I'm trying to spend more time reading. This was the last book I read—it made me reflect on many things, from how I relate to others to how I choose to act in certain situations. Highly recommended #book #readstr #bookstr
"Don't cry when we don't use Bitcoin Core shitcoiners" Dude, nobody's forcing you to use Bitcoin Core — if you want to try something else, go for it, it's all good haha.
Let’s talk a bit about OP_RETURN.
First: what is it?
It’s an opcode that allows arbitrary data to be stored in a transaction in a way that makes it unspendable.
Simply put: you can use it to embed things like a message, a hash, or even an image in #Bitcoin.
In Bitcoin, by consensus, there are no restrictions on OP_RETURN. These are fully valid transactions under the protocol. What blocks them today is a local policy in Bitcoin Core, not the protocol itself.
So this proposal isn’t a philosophical shift — it’s an alignment between Core's standardness rules and the consensus rules.
Calling it a “cultural change” ignores that the protocol already allows it.
What exists today is a technical and policy inconsistency.
Whether we like “spam” or not (meaning anything not strictly monetary), the reality is that it exists and will continue to exist.
This proposal simply provides a cleaner path for it to happen.
It doesn’t enable it — it’s already enabled.
This isn’t about “welcoming” anyone, nobody needs permission to use Bitcoin, if someone wants to embed data, they will, the only thing we can influence is how they do it and how much collateral damage it causes.
The current restrictions haven’t stopped anything, they’ve only pushed abusers to use more harmful methods like Taproot fake scripts, witness stuffing, etc.
All of it worse for the system than using OP_RETURN.
Let’s be honest:
– There is no way to filter “spam” 100%.
– Filters can be bypassed.
– Miners can include whatever they want.
– If someone is willing to pay the fee, they’ll do it — today or tomorrow.
So what’s the most pragmatic option?
➡️ Align standardness with consensus.
➡️ Offer the least harmful path.
➡️ Acknowledge technical reality and minimize its impact.
It’s not a perfect solution — but it’s the least damaging one.
And most importantly, it’s the only one aligned with Bitcoin’s protocol.
If you see this as a philosophical shift, it’s because you never truly understood how Bitcoin’s consensus works.
We’re not opening a door, the door has always been open.
When people talk about success, they often mention opportunities, background, and skills. But for me, the most important factor is mindset. The number of people I've seen achieve great things from scratch—without being geniuses or having an inheritance—just by having the right mindset and clear goals, is incredible.
I think none of us in #Bitcoin actually want it to be flooded with spam. This is simply a proposal where certain trade-offs were discussed, but it still lacks consensus.
Regarding how comments are being handled in the repository —sorry if this sounds controversial—but I think that if someone doesn’t have the full context and is just looking to stir things up, it’s fair for those comments to be marked as spam.
Just because you mostly see tech stuff on my socials doesn’t mean that’s all I talk about. I’m way more than that — I just use my platforms for work, not really for personal things.
