Oddbean new post about login | logout O while I have you here, @ODELL, seeing as you are an investor in Samourai, do you have any opinion on how they neeslesslt escalated the situation by leading people to believe that Luke was intentionally filtering Whirlpool transactions out of hostility? Seems a little unstable and needless IMO https://image.nostr.build/d60472e66a028b0f349c315071af7fe14022326c1983ca20505dd5cc77c477f0.jpg
Samourai could have handled it better. Their public comms often do more harm than good. nostr:note1s4u5ptcglvy8hlgws7dfxu6s6amlhrz69p8u998kfu8gn9khnr9s6s8tr3
I mean, they are STILL handling it poorly. Do you disagree with the narrative that they are *still* pushing (this very hour) that this is intentional, hostile censorship specifically against their platforms?
That is regrettable. Blockchain data storage limit disagreements date back to Satoshi times. Luke's 40 byte limit is by no means unreasonable. People should just chill and keep coding.
I think there is a erudite and measured discussion to be had about the reasonableness of Luke. However, Samourai consistently goes out of their way to avoid erudite and measured discussion, opting for tribalism and discord.
He is technically correct. 40 bytes OP_RETURN should be more than enough for any and all blockchain arbitrary data storage needs. Don't let lazy programmers and greedy hype riders tell you otherwise.
Yeah I don't think the bitcoin blockchain is meant to be a data hoarding NAS either.
I think the valuable anchor/notary use cases will fix this without any intervention. But on the other side, maybe a campaign to hardfork (change rules in a backwards incompatible way) to put limits on witness sizes. The benefits to miners at the expense of all other uses should be obvious. The legacy of big blocker attacks continues.
Forgot to tag @Luke Dashjr Anyway, this thread explains it fairly well: https://nitter.net/pourteaux/status/1361821176801157122
