Mathematician and web developer Melvin Carvalho shared a report accusing members of the Bitcoin Core client of discursive manipulation (gaslighting, English) and censorship in discussions about removing data caps. opcode OP_RETURN.
Mathematicians mentioned based on gaslighting In it they kept the following behavior from Core: “Repeat until it’s true” “Appeal to authority” “Censor opposing opinions”also presents widely opposed issues as “solved.”
In Core version 30, opcode OP_RETURN is a statement that inserts arbitrary information (such as text or references) into a transaction. It caused discomfort in some parts of the community.
Carvalho said in his report that while this change was presented as a simple relay policy adjustment in the core node policy, his vision is to change Bitcoin’s economic function by incentivizing data storage. In that sense, as CriptoNoticias reported at the end of October last year, Approximately 40% of transactions they didn’t move the value of money.
Additionally, web developers claim: There was no “rough agreement” on expansion.In the official repository, there are 105 for and 423 against, a ratio close to 4:1.
Similarly, Carvalho highlighted the increased adoption of Bitcoin Knots clients and highlighted the “community response” to the creation of BIP-110, a soft fork proposal to reduce Bitcoin’s data storage.
Arguments for extending OP_RETURN and Carvalho’s counterargument
Carvalho points out that developers such as Pieter Wuille and Peter Todd claim that the OP_RETURN restriction is irrelevant. This is because the OP_RETURN restriction can be circumvented by Witness field data, multiple signature schemes, and direct submissions to miners, potentially invalidating the resubmission policy. However, when filters reduce the visibility of transactions in the memory pool (where they wait for confirmation), he responds: Therefore, it was not just symbolic, but had a practical effect.
We also refute the idea that extending OP_RETURN is the “lesser evil” in the face of pollution of the Unused Output Set (UTXO), the database that each node maintains to verify payments.
In his opinion, it’s not a question of choosing between “unlimited OP_RETURN” or “UTXO pollution”; Maintain limits and correct certain abusesFrom 40 to 80 bytes to 100 kilobytes, opcode From data anchor to “data highway”.
Regarding the risks of centralization, Carvalho questions whether historical filters have created private benefits for miners, arguing that clear evidence of this effect has not existed for more than a decade.
On the contrary, he warns, making large amounts of data readily available could strengthen centralized power relations by attracting actors with enough capital to negotiate infrastructure directly with miners.
Regarding governance, he emphasizes that a node’s relay policy is not part of the consensus (rules that validate blocks), but the core client default values affect the majority of nodes. This is because this software is currently in operation on over 77% of all nodes, and the default behavior needs to be changed. Effectively change the flow of transactionssays Carvalho.
Finally, Carvalho alludes to the fact that developers such as Zhao, Adam Back, and Antoine Poinsot advocate neutrality, and software should not determine which transactions are legitimate based on their content.
Mathematicians believe that Bitcoin has always applied standardized rules to protect the network, so Certain restrictions are not absolute neutralityHowever, decisions need to be made about what uses are recommended and who will pay for them.
