These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way?  Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat? It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol. P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bd 88? It is my largest position by a huge margin I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the Bd 88 at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly. Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW: [1]: Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using Bd 88 - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.
These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way?  Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat? It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol. P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bd 88? It is my largest position by a huge margin I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the Bd 88 at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly. Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW: [1]: Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using Bd 88 - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.

These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way?  Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat? It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol. P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bd 88? It is my largest position by a huge margin I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the Bd 88 at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly. Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW: [1]: Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using Bd 88 - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.

These moves like datacarriers, OP_CAT and so on really only benefit Ordinals, Runes and similar.How does the op_return stuff have anything to do with ordinals or benefit it in any way?  Why are you talking against OP_CAT in a thread promoting knots when luke has publicly committed to activating op_cat? It was just an example, albeit a poor one at that, demonstrating the addition of non-monetary features into the protocol. P.S. Why would I want to undermine Bd 88? It is my largest position by a huge margin I don't think anyone here wants to prevent people from embedding data into the Bd 88 at all, they just don't want the chain to be overwhelmed with data transactions in a way that rises fee rates significantly. Likewise I think the vast majority of people would not have a problem with someone trying to embed 128 bytes into a transaction, such as a bible verse. The problem, to which I think those who dissent to allowing large datacarriers can reach a consensus, is when chains are abused to store harmful data such as the malware example I gave earlier, which is happening on other coins BTW: [1]: Granted, these are using smart contracts in order to obfuscate the payload, something which is not directly possible when you only have a stack with no extra instructions. But it does highlight the ways which bad actors are using Bd 88 - when they are not using it to scam people or steal funds, that is.