If you are worried about this, you should go back in time and stop running Bitcoin Core more than a decade ago, because the blockchain has had such 'objectionable content' in it for longer than that.

Limiting OP_RETURN size would be a soft fork.

As pointed out elsewhere, we think of the minRelayTxFee as a minimum cost for the network to forward a transaction. When the minRelayTxFee was reduced recently, also the incrementalRelayTxFee was reduced, as it doesn’t make much difference whether you are sending a new transaction or use bandwidth to replace an existing transaction with an updated version of it. In the upcoming Bitcoin Core 30.0 release, they will both be 0.1 s/vB which means that you will need to pay at least 20 sats for the 200 vB transaction from your example for it to be relayed, and if you were to bump it, a replacement of the same size would need to increase the fee by at least 20 sats to be forwarded by nodes.

No idea, sorry

You’re welcome

To be precise, Bitcoin Core 30.0 is lowering the minRelayTxFee and incrementalRelayFee by a factor ten to 0.1 s/vB.

Silly me, moved a sentence and forgot to remove it at the other end. :-/

That’s charitable of you, but Luke literally claims that -datacarrier has always referred to all forms of embedding data, when that is in direct contradiction to the discussion around and documentation of the introduction of -datacarrier. He even unilaterally filed a CVE for that. As far as I am aware, no other Bitcoin Core contributor shares this interpretation.

Just how terribly designed BRC-20 is from top to bottom really adds insult to injury.

Interesting point about the complexity, needing to create multiple outputs and inputs would have definitely made it more expensive and a bit more complex. So, yeah, Taproot did make it easier, and if it had been harder, the BRC-20 author would have perhaps not created his proof-of-concept design for a laugh. Just how terribly designed BRC-20 is from top to bottom really adds insult to injury.

For large parts of the last three years, there were transactions in the mempool bidding more than 1 s/vB or more. For those periods, the answer is clearly no, because the price was determined by the blockspace market, and not the minimum feerate. Beyond that, I was very surprised that the miners didn’t think their incentives through and went along with mining transactions bidding less than 1 s/vB. It seems to me that they permanently reduced the ceiling of feerate peaks, simply by replacements being incremented in smaller steps. If they had thought it through, and considered how little these fees brought in the big picture, they should not have deviated from the established minimum feerate. If they had not performed this unforced error, no in general as well.

Jargon nit: Block reward = block subsidy + transaction fees

Inscriptions being caused by a bug in Taproot is an often repeated, but unconvincing narrative. I would agree with "none of the volume spikes were caused by a softfork".

The 2017 spike coincided with a big bullrun to a new ATH. There just was massive trading and transaction volume. While Segwit had been activated, most wallets didn’t support it yet, and most transactions were still non-segwit.

via https://mainnet.observer/charts/transactions-spending-segwit/

I bet this drama would be much less heated, if we would try assigning statements to the people that said them, instead of larger groups of people that they are not even part of…

We could also try checking claims before amplifying them. Wouldn’t that be something?

Not just petty, but also illustrating how law enforcement is deployed on his whim for personal reasons.

In case it's not obvious from @Scoresby's post, these two tweets were not in the same thread.

Side-stepping my question and engaging me as if I were fresh off the boat makes me think we are in two separate conversations.

Would you give some examples of how "the protocol is being captured"? I see a bunch of suits starting treasury companies and ETFs, but the influx of protocol development must have eluded me.

You're projecting your personal philosophy on all bitcoiners in what amounts to a True Scotsman fallacy. Meh.

Real Bitcoiners post at least one question or answer on Bitcoin Stack Exchange every day!!!1

See what I did there?

I have never heard of any Bitcoin Core contributor having signed an NDA in the context of working on Bitcoin Core. Do you have any examples of which organizations require this?

That still gets you the social media harassment and misrepresentation via screenshots.

Who is "Lee" and why do you miss them?

That’s Walton