Thread

Replies (11)

Why not use this opportunity to talk about the real underlying issue: unlimited witness data? This is where the deeper technical problem lies, and it’s also where you could actually win something meaningful for the people you’re trying to help. Your ideological arguments would carry more weight if they showed a broader understanding of all the vectors for arbitrary data… not just inscriptions, but witness, script paths, bare multisig abuse, etc. That knowledge could help you build bridges instead of burning them. Knots, under Luke, sets witness data limits at 400KB. That’s smart. It leaves breathing room for Lightning and innovative payment use cases. But even that lower limit—and the other pathways for data—still allow market-driven use of Bitcoin as what it fundamentally is: a decentralized thermodynamic clock. You may not like that, but you can’t stop it. Neither can Core. That’s the entire premise of permissionless systems. I want the same things you say you want: a robust monetary layer, wide node accessibility, sustainable fee markets. But I also accept two realities: 1 - Currency is only one way humans exchange value. 2 - If Bitcoin doesn’t provide some outlet for arbitrary data, the market will take the protocol in directions none of us like. And that’s the part I haven’t heard you engage with. Maybe you have, and I missed it. But you have a powerful voice, and I genuinely think you could do more with it. There’s an opening here to go back to the root—to help fix the original bug that Luke himself helped introduce: unlimited witness data. You could be the person who brings that conversation mainstream. Stirring up a frenzy around ideology is easy. Fixing fundamentals takes more work and that’s where your leadership might actually make a difference.