-
@ jimmysong
2025-05-19 19:41:27
No one is preventing you, the transaction creator, from doing anything. You can submit the transaction directly to a miner if you want to. What node operators are doing is refusing to cooperate with you if they filter your transaction and that's their right because that's their node. The emergent behavior is that transmission to a miner is more expensive and cumbersome, but it's not *prevention*.
And besides, we already make more expensive and cumbersome all kinds of transactions with other standardness rules like the filter for transactions that exceed 100,000 bytes. How do you square keeping that limit and lifting the 83 byte OP_RETURN limit?
One of the strangest parts of the debate is how the p2p-network is treated as both completely powerless (miners will get the spam txs anyway) and all powerful (it's censorship!!!) depending on the argument. Which is it? If it's all powerful, then the filters work and you have to make your argument on the moral ground of not censoring OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes. But the output is not monetary, so it should have lower priority at the very least than normal monetary transactions. If it's completely powerless, then why are you taking choices away from the node runner?