Client first and then Bitcoin alternative. Already seeming like it.
I think in his opinion we are no longer using Bitcoin hence why he loves using dead
And wants to resurrect it in his own image.


Sadly, we should be aware that a decentralized system can't enjoy some benefit of a centralized system.
Expecting such means we don't understand what it means for a system to be decentralized.
The network is Trustless and Bitcoin strength lies in verifying all valid data without judgement or bias.

Well let's speculate that we're heading into a high fee future eventually again. In the Ordinals wave we saw the BRC-20 sub-wave, where millions of transactions were created for the hope of some meme token getting some value. If transaction fees are at $5 for a token mint or transfer, then you might be more prone to create such tokens massively, than if the minimum threshold is 15$ because the buyer of the token will have to pay that fee too, so the needed profit is actually $30+. I can definitely see scenarios (based on past experience with Ordinals) where that can make the difference between a NFT "spam" wave really taking off or not.

---

I've seen the debate with Luke-Jr and his friends (and not so good friends) now. I understand Luke's point a bit more now I think. But I don't agree with him.

In the end, I think the debate is between a "theoretic" position - Luke's - and a "practical" position - Core's. Luke's theory that spam encoded in financial data can be still seen as financial data is not incorrect. But practically, it doesn't make a difference if there are websites and easy to use tools that happily decode all the "fake financial data" for you and transform it into images, videos and audios.

The Core position instead focuses on the practical consequences of "spam" waves, like the UTXO set pollution and the compact block issues, and tries to find a way to make node operation cheaper for nodes and thus more decentralized.

So while I can respect Luke's theoretical position, at the end it is a good example for the well known phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". His ideas would lead to higher node operation cost and more development cost.

All of that assuming that the NFT/token market stays the same, which is the most reasonable thing to do. And trying to predict market changes because of an "official approval" of large OP_RETURN data chunks is already taking the debate to another, much more speculative level -- we could also talk them about "the attraction of prohibited things", e.g. NFT guys often describing themselves as "degens". Would "degens" be happy to be "officially" allowed to do something? That's equally speculative.

Thus I stay with my stance: the Core 30 change is reasonable and has probably the least harmful practical consequences even if new spam waves occur in the future. Stampchain-based spam waves would be worse (and not even BIP 444 could stop them).

I vaguely remember something but I think he evaded the question, or that it was only a short remark from another participant of the debate he didn't react to. Perhaps someone who has seen it more attentive can clarify (I'm not really fond of seeing that debate again)

Anyway I think his point you quoted would still stand, as for him the essence of the question seems to be if you can interpret the blockchain as financial information or if you have a separate "data storage". While I don't remember which kind of method he used to embed the files, I think it was earlier than OP_RETURN's introduction.

Nevertheless, as I wrote, I don't support that stance as it completely ignores the "practical" side of things. And of course I completely oppose his generally hateful and conspiracionist behavior in that debate (and elsewhere).

This is actually a very big difference between those two types of spam.
The fact that coinbase inscriptions can be purged from the blockchain is a huge, but actually the only difference.
Still, this is a non-monetary use of blockchain; I see a double standard here.

I was able to write 912 bytes to an OP_RETURN yesterday

https://community.blockonomics.co/t/creating-an-op-return-transaction-80-bytes/1966

Congrats, but you were able to do this even before Core 30 was released with a slightly different way.   Sure it was a bit harder but most users are not even able to do what you have demonstrated there. Most Bitcoin users barely understand how Bitcoin works, how on Earth would they understand what OP_RETURN is let alone be able to use it?  

For all they have been waiting for the single video, here it is:



Mixed feelings about the debate, a lot of fanboys in the audience on both sides, cheering and booing at every statement, but maybe this was meant to be.