I understood that BIP-110 goals to scale back node prices by limiting sure non-financial transaction patterns.
That’s the alleged objective, however it’s nonsense. Outlawing sure transaction patterns simply means the identical area is taken up by different transactions that pay decrease charges.
Arguably, it’s even counter to the said objective: information storage bytes are in regards to the least expensive by way of precise processing impression, as they don’t comprise signature checks or different costly opcodes, and don’t work together with the UTXO set. Outlawing them might effectively find yourself inflicting them to get replaced with per-byte extra impactful transactions. Or after all, those that have demand for information storage might swap to totally different patterns.
The sure on useful resource prices for node operators is the block weight restrict. That restrict has been the identical since SegWit activated in 2017. If one believes that restrict was too excessive, and nonetheless is just too excessive 9 years later, the one actual resolution is introducing a distinct or decrease block-wide useful resource restrict.
There isn’t any goal purpose to outlaw these patterns; they’re merely not objectively dangerous to nodes. It’s completely honest to dislike them, as they’re an indication of inadequate competitors for block area from funds. However outlawing them for that purpose is addressing the symptom, not the trigger.
If reasonably priced full nodes are important for decentralization, why is transaction neutrality thought-about the extra necessary precept?
They completely are, however I don’t see any proof that the present limits are inadequate for preserving full nodes reasonably priced, and see even much less purpose why BIP-110 would have any constructive impression on that.
With that, there appears completely no purpose to throw out the primary worth proposition Bitcoin offers over actually each different foreign money: censorship-resistant cash. If the Bitcoin ecosystem can find yourself agreeing to outlaw such an arbitrary subset of disliked transactions, and even demonstrating the arbitrariness by making it non permanent, I can not see the way it can realistically declare to care about censorship resistance anymore.
