being made opens bitcoin to an enormous attack surface with the pretext of making it able to do… what you can already do with any other coin like ethereum or solana? The core development team is pushing for a change that no one really needs unless their goal is to downgrade bitcoin to the same level as other expensive (to the computer) systems. This + the change being made against a significant part of the community (around 25%) raises a LOT of alarms inside my head. Bitcoin could be under a sophisticated attack made by people who want to break with its decentralisation.

My main point against bitcoin core is: Even if I was wrong, and the developers could somehow know that this change is going to improve the network, they are pushing through it. There is a high resistance towards this change inside the community (this thread would not exist otherwise), yet the change has been pushed anyway. No matter how good the change could be, this should not be how changes are made into a money system that depends on stability.

and I don’t wanna degrade any other protocol or person. I don’t wanna say “everything other than btc is a shitcoin”, but the fact is there: I can NOT run ETH with my personal computer because of all the NFT, contracts, and etc. making the running of a node impossible without a high end supercomputer. Bitcoin decentralisation depends on the average person being able to run it to support the network

I get the point, all personal attacks help nothing into the discussion. But Matthew Kratter provides arguments to prove that OP_RETURN limits have always worked and should not be removed. Bitcoin has to stay available to be run on any average computernfor years to come, and we cannot afford to use it to store images, videos, or anything that wastes storage, energy, and is not directly related to a transaction as per definition. There is proof that opening the protocol to handle arbitrary information degrades the network, see BitcoinSV, ETH… and practically any other coin that does not restrict it.

I’ve heard people say both: “Bitcoin wastes energy” and “bitcoin is just computers that can be hacked”. They don’t seem to connect the line and see that the “wasted” energy is instead used to secure the ledger. It’s like saying that a reinforced steel door wastes metal because you have a door at home that doesn’t use as much.

Quick reminder that the “current established bitcoin” (core v30 majority) allows arbitrary non-monetary data up to 100kb to be appended into the chain. People are debating this, and a fork may arise as an attempt to change the system. So yes, you better keep an eye out, because if your only motto is “bitcoin will always rule” you will end up inside an outdated system.

We are using nostr, which serves as a proof that there are indeed incentives to change to something new from an already existing infrastructure. Bitcoin is the first of its kind and has been proven resilient, but in the end anything can happen and every system has to adapt itself, no matter how established.

One way or another, this is what we need, nostr already beats any other platform in everything but the userbase, in my opinion. the people we look for are the people who can spread the trend.

Que bárbaro, no sabía que cosas así existían, le echaré un vistazo

soy algo nuevo en nostr, aún tengo que encontrar un buen setup de relays que incluya entre otras cosas diferentes ISPs (y cloudflare + no cloudflare)