Do you mean that the tightening the constraints actually break current monetary use cases? Which ones?
If you can identify legitimate monetary use cases that 110 blocks, have you reported it so they can address it? If somebody has shown them a real legitimate txn that it breaks and they won't fix it, that's an issue.
Or are you saying that it limits possible future ones (scaling ideas, etc.,). If you have a new use case, that's what BIPs are for. If we hold open the door to open ended future use cases, that's a very bad idea. I think that's exactly what core did that is causing this whole problem.
In general, the best thing to do is keep consensus as tight as we can without blocking known existing legitimate use cases. At least not without a good reason and a very open discussion.
I think the temporary thing was maybe just an attempt to get the door to a data attack shut and buy time for the community to discuss. But it seems wrong to me. Just make sure legit transaction still work (with a backtest) and make the change.
Zsubmariner
npub1cs…qcakv
2026-02-25 16:32:11 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…2ldn
Author Public Key
npub1csmgc5fwwr3k2k86zeuk0ntnljp632g8agut8mtgxk8uhhatpknq3qcakvPublished at
2026-02-25 16:32:11 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "c5624cbcb0af8813a9cb468fbe5b444fc580e0ae2d4e9d9a9d34ddba81d06ce6",
"pubkey": "c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6",
"created_at": 1772037131,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"472f440f29ef996e92a186b8d320ff180c855903882e59d50de1b8bd5669301e",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"7f177706ad6e0aea75a9e3345d9ffdae67676faff249be657b596375e1ced391",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"fdd5e8f6ae0db817be0b71da20498c1806968d8a6459559c249f322fa73464a7",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"04c915daefee38317fa734444acee390a8269fe5810b2241e5e6dd343dfbecc9",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"c4368c512e70e36558fa167967cd73fc83a8a907ea38b3ed68358fcbdfab0da6",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f"
],
[
"e",
"36d4b7c24ad1b474138340a0aebfc4a6a0311eb1f0f36ef1bd5dc927f27dc495",
"",
"root",
"78e3e1a1b2c4b4408d154b7a46d0ed024c174c67e50b3e4eb4057694459d921f"
]
],
"content": "Do you mean that the tightening the constraints actually break current monetary use cases? Which ones? \n\nIf you can identify legitimate monetary use cases that 110 blocks, have you reported it so they can address it? If somebody has shown them a real legitimate txn that it breaks and they won't fix it, that's an issue. \n\nOr are you saying that it limits possible future ones (scaling ideas, etc.,). If you have a new use case, that's what BIPs are for. If we hold open the door to open ended future use cases, that's a very bad idea. I think that's exactly what core did that is causing this whole problem. \n\nIn general, the best thing to do is keep consensus as tight as we can without blocking known existing legitimate use cases. At least not without a good reason and a very open discussion.\n\nI think the temporary thing was maybe just an attempt to get the door to a data attack shut and buy time for the community to discuss. But it seems wrong to me. Just make sure legit transaction still work (with a backtest) and make the change. \n\n",
"sig": "794514763d0763df006e3395555134294502685f2ad3ecdee6c96fbd12ac8dd0e4a2fe9b59545595517b1b841ed4dd9562a8c08431b68ce3e2e57ecb6b825df9"
}