So, a few questions:
• Can a program be the size of 100 KB or smaller?
• Could Bitcoin's OP-Return be used to contain such a program?
• Could a Bitcoin be programmed in such a way so that it acts differently then other coins potentially denying specific addresses, nodes, or miners?
• Could such programming tag bitcoin so that it is only reconcilable through specific central bank processes - installing essentially an on/off switch for transactions between parties?
It seems to me that the reason to larger op-returns has to have a specific purposes, and that those purposes have to be related to giving the legacy financial system a place to place code in order to maintain their own relevance, if not dominance in finance through money transactions.
Why else would Core promote a unilateral default change to the protocol on top the consolidation of the mining hash power into the hands of giant corporate miners?
We all know that Bitcoin is the only existential opposition to the global legacy financial slavery system. So why would mining consolidation NOT be part of a plan to co-opt bitcoin? Why would 100 KB default OP-Returns not also be designed so the adversary might have space to co-opt each Bitcoin, one by one, in order to undermine the p2p network for its own purposes?
JohnInConnecticut / John In Connecticut
npub12a…hn6yx
2026-08-09 17:21:41 UTC
Author Public Key
npub12appalwhenz947x9l7xfl8ezsxn8rk8sqjwfm7lly98jj2955whsghn6yxPublished at
2026-08-09 17:21:41 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "aa16be67e1025b7c91310bf11de40efa227211d680c1200320d82bbf0737a16f",
"pubkey": "57421efdd7ccc45af8c5ff8c9f9f2281a671d8f0049c9dfbff214f2928b4a3af",
"created_at": 1786296101,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"Primal Android"
]
],
"content": "So, a few questions:\n• Can a program be the size of 100 KB or smaller?\n• Could Bitcoin's OP-Return be used to contain such a program?\n• Could a Bitcoin be programmed in such a way so that it acts differently then other coins potentially denying specific addresses, nodes, or miners?\n• Could such programming tag bitcoin so that it is only reconcilable through specific central bank processes - installing essentially an on/off switch for transactions between parties?\n\nIt seems to me that the reason to larger op-returns has to have a specific purposes, and that those purposes have to be related to giving the legacy financial system a place to place code in order to maintain their own relevance, if not dominance in finance through money transactions. \n\nWhy else would Core promote a unilateral default change to the protocol on top the consolidation of the mining hash power into the hands of giant corporate miners? \n\nWe all know that Bitcoin is the only existential opposition to the global legacy financial slavery system. So why would mining consolidation NOT be part of a plan to co-opt bitcoin? Why would 100 KB default OP-Returns not also be designed so the adversary might have space to co-opt each Bitcoin, one by one, in order to undermine the p2p network for its own purposes? \n\n",
"sig": "0084c94e3429f858907aaabdec512619cc0d2bfdcd0e233d82c97c6b63041880bcf0e3e05709950ae9f949a4456f7a0dbb3396cef4e037a177234c9e2b3e8d13"
}