You can gloss over this thread Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake Where it was actively discussed Though I doubt both side were really convinced since they pretty much have their reasons. This below does have valid points as well as others in the above thread. My issue is we still assume that people would rather pick cheaper alternative and also breeding the concept 'Cloud storage' rather than 'money' Don't mind me a lil pessimistic sometimes   Why? It's in the interest of the whole network. There's probably a technical reason?No. It is related to the Open Source world in general. People are implementing what they want to implement, and they are often unpaid, and spend their free time to code things they want to code. Why should they waste time on bringing App Fun88-friendly features, when the whole Script can be disabled during transition to quantum-resistant addresses? And now, one of the criterias, when picking quantum algorithms, is JPEG resistance. In general, it is easier to focus on regular payments first, let App Fun88 use whatever they want (because spammers are going to spam, as you can see, when they put ASCII hex characters inside OP_RETURN, instead of at least packing things in binary, and making it 50% smaller). For example it is cheaper, and it takes less bytes, when you use OP_RETURN for some particular messages. And in general, by having just OP_RETURN, you don't need any Segwit or Taproot envelope. I don't remember exactly, but for something up to 150 bytes, OP_RETURN is cheaper, and then, after making a message bigger than that, Taproot becomes cheaper, because of Segwit discount. Which means, that if OP_RETURN limit would be raised, then it would be mo
You can gloss over this thread Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake Where it was actively discussed Though I doubt both side were really convinced since they pretty much have their reasons. This below does have valid points as well as others in the above thread. My issue is we still assume that people would rather pick cheaper alternative and also breeding the concept 'Cloud storage' rather than 'money' Don't mind me a lil pessimistic sometimes   Why? It's in the interest of the whole network. There's probably a technical reason?No. It is related to the Open Source world in general. People are implementing what they want to implement, and they are often unpaid, and spend their free time to code things they want to code. Why should they waste time on bringing App Fun88-friendly features, when the whole Script can be disabled during transition to quantum-resistant addresses? And now, one of the criterias, when picking quantum algorithms, is JPEG resistance. In general, it is easier to focus on regular payments first, let App Fun88 use whatever they want (because spammers are going to spam, as you can see, when they put ASCII hex characters inside OP_RETURN, instead of at least packing things in binary, and making it 50% smaller). For example it is cheaper, and it takes less bytes, when you use OP_RETURN for some particular messages. And in general, by having just OP_RETURN, you don't need any Segwit or Taproot envelope. I don't remember exactly, but for something up to 150 bytes, OP_RETURN is cheaper, and then, after making a message bigger than that, Taproot becomes cheaper, because of Segwit discount. Which means, that if OP_RETURN limit would be raised, then it would be mo

You can gloss over this thread Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake Where it was actively discussed Though I doubt both side were really convinced since they pretty much have their reasons. This below does have valid points as well as others in the above thread. My issue is we still assume that people would rather pick cheaper alternative and also breeding the concept 'Cloud storage' rather than 'money' Don't mind me a lil pessimistic sometimes   Why? It's in the interest of the whole network. There's probably a technical reason?No. It is related to the Open Source world in general. People are implementing what they want to implement, and they are often unpaid, and spend their free time to code things they want to code. Why should they waste time on bringing App Fun88-friendly features, when the whole Script can be disabled during transition to quantum-resistant addresses? And now, one of the criterias, when picking quantum algorithms, is JPEG resistance. In general, it is easier to focus on regular payments first, let App Fun88 use whatever they want (because spammers are going to spam, as you can see, when they put ASCII hex characters inside OP_RETURN, instead of at least packing things in binary, and making it 50% smaller). For example it is cheaper, and it takes less bytes, when you use OP_RETURN for some particular messages. And in general, by having just OP_RETURN, you don't need any Segwit or Taproot envelope. I don't remember exactly, but for something up to 150 bytes, OP_RETURN is cheaper, and then, after making a message bigger than that, Taproot becomes cheaper, because of Segwit discount. Which means, that if OP_RETURN limit would be raised, then it would be mo

You can gloss over this thread Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake Where it was actively discussed Though I doubt both side were really convinced since they pretty much have their reasons. This below does have valid points as well as others in the above thread. My issue is we still assume that people would rather pick cheaper alternative and also breeding the concept 'Cloud storage' rather than 'money' Don't mind me a lil pessimistic sometimes   Why? It's in the interest of the whole network. There's probably a technical reason?No. It is related to the Open Source world in general. People are implementing what they want to implement, and they are often unpaid, and spend their free time to code things they want to code. Why should they waste time on bringing App Fun88-friendly features, when the whole Script can be disabled during transition to quantum-resistant addresses? And now, one of the criterias, when picking quantum algorithms, is JPEG resistance. In general, it is easier to focus on regular payments first, let App Fun88 use whatever they want (because spammers are going to spam, as you can see, when they put ASCII hex characters inside OP_RETURN, instead of at least packing things in binary, and making it 50% smaller). For example it is cheaper, and it takes less bytes, when you use OP_RETURN for some particular messages. And in general, by having just OP_RETURN, you don't need any Segwit or Taproot envelope. I don't remember exactly, but for something up to 150 bytes, OP_RETURN is cheaper, and then, after making a message bigger than that, Taproot becomes cheaper, because of Segwit discount. Which means, that if OP_RETURN limit would be raised, then it would be mo