Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake

[gmaxwell]

We have already discussed this in the thread, but there is also a pull request which removes the default limitation for OP_RETURN  (i.e. these are only limited the max transaction size) do not remove the datacarriersize parameter.

The PR that removes the knob was closed weeks ago.  The remaining one which was merged today leaves the setting in and changes the default.

[tvbcof]

We have already discussed this in the thread, but there is also a pull request which removes the default limitation for OP_RETURN  (i.e. these are only limited the max transaction size) do not remove the datacarriersize parameter.

The PR that removes the knob was closed weeks ago.  The remaining one which was merged today leaves the setting in and changes the default.

Only semi-related, but...

To me, 'core' is strongly associated with bitcoin.org, the repo, and distributions of binaries since that is what most users probably use.

Did you guys consider simply requiring a 'manual' step for selecting a config set and distributing one as the standard which is the most well tested against to release and most widely discussed and understood by the primary contributors?  Naturally downstream package management systems would usually eliminate the 'manual' part, or make nifty menus or whatever.

Seems to me that doing this would potentially reduce somewhat the liability concerns (since people _could have_ filtered out CP or whatever attack might be at hand) but it is up to the user to choose 'their own' configs.  I suppose that instructions to edit the configs might achieve more or less the same thing.

Also, of course, it might mollify some of the community to a degree.  Without knowing too much about it, I kinda feel that it might be worth the hassle to have a relatively advanced config+lint system and encourage it to be developed and used.  Of course it complicate development and lead to a ton of user level problems and issues, but I feel that it would ultimately end up with a more robust system and one capable of rapid defenses against attacks (or conversely, lead to attacks for that matter.)

I have to say (maybe again) that issues such as these are welcome windows into the ecosystem personalities, philosophies, skill levels, cults, etc) as a whole.  I also have to say that it landed certain people who I had some confidence in a lot farther down on my list of trusted personalities.  Samson Mow for one, and the Kratter guy and the BTC sessions guy for two.  All three are relatively new to me.  All put out good and insightful information, but I don't feel that they conducted themselves very well at all here, and in some cases I have to re-think the use of some of the products they are associated with.

[mikeywith]

They also tend to have the smallest financial stake,

How would you possibly know anything about anyone's finances??? 

It's just common sense -- unless you genuinely believe Core developers have more financial stake in Bitcoin than miners or exchanges, which would be a bizarre assumption, as far as I see it.

Does it give you a little sexual thrill to just make shit up?

I'm not interested in discussing my sexual desires publicly.

 

developers tend to be people whose only financial interest is the value of Bitcoin

That same exact logic applies to miners -- many of whom have billions and billions invested in hardware and infrastructure that becomes worthless if Bitcoin loses value.

[headingnorth]

They also tend to have the smallest financial stake,

How would you possibly know anything about anyone's finances???  

Does it give you a little sexual thrill to just make shit up? lol  The reality is that developers tend to be people whose only financial interest is the value of Bitcoin, -- they're not pushing some company or influencer brand or whatever but that by no means means makes their interest insubstantial.

then it seems to me certain people or certain devs
who are pro-spam don't like the outcome of the anti-spam "vote" so decided to unilaterally change the code so they can no longer "vote" at all
(via the op-return limit). In other words, force them to abandon any limits whether they like it or not.

Why are you wasting your own time and everyone else's by commenting on this when you have no idea what's going on and clearly haven't even read the thread here? That's just really bad conduct.  I'd respond correcting but clearly there is no point since you haven't read whats already been discussed.

Banning those who are critical of the PR from github isn't bad conduct to you?
Well that's one way to shut down the debate when you know you have no credible argument.

You are the one wasting your god damn time and my time.

"Because there other ways to get around the limit" is a stupid answer that doesn't answer anything.

[gmaxwell]

It's just common sense -- unless you genuinely believe Core developers have more financial stake in Bitcoin than miners or exchanges, which would be a bizarre assumption, as far as I see it.

Common doesn't necessarily mean correct. Many of the larger 'miners' are owned by disinterested investors, and managed by hired managers that have very little interest themselves-- or, most commonly, aren't actually miners at all but are selling hashpower to pools with little capital investment and often extensive investment in bitcoin competitors.  Some of the largest hashers have never even used a Bitcoin wallet-- I've talked to people who owned significant percentages of the network hashrate that just mine with a pool paying directly to an exchange account, and for years I had a pretty good business selling options to several large hashers so they could reduce their Bitcoin exposure even in just the 100 block maturity window.

Similarly, many exchanges are predominantly invested in Bitcoin competitors, and spend a lot of resources promoting altcoin-of-the-day to anyone that uses their services.    I had the CEO of one of the largest exchanges tell me flat out that he'd make a lot more money if bitcoin died (and wasn't I stupid for not being invested in ethereum).

This is in comparison to bitcoin contributors who easily can have 99% of their net worth as Bitcoin as well as their professional reputation and ability to work tied up in Bitcoin, the same people are also sometimes miners themselves and involved in the ecosystem in other ways.  Absolutely there are miners (especially midsized ones) that have their necks on the line, but even though have significant short term cash flow pressures that can be very misaligned with Bitcoin's success.  The capital expenditures of miners are also rapidly deprecated and their primary cost is *power* which can be turned off at any point.  You can just look at all the inscriptions flood for example of how miners are easily somewhat misaligned with Bitcoin's long term success (or log into any of the larger exchanges for a very IN YOUR FACE example of the current massive misalignment).

Banning those who are critical of the PR from github isn't bad conduct to you?
Well that's one way to shut down the debate when you know you have no credible argument.

Who is banned from github?  What debate is shut down?  Also what relevance does this have to you failing to read the existing discussion even here and wasting everyone's time with confused arguments as a result?

[mikeywith]

I see a lot of assumptions in your post, along with cherry-picked examples meant to paint all Core devs as having 100% of their stake in Bitcoin, while miners and exchanges supposedly treat BTC as a side hustle. That's not just oversimplified -- it's wrong.

I can just as easily cherry-pick devs who left Bitcoin and ended up working on competing projects. If a Core dev walks away tomorrow, they still have their BTC holdings, past donations, and reputation -- and can easily find work in any crypto or non-crypto related field without major consequences. There's relatively little personal risk involved compared to miners.

If Bitcoin fails, miners don't just lose status or funding -- we lose everything. Billions in ASICs, infrastructure, land, hosting, and long-term energy contracts go up in smoke. And unlike devs, we can't just "switch projects" and carry on.

You say miners are "disinterested" or "misaligned," but from the inside, here's the reality:

-We don't live on grants, donations, or academic prestige -- we survive on uptime, tight margins, and market volatility.

-Real capital is at stake -- from small setups to institutional-scale farms.

-Our investments are sunk and non-recoverable. If BTC dies, there's no freelancing our way out of it.

I know many miners who have gone bankrupt just when BTC price fell, let alone if the entire ecosystem would have gone to waste. On the other hand, I don't think Gavin Andresen lost his life savings when he left Core.

So let's not pretend only devs are aligned with Bitcoin's long-term success. Miners put real, irreversible capital on the line every single day -- and that is more skin in the game, whether you want to admit it or not.

I haven't touched much on exchanges, since I don’t have skin in their game -- but let's be real: if Bitcoin fails, every other cryptocurrency follows. The exchanges that are now raking in billions in daily volume -- They will go to exact zero, if the person you talked to is shorting BTC to make a quick buck or waiting to liquidate his clients, that's a different story, the reality is, his exchange will go down the drain the moment something bad happens to Bitcoin.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying developers have no skin in the game. Everyone involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem -- whether you're a dev, a miner, or someone who just bought a few sats -- has something at stake. We're all in this together, to some extent.

Also, I'm not making claims about who owns more BTC or pretending to know the personal finances of any dev or miner (more so a response to your statement about me knowing about other people's finances). My point is not about absolute numbers. It's about risk exposure and the aftermath consequences if things go south.

As a miner, I know that if Bitcoin fails, the financial hit I'd take would set me back decades. And from where I stand, I believe the percentage impact on my life and future would be greater than what many Core devs would face -- again, not in absolute BTC terms, but in real, personal economic damage.

So when we talk about "skin in the game," let's recognize that it manifests differently for different people -- and for some of us, the consequences are far more immediate and irreversible.

[headingnorth]

Banning those who are critical of the PR from github isn't bad conduct to you?
Well that's one way to shut down the debate when you know you have no credible argument.

Who is banned from github?  What debate is shut down?  

I suggest you take your own advice and follow the discussion to find out and quit wasting my time jackass.

[gmaxwell]

meant to paint all Core devs as having 100% of their stake in Bitcoin

How so?  That wasn't my intent, I couldn't know that.  But I've also known some that have.

I can just as easily cherry-pick devs who left Bitcoin and ended up working on competing projects.

Can you?  I'm drawing a blank on any significant contributor that has (e.g. more than a couple bug fixes or doc changes), it's possible that I'm missing someone but generally no because it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

So let's not pretend only devs are aligned with Bitcoin's long-term success

I didn't say only, but you said they had the smallest.  And that is something you just don't know. I find it doubtful, even just outright false at least for specific examples (knowing of specific parties behind mining operations and exchanges that have had far less relative exposure than specific developers, just as a product of discussing the subject of vol sensitivity, engaging in options trades, etc.)

Miners put real, irreversible capital on the line every single day

You can immediately sell your hardware *right now* quite possibly for more than you paid for it.  And power costs dwarf those hardware costs after what... three months of operation?  And plenty of Bitcoin failure modes also leave it perfectly usable-- see also BCash's attempt to take Bitcoin's market position.

I believe the percentage impact on my life and future would be greater than what many Core devs would face -- again, not in absolute BTC terms, but in real, personal economic damage.

You really just have no idea nor any basis to guess.  It's just a unsubstantiated prejudicial assumption.  And for those who do have a substantial interest, it's just plain insulting.  (Just as you seemed to be insulted when you understood my comment as suggesting you didn't-- which I wasn't attempting to suggest).

As an aside, if you're over exposed to the point where you feel fear about it you should perhaps work on balancing it out.  Fear results in poor decisions.

The reality is that lots of people have lots of reason to care about Bitcoin.  Without deeply knowing someone's personal finances you really can't tell what their exposure is-- it's easily the opposite of what it seems.

Who is banned from github?  What debate is shut down?

I suggest you take your own advice and follow the discussion to find out and quit wasting my time jackass.

I can assure you that I've read the entire thread here-- even bits that were tiresome llm spew.  I'd be happy to dig up a clarification or admit my own error if you'd provide more than a self-confident handwave.

Name a party, admit your error, clarify your position, or enjoy a ban from thus subforum.  I don't take kindly to rude gaslighters.

It may well be that you believe there is someone banned from the discussion but have you considered the possibility that you've been lied to by dishonest actors paid to disrupt Bitcoin?  If so, you have my sympathy, but if even if you become a weapon unwittingly you're a weapon none the less.  A sincere participant should want to be informed if they're mistaken.  If you insist on acting like a paid disruption, I'm going to treat you like one.

[nutildah]

Uhh... just for everybody's information, Peter Todd's pull request was closed a month ago:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359

"Closed with unmerged commits
This pull request is closed."

So that settles that.

It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32406

[gmaxwell]

It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:

As pointed out up-thread:  it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.

You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

[Satofan44]

It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:

As pointed out up-thread:  it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.

You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

Nice, at least it shows a little dose of listening to the concerns. I didn't really buy any arguments regarding technical debt for keeping a setting like that, because it is very small that it is practically irrelevant in terms of workload. I don't like that it is marked deprecated already, which is why I assume many people downvoted it in addition to their general concerns on this topic. If it gets removed in the near future, then the listening was sadly just fake posturing.

I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future. If not, such an outcome would clarify a lot of things. Let's wait and see.  Anyhow, it is time to see how Bitcoin Knots works, not that we have any real alternatives here.  

[d5000]

I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.

I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.

But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).

Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.

I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.

An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".

I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.

@gmaxwell: I don't think @headingnorth is a paid troll. They have posted interesting thoughts in other sections, and thus I think they are just confused a bit because of the complexity of the topic (I wonder if they know what the "UTXO set" is, for example, and why fake public keys can be so resource-heavy). That's not to justify their behavior here but just something I observed.

[Hueristic]

It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:

As pointed out up-thread:  it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.

You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

Why are there some conspicuously missing names from that list?

[mikeywith]

 I'm drawing a blank on any significant contributor that has (e.g. more than a couple bug fixes or doc changes)

A core dev is a core dev, regardless of their significance. Just to name a few: Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik. I could dig up more names, but that would be pointless -- the truth is, many core developers have left Core. Some simply walked away, some got involved in complementary Bitcoin projects, and others either supported or worked on competing projects.

I'm not saying these developers are evil -- just pointing out that not all core devs are loyal to BTC forever. Sure, some are probably very committed to Bitcoin, but the same can be said for certain miners and everyday users. Loyalty varies, and that's just the nature of a decentralized ecosystem.

 

it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

I didn't know that, to be honest. I thought core devs received enough donations to make working on other projects a lot less tempting. Obviously, this kind of information isn't public, so we have to take your word for it -- and I don't see any reason to deny it.

You can immediately sell your hardware *right now* quite possibly for more than you paid for it.  

Nah, it doesn't work that way. When you look at it from the BTC perspective, it's safe to assume that in most cases, selling your gear before BTC ROI is achieved results in a net loss. Mining is a very risky business, and most miners end up losing BTC in the process. Margins are tight, and it's difficult to fully grasp unless you're directly involved.

There's also the infrastructure aspect -- when you take out a loan to build a facility, buy a transformer, run all the wiring, and sign long-term power and rent contracts (which can cost as much as half the gear itself), you're locked in. You can't just back off. It's the opposite -- it's like quicksand. The more you commit, the deeper you sink.

We can definitely dive deeper into the mining business if needed, but that might be off-topic. To summarize: "walking away" is not really an option once you've started investing in mining. Doing so would almost certainly lead to massive losses.

You really just have no idea nor any basis to guess.  It's just a unsubstantiated prejudicial assumption.  And for those who do have a substantial interest, it's just plain insulting.

Maybe I used the wrong words earlier, and it came off like I was saying Core devs don't care about BTC. That's not what I meant. I was mainly comparing their stake vs. others, especially in terms of exit options, which 'again' is very subjective and everyone can look it the way they like.

Also, I think it's fair to point out that developers in general aren't always great decision-makers. That's why you have product managers in most companies. It's not uncommon for a developer to think something is good for the business when it's not. The mindset of an ambitious programmer can easily be misaligned with real market needs.

With that said, I have nothing but respect for core devs (old and new), regardless of some devs' terrible attitude. They have indeed contributed a lot to BTC, and credit should be given where it’s due.

or enjoy a ban from thus subforum.  I don't take kindly to rude gaslighters.

I agree that he jumped in without reading the entire topic, but threatening to ban him for that reason goes against what this forum stands for. People have been rude to theymos himself and even publicly lobbied against him in some cases, yet he never threatened to ban them.

[Satofan44]

I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.

I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.

But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).

I am not debating whether it is a realistic outcome. There are only two cases here: Either the counterarguments are valid concerns, or they are not valid concerns. If they are valid, then there’s a chance the consequences mentioned could come to fruition, right? What I am wondering is, if things do happen in a way that proves the naysayers partially or fully right, would Core undo these changes or would they find reasons excuses to not do it. That would provide a very clarifying situation for the reality of social power dynamics here, much better than any theoretical debate that we could have on this topic.

Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.

I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.

An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".

I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.

The rest of this is very well written, and I like that you described some possibilities. For that, I leave you some merit. I think a lot has been said about potential consequences everywhere where this was discussed, and because I don't want to continue this particular subtopic further I'll leave it at that. Now that it has been merged, we will soon see what will really happen.

It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:

As pointed out up-thread:  it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.
You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/

Why are there some conspicuously missing names from that list?

It is a bit short for me as well, but I guess more context is needed to know why.

it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

I didn't know that, to be honest. I thought core devs received enough donations to make working on other projects a lot less tempting. Obviously, this kind of information isn't public, so we have to take your word for it -- and I don't see any reason to deny it.

I am surprised that you don't know this. Just look at how much money altcoin projects are raising for absolute vaporware garbage that nobody needs. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Core developers could probably earn a lot of money by just giving permission to be listed as advisors in a variety of project. Just imagine the money if they participated in some more deeply, as co-founders. Integrity is what keeps them away. People have left for very different reasons, and some have shown their true colors with the act of leaving. You mention some very bad examples. In the case of mr. Hearn, he wanted to control Bitcoin and turn it into a centralized nightmare. When his proposals got rejected, he slowly went away and joined the "enemy".  

[mikeywith]

I am surprised that you don't know this. Just look at how much money altcoin projects are raising for absolute vaporware garbage that nobody needs. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Core developers could probably earn a lot of money by just giving permission to be listed as advisors in a variety of project. Just imagine the money if they participated in some more deeply, as co-founders. Integrity is what keeps them away.

Oh, When he said "alternatives," I didn’t think of scam projects or other reputation-wrecking paths like joining the porn industry or launching a worthless shitcoin.

I assumed he meant more reasonable and respectable alternatives -- like working at a well-paying tech firm. For example, landing a job at a U.S.-based company earning $150k–$300k a year.

You mention some very bad examples

Gavin Andresen might be controversial, but how exactly is Jeff Garzik a "bad" example? He laid the foundation for much of what the mining ecosystem relies on today -- nearly every piece of mining hardware out there still builds on the base of his code.

I don't closely follow Core devs news, so maybe I've missed something recent, but that doesn't change the fact that he played a major role in Bitcoin's early infrastructure, and the same applies to Gavin.

In any case, the request was for names -- I provided them. Whether they're seen as good or bad examples is subjective, they were prominent contributors who moved on. That's the only claim being made.

[Satofan44]

I am surprised that you don't know this. Just look at how much money altcoin projects are raising for absolute vaporware garbage that nobody needs. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Core developers could probably earn a lot of money by just giving permission to be listed as advisors in a variety of project. Just imagine the money if they participated in some more deeply, as co-founders. Integrity is what keeps them away.

Oh, When he said "alternatives," I didn’t think of scam projects or other reputation-wrecking paths like joining the porn industry or launching a worthless shitcoin.

I assumed he meant more reasonable and respectable alternatives -- like working at a well-paying tech firm. For example, landing a job at a U.S.-based company earning $150k–$300k a year.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply outright scams. However, most of the layer 1, and layer 2 projects that were launched in the last 5 years are essentially just that. You could call them legitimate, vaporware scams. Simply, a way to enrich the founders at the cost of retail. Sadly there was a time when being an advisor would provide a lot of legitimacy and those that choose to put their names with any major project could earn a lot of money depending on their reputation. I don't know how relevant such positions are still today, but I am sure that at least some of the Core developers have received their fair share of all kinds of offers.

Gavin Andresen might be controversial, but how exactly is Jeff Garzik a "bad" example? He laid the foundation for much of what the mining ecosystem relies on today -- nearly every piece of mining hardware out there still builds on the base of his code.

I don't closely follow Core devs news, so maybe I've missed something recent, but that doesn't change the fact that he played a major role in Bitcoin's early infrastructure, and the same applies to Gavin.

Controversial is being too lenient, didn't he confirm that C.W. was satoshi? When he left, he should have stayed gone. Instead he tarnished his reputation. As far as Garzik is concerned, it is a similar scenario. Nobody doubts that the contributions were made early, but they all ruined themselves afterwards. Did you forget that they tried to pull of a contentious hard fork on us? Why do people obsess over historical contributions? Had it not been the three of them, it would have been 3 other people? Might as well been a chance selection by the universe's entropy. People come and go, and many will come and go for malicious reasons.   Even today, he is using his early contributions to damage Bitcoin: https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2025/06/09/the-end-of-bitcoin-maximalism. This is not someone who has Bitcoin's best interest at heart, and it is questionable if he ever had. Even if he did, people are easily corruptible and that is what happened to some of them. Others left for more normal reasons.

We are going a bit off topic, but look at your precise wording from earlier.

I can just as easily cherry-pick devs who left Bitcoin and ended up working on competing projects.

Can you?  I'm drawing a blank on any significant contributor that has (e.g. more than a couple bug fixes or doc changes), it's possible that I'm missing someone but generally no because it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.

You explicitly mention competing projects, and as far as I am aware most people that left didn't work on such a thing. Maybe that is where the misunderstanding comes from? None of the 3 examples you gave went to work on competing projects really. Two became altcoiners, Jeff and Gavin, and Hearn became a banker.  

Your statement proves my points even further -- it was a response to the examples gmaxwell gave about bad miners and exchanges. I was trying to say that; there exist bad core devs.

Oh, in that case I am in agreement with you. I would even say there are different kinds of bad.  Replying here to avoid continuing this subtopic.

[mikeywith]

Your statement proves my points even further -- it was a response to the examples gmaxwell gave about bad miners and exchanges. I was trying to say that; there exist bad core devs.

Two became altcoiners, Jeff and Gavin, and the Hearn became a banker.  

What else are competing projects if not altcoins and banks?

Anyway, seems like we're shifting away from the main topic to the extent that we are deeply discussing previous core devs.

[d5000]

I am not debating whether it is a realistic outcome. There are only two cases here: Either the counterarguments are valid concerns, or they are not valid concerns. If they are valid, then there’s a chance the consequences mentioned could come to fruition, right? What I am wondering is, if things do happen in a way that proves the naysayers partially or fully right, would Core undo these changes or would they find reasons excuses to not do it.

The nature of the "outcome" is exactly the interesting question. I personally have come to the conclusion that the arguments of the opposing side are weak, for everything which was already discussed in this thread, but primarily because of the possible effect on "fake scripts"/"fake pubkeys" techniques.

And thus it's important to analyze the question: what does it mean if we now magically, once Bitcoin 30.0 with the change comes out, we see an increase of OP_RETURN transactions?

First we would have to check the volume. Would it already "prove the point" of the anti-PR fraction if we see a slight increase of OP_RETURN? I think not, as this is a bit also intended, if it counters a decrease of other data storage techniques, in particular of the "fake pubkeys" style which clutter the UTXO set.

If we however see a sustained and significant increase of data volume in general, with increasing OP_RETURN transactions not being countered by lowering Stampchain/Ordinals/BRC-20/whatever transactions, over several months, then it's worth to take a closer look at it. Above all if the volume equals or surpasses the Ordinals/Runes waves in 2023/24. I would even be in favour of retracting the change if there was really a well-explainable and clear effect of this kind.

But even in this case, it is important to avoid too premature conclusions. One reason is because of the "vengeance spam attack" question I already mentioned in the previous post. In 2017 we had a precedent: a spam wave was congesting the blockchain just near the Segwit decision. Of course nothing can be proven (perhaps someone had admitted it but I don't remember the exact sequence of events), but it would not be surprising that big blockers with deep pockets wanted to prove the point that Bitcoin needed big blocks and were thus responsible for this spam wave.

Okay, but what if we really have such a "sustained effect" which is longer than a typical "people with a mission"-style spam attack? Then I'll probably follow the debate closely. I think Core would then have some incentives to take back the change, or at least set again a (possibly higher) default limit for OP_RETURN outputs, to avoid too many nodes migrating towards Knots (or a Core fork with default limit).

But even if they don't do that, then that's also not a proof at all that "something fishy" had been going on as some of the PR-opposing group suggest. They likely will also take into account the technical arguments (block propagation, more homogenous mempools etc.), and they could come to the conclusion that it's better to simply wait out and hope this spam wave eventually ends. Even if I don't like Ordinals (and much less BRC-20) at all, it was not the end of Bitcoin, and thus another wave of this kind won't be the end either.

[Wind_FURY]

I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.

I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.

But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).

The "naysayers" fear something merely imagined. It will be the same as the "Ordinals Effect" if OP_RETURN limits are removed because like Ordinals, the bad UX to use Bitcoin for dick pics and fart sounds, because of fees surging, WILL force those users to either slow down their on-chain activities OR they price each other out.

Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.

I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.

An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".

NFTs are merely like shitcoins, it's not "scarcity" that drives their prices higher. It's merely faith and "belief", until there are no more new buyers to scam, THEN it crashes. Although, there are those collections that have a community that actually sticks together.