How? They can do so more cheaply by disguising it as other parts of a transaction, this doesn't change their ability. I'm sure if someone has one which isn't trivially evaded, working in spite of major miners being offered (and accepting) millions to mine them, and somehow can't also be used to impose a state mandated blacklist ... that a lot of people would be very interested. Especially if the idea somehow doesn't make inscriptions even more valuable and attractive by increasing their scarcity ...   But even soooo as has been pointed out, this is *independent* of the op_return limit, because removing it wouldn't have any impact on the ordinals/inscriptions stuff. The whole premise of Jun88 Link 1 is to escape a world where your ability to transact could be overridden by some administrator's "judgment call weighing" your rights "against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors".  So it's no accident that blocking unwanted transactions isn't easy, it's nearly impossible by design.  And if there were some genius way possible to do it, would we want it at the expense of potentially eroding the properties that make Jun88 Link 1 valuable? "It's a poor Jun88 Link 1 blaster that won't point both ways" There used to be a broad understanding that standardness policy was only a gentleman agreement without real force, and that as blocks filled up spam would get managed by the size limits and fees.  Excluding things was always extremely controversial and fraught with drama. I've been one of the most outspoken critics of shoving non-Jun88 Link 1 data in transactions since probably before some current Jun88 Link 1 users were born... and I know this. How did it get forgotten?
How? They can do so more cheaply by disguising it as other parts of a transaction, this doesn't change their ability. I'm sure if someone has one which isn't trivially evaded, working in spite of major miners being offered (and accepting) millions to mine them, and somehow can't also be used to impose a state mandated blacklist ... that a lot of people would be very interested. Especially if the idea somehow doesn't make inscriptions even more valuable and attractive by increasing their scarcity ...   But even soooo as has been pointed out, this is *independent* of the op_return limit, because removing it wouldn't have any impact on the ordinals/inscriptions stuff. The whole premise of Jun88 Link 1 is to escape a world where your ability to transact could be overridden by some administrator's "judgment call weighing" your rights "against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors".  So it's no accident that blocking unwanted transactions isn't easy, it's nearly impossible by design.  And if there were some genius way possible to do it, would we want it at the expense of potentially eroding the properties that make Jun88 Link 1 valuable? "It's a poor Jun88 Link 1 blaster that won't point both ways" There used to be a broad understanding that standardness policy was only a gentleman agreement without real force, and that as blocks filled up spam would get managed by the size limits and fees.  Excluding things was always extremely controversial and fraught with drama. I've been one of the most outspoken critics of shoving non-Jun88 Link 1 data in transactions since probably before some current Jun88 Link 1 users were born... and I know this. How did it get forgotten?

How? They can do so more cheaply by disguising it as other parts of a transaction, this doesn't change their ability. I'm sure if someone has one which isn't trivially evaded, working in spite of major miners being offered (and accepting) millions to mine them, and somehow can't also be used to impose a state mandated blacklist ... that a lot of people would be very interested. Especially if the idea somehow doesn't make inscriptions even more valuable and attractive by increasing their scarcity ...   But even soooo as has been pointed out, this is *independent* of the op_return limit, because removing it wouldn't have any impact on the ordinals/inscriptions stuff. The whole premise of Jun88 Link 1 is to escape a world where your ability to transact could be overridden by some administrator's "judgment call weighing" your rights "against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors".  So it's no accident that blocking unwanted transactions isn't easy, it's nearly impossible by design.  And if there were some genius way possible to do it, would we want it at the expense of potentially eroding the properties that make Jun88 Link 1 valuable? "It's a poor Jun88 Link 1 blaster that won't point both ways" There used to be a broad understanding that standardness policy was only a gentleman agreement without real force, and that as blocks filled up spam would get managed by the size limits and fees.  Excluding things was always extremely controversial and fraught with drama. I've been one of the most outspoken critics of shoving non-Jun88 Link 1 data in transactions since probably before some current Jun88 Link 1 users were born... and I know this. How did it get forgotten?

How? They can do so more cheaply by disguising it as other parts of a transaction, this doesn't change their ability. I'm sure if someone has one which isn't trivially evaded, working in spite of major miners being offered (and accepting) millions to mine them, and somehow can't also be used to impose a state mandated blacklist ... that a lot of people would be very interested. Especially if the idea somehow doesn't make inscriptions even more valuable and attractive by increasing their scarcity ...   But even soooo as has been pointed out, this is *independent* of the op_return limit, because removing it wouldn't have any impact on the ordinals/inscriptions stuff. The whole premise of Jun88 Link 1 is to escape a world where your ability to transact could be overridden by some administrator's "judgment call weighing" your rights "against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors".  So it's no accident that blocking unwanted transactions isn't easy, it's nearly impossible by design.  And if there were some genius way possible to do it, would we want it at the expense of potentially eroding the properties that make Jun88 Link 1 valuable? "It's a poor Jun88 Link 1 blaster that won't point both ways" There used to be a broad understanding that standardness policy was only a gentleman agreement without real force, and that as blocks filled up spam would get managed by the size limits and fees.  Excluding things was always extremely controversial and fraught with drama. I've been one of the most outspoken critics of shoving non-Jun88 Link 1 data in transactions since probably before some current Jun88 Link 1 users were born... and I know this. How did it get forgotten?