Coinjoined Chris ⚡(@coinjoined):Yup. It had broad support among people who have actively contributed to the project. Everyone else remained free to stop updating, choose a different policy limit, run an alternative implementation like btcd, or switch to a fork such as Knots. It wasn't done to serve Citrea. Citrea was just another example of why the OP_RETURN limit was counterproductive: it incentivized the use of fake pubkeys, which are a worse outcome for the network.

Coinjoined Chris ⚡

@coinjoined

🇩🇪🇱🇺 Co-founder & CEO @seedor_io & @bitsurance_ 👈 FOLLOW On the board: • @terahash_space • @_einundzwanzig_

Joined March 2011

2K Following 10.4K Followers

Coinjoined Chris ⚡@coinjoined

2026.07.20 15:42

Yup. It had broad support among people who have actively contributed to the project. Everyone else remained free to stop updating, choose a different policy limit, run an alternative implementation like btcd, or switch to a fork such as Knots. It wasn't done to serve Citrea. Citrea was just another example of why the OP_RETURN limit was counterproductive: it incentivized the use of fake pubkeys, which are a worse outcome for the network.