pull down to refresh

Did you ever wonder why the Bitcoin Core developers were willing to risk their reputation and the software's status as the reference implementation on such a controversial change?
The answer is here, it didn't take long.
"Bitcoin Core v30.0 just opened a new era for metaprotocols on Bitcoin.
With this update, OP_RETURN removes the 80-byte limit, allowing multiple data fragments to be emitted within a single transaction. Plus, the minimum relay fee is reduced to 0.1 sat/vB, making it cheaper to store and execute data directly on L1.
What does this mean for the #Atomicals ecosystem and the AVM (Atomicals Virtual Machine)?
👉 The AVM will benefit directly by being able to:
Execute more complex contracts directly on Bitcoin, without relying on external layers.
Process multiple operations within a single transaction, reducing costs and increasing efficiency.
Enable new forms of crowdfunding, staking, and digital economies on Bitcoin L1.
Example: A crowdfunding protocol built on AVM could now store all participation, validation, and result data within a single Bitcoin transaction, thanks to the expanded OP_RETURN capacity."
And you already know this disgusting shit isn't the last Ethereum-like project you're going to see.
The Ethereum-ization of Bitcoin was the endgame all along.
And for those of you who believed the "filters don't work" propaganda, check out last month's OP_RETURN stats:
How will this chart look next month?
Why aren't people using the P2P payments protocol sufficiently for P2P payments to ensure sufficient fees to block these ETH parasites from clogging the blockchain?
reply
It's a multilayered problem, but Capital Gain Taxes have a lot to do with it. And there's a global crisis, people are just spending less.
Also, this happened:
"People all over the world were using the main chain for all kinds of transactions and the mempools were moving along. The spam attack caused the fees to rise to ridiculous levels for months. People who use Bitcoin as money have lives to live, they can't wait for the Ordinals crowd to stop scamming each other. They were forced to find alternative ways to move value. Once the spammers ran out of money and the fees went down, people had already found other ways and never looked back. It's not easy to see, but check the stats. The mempool's activity never recovered after the spam attack. And as a bonus, check the tweets from the time, spammers announced the attack. And then, they were gloating and making fun of normal people who couldn't afford the ridiculous fees."
reply
Well said! Since LN is now pretty accessible I do most of my transactions on it and much less on L2. However in addition to the very good points you have made I would add that the whole narrative around Bitcoin has moved hugely away from its being a payments protocol to that of it being a speculative commodity that you do not spend but solely HODL and wait for it to appreciate relative to fiat. IMO this (taxed and kyced) speculative commodity narrative is effectively the bankers and governments capturing and controlling the protocol. If we continue to lose the narrative and actual use of Bitcoin for P2P payments continues to stagnate the potential of Bitcoin to provide a true alternative to fiat also stagnates. It is through its hegemony over MoE that fiat gains most of its economic and strategic power.
reply
You're right. We need to use Bitcoin as money and create a global circular economy. It's crucial.
reply
Oh yes higher fees are good for on-chain payments adoption. 🤡
reply
I'm not saying that. I am asking why are people not using the protocol for payments? Can you answer that question? 🤡
reply
fees are good for on-chain payments adoption.
Yes, people bidding over blockspace is good for bitcoin. This is the way Bitcoin is designed. To complain about it is to say "adoption is bad for adoption."
If it is bad, how do we even proceed?
reply
777 sats \ 0 replies \ @sudonaka 15h
“Good for Bitcoin” -bitcoin doesn’t care.
WE CARE, if it’s $200 to open a lightning channel because of shitcoiners clogging the chain- LESS PEOPLE WILL USE IT FOR BTC
But you think all adoption is good, so you should enjoy the shitcoins on Bitcoin network and also way higher fees
reply
I hate that people are platforming the opinions of scam coins as anything remotely trustworthy. This is a marketing gimmick, nothing more. OP_RETURN doesn't make it easier or cheaper for meta protocols. Similar with that Vitalik quote that gets thrown around every now and then where he claims that Bitcoin's hostility to data embedding left him no choice, but to develop his own scamcoin. You can't trust these people with anything they say, even if they confirm your own narrative.
reply
Sure, buddy.
reply
I will run Core v30 just for fun to fuck up your post LOL. Are we done with this bullshit fight? Let's move on, we should fight against the banksters and govs not to each others.
reply
Hahahahhahahhahahhahhahhahahhaha!
You and anyone can run whatever implementation you choose.
I don't think it's a bullshit fight and I'm not nearly done. I think the real fight began when Core released their V30 malware, to be honest.
You can sit this one out, though. You've done enough.
Cheers.
reply
Why not both, fight against Core, banksters and govs
reply
Exactly.
reply
buahahahaha
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @OT 13 Oct
What do you think caused the op return stats? People running Knots or the minimum TX fee getting dropped?
reply
Yeah, because of Core's default settings, almost all OP_RETURN transactions are smaller than 80B.
That's a filter, it has been there for years, and it clearly works.
They had to get rid of it for "metaprotocols" like this Electron bullshit to work.
And Core did it, at great cost to them, both reputation-wise and adoption-wise.
They tried to spin it like they were saving small miners or some bullshit, but this was the endgame all along. Pretty dark stuff if you ask me.
reply
That's not what the graph shows. It's a bit confusing, but the x axis is byte size.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 14 Oct
So nothing to do with either?
reply
142 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 14 Oct
It's trying to show that because of the core defaults, most of the op returns are smaller than 80B and only some op_returns are bigger.
This graph is used both by people that say that "filters don't work" as well as by people that say that "filters work". People on both sides are stupid.
reply