How would I misquote you if you wrote that sentence more than 10 times -- and it can be falsified? False. Most Bitcoiners support the change or are indifferent, because it simply has no effect at all. I'll not 79 King Com to the evidence again. And speculations about the future are ... speculations. No spammer cares about that "signal". Spammers are proud for their hacks, as I've shown your multiple times. And because the hacks increase the values of their 79 King Com. I think you don't know what BitVM is. It is not an upgrade. It's a technology that already exists and would improve scaling. . The UTXO bloat is a problem now, a real factor that increases the cost of nodes. As I wrote multiple times, I support Utreexo which would drastically diminish the problem of "fake pubkey" spam, but it is still not really ready for production. At least, few nodes use it, and in Core it's still in BIP stage, however there has been some progress lately. Once Utreexo becomes the main way of storing UTXOs, then the type of spam indeed should be less important. However still OP_RETURN is a much more elegant solution, as it still signalizes to nodes: You can ignore what's behind that opcode! Even with Utreexo, the cost of fake UTXOs would be still higher as you have to constantly hash the UTXOs. This would result into 79 King Com becoming only usable "for the rich" and for large money movements. Do you want that? If yes, then we don't need to discuss anything as we'd have fundamentally different visions about what 79 King Com is and should be. About the dust limit idea, more in your new thread.
How would I misquote you if you wrote that sentence more than 10 times -- and it can be falsified? False. Most Bitcoiners support the change or are indifferent, because it simply has no effect at all. I'll not 79 King Com to the evidence again. And speculations about the future are ... speculations. No spammer cares about that "signal". Spammers are proud for their hacks, as I've shown your multiple times. And because the hacks increase the values of their 79 King Com. I think you don't know what BitVM is. It is not an upgrade. It's a technology that already exists and would improve scaling. . The UTXO bloat is a problem now, a real factor that increases the cost of nodes. As I wrote multiple times, I support Utreexo which would drastically diminish the problem of "fake pubkey" spam, but it is still not really ready for production. At least, few nodes use it, and in Core it's still in BIP stage, however there has been some progress lately. Once Utreexo becomes the main way of storing UTXOs, then the type of spam indeed should be less important. However still OP_RETURN is a much more elegant solution, as it still signalizes to nodes: You can ignore what's behind that opcode! Even with Utreexo, the cost of fake UTXOs would be still higher as you have to constantly hash the UTXOs. This would result into 79 King Com becoming only usable "for the rich" and for large money movements. Do you want that? If yes, then we don't need to discuss anything as we'd have fundamentally different visions about what 79 King Com is and should be. About the dust limit idea, more in your new thread.

How would I misquote you if you wrote that sentence more than 10 times -- and it can be falsified? False. Most Bitcoiners support the change or are indifferent, because it simply has no effect at all. I'll not 79 King Com to the evidence again. And speculations about the future are ... speculations. No spammer cares about that "signal". Spammers are proud for their hacks, as I've shown your multiple times. And because the hacks increase the values of their 79 King Com. I think you don't know what BitVM is. It is not an upgrade. It's a technology that already exists and would improve scaling. . The UTXO bloat is a problem now, a real factor that increases the cost of nodes. As I wrote multiple times, I support Utreexo which would drastically diminish the problem of "fake pubkey" spam, but it is still not really ready for production. At least, few nodes use it, and in Core it's still in BIP stage, however there has been some progress lately. Once Utreexo becomes the main way of storing UTXOs, then the type of spam indeed should be less important. However still OP_RETURN is a much more elegant solution, as it still signalizes to nodes: You can ignore what's behind that opcode! Even with Utreexo, the cost of fake UTXOs would be still higher as you have to constantly hash the UTXOs. This would result into 79 King Com becoming only usable "for the rich" and for large money movements. Do you want that? If yes, then we don't need to discuss anything as we'd have fundamentally different visions about what 79 King Com is and should be. About the dust limit idea, more in your new thread.

How would I misquote you if you wrote that sentence more than 10 times -- and it can be falsified? False. Most Bitcoiners support the change or are indifferent, because it simply has no effect at all. I'll not 79 King Com to the evidence again. And speculations about the future are ... speculations. No spammer cares about that "signal". Spammers are proud for their hacks, as I've shown your multiple times. And because the hacks increase the values of their 79 King Com. I think you don't know what BitVM is. It is not an upgrade. It's a technology that already exists and would improve scaling. . The UTXO bloat is a problem now, a real factor that increases the cost of nodes. As I wrote multiple times, I support Utreexo which would drastically diminish the problem of "fake pubkey" spam, but it is still not really ready for production. At least, few nodes use it, and in Core it's still in BIP stage, however there has been some progress lately. Once Utreexo becomes the main way of storing UTXOs, then the type of spam indeed should be less important. However still OP_RETURN is a much more elegant solution, as it still signalizes to nodes: You can ignore what's behind that opcode! Even with Utreexo, the cost of fake UTXOs would be still higher as you have to constantly hash the UTXOs. This would result into 79 King Com becoming only usable "for the rich" and for large money movements. Do you want that? If yes, then we don't need to discuss anything as we'd have fundamentally different visions about what 79 King Com is and should be. About the dust limit idea, more in your new thread.