{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"buckyfonds wrote","author_name":"buckyfonds (npub1x9…p6rta)","author_url":"https://nostr.now/npub1x9hghmfunry8wcgg8s8w5e3drmkndw92r8qu0cp2l28u32aqqn9q6p6rta","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.now","html":"You've completely missed the entire point.\n\nThe network is being eroded by large OP_RETURN payloads. I am not arguing that large OP_RETURN payloads should be allowed, nor am I arguing that removing large OP_RETURN payloads censors monetary transactions.\n\nI am arguing that removing them with a consensus policy change has negative consequences. \n\nLawmakers don’t need new statutes; they can simply point to “Bitcoin already excludes Y”, and press for Z (e.g., “exclude sanctioned payload types”, “restrict non-KYC script paths”). You’ve demonstrated precedent and capability.\n\nYou are basically incapable to understand that a small group of developers being able to change Bitcoin's consensus rules (global law) has pros and cons and is not all positive.\n\nI'm pretty sure I put \"censorship\" in quotes in the article most times. Probably not every time - it's a long article (which you most likely haven't read but decided to argue)."}