🛠️Calling ALL decentralized freedom money supporters! Requesting that everyone discuss this policy request on the Litecoin-project GitHub. Please tag the legends of Litecoin Core. This request is not necessary for LitVM V2, but would be helpful. *It is not a consensus change, soft fork, or hard fork. It should... not require all nodes to adopt as a new default.show more

🔗Litecoin-project link: Please discuss here.

@DavidBurkett38 I’m not a dev but would like to hear any potential negatives that could come from this request. I’m in favor of simplicity. If the change means less potential fail points then I’d support it. If it adds another layer of complexity to core I’d probably suggest using workarounds

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you for your response. SailorPepe gave some potential cons on GitHub. They could be remedied from my understanding.

@DavidBurkett38 Way Above My Pay Grade Brodie 🫡

@DavidBurkett38 Much love brother. We appreciate the sentiment!

@DavidBurkett38 I want to hear charlies opinion

@DavidBurkett38 Always.

@DavidBurkett38 Ask him to make a very public post about his opinion.

@Liikeey @DavidBurkett38 Make your voices heard, fam! Whatever your thoughts, we’d love to hear them

@Liikeey @DavidBurkett38 Yes please! Tagging the legends of Litecoin Core: @SatoshiLite @DavidBurkett38 @loshan

@SatoshiShane @DavidBurkett38 @SatoshiLite @loshan @SatoshiLite @jay_lits

@SatoshiShane @DavidBurkett38 @SatoshiLite @loshan @jay_lits 👆💯

@DavidBurkett38 @circle_crypto as the community gets a little braver with their questions, is there a chance we could hear from the developers themselves as to what they would like this for and how they would use it?

@DavidBurkett38 It should be outlined in the GitHub policy request. Also, anyone can ask Ivan on the GitHub page direct questions. We are trying to keep the roadmap under wraps, but happy to answer as many questions as possible.

@DavidBurkett38 Not really my place to meddle with Litecoin Core, but I hope the legends don’t dig their heels in on this one. 😎 Feels like the kind of progress worth making room for.

@DavidBurkett38 Would be great. Time is of the essence. Moving this update forward would help us a lot! I'm sure other teams building around Litecoin would appreciate the update as well.

@DavidBurkett38 I’m no expert, but this actually makes sense to me. Hope they go for it - anything that helps LitVM move faster sounds good to me.

@DavidBurkett38 Raise from 83 to 100,000 bytes?

@DavidBurkett38 Yes, please. More options.

@DavidBurkett38 @EarnedNotGifted - Always appreciate your take on things!

@DavidBurkett38 @EarnedNotGifted +1

@DavidBurkett38 @EarnedNotGifted Community is everything, / The Real Reason I choose to be with those that share simiłar vision & align with Fundamentals over all else. Amongst The Growth, I truły cannot wait ntil all The Speculators are gone! WE must build The New World we Spell into Manifest…4 Us & Future Us.

@DavidBurkett38 @EarnedNotGifted Community is everything 100% It's all starting to come together brother. I'm very grateful to be here seeing it happen. Peaceful rebellion.

@DavidBurkett38 @EarnedNotGifted 🤝

@DavidBurkett38 Not qualified to say anything but I'll help spread it. 💙

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you brother. It's worth a convo.

@DavidBurkett38

@DavidBurkett38 🤜🤛

@DavidBurkett38 If the builders are asking for this to give them more tools for development, I’m in agreement with it. That was the whole purpose of LitVM.

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you for the positive sentiment. Hoping for the best here.

@DavidBurkett38 I'm neither a dev nor a professional, but from what I understand there shouldn't be any problems in raising the default of OP_RETURN from 83 to 100k bytes. I'm up for it, although the litecoin devs' word should be the one we should all acknowledge, regardless. LitVM for the win!

@DavidBurkett38 Really appreciate your thoughts here brother. Yes, I saw that David Burkett said: Concept ACK On the GitHub comments, but hoping to hear more from David, Loshan, and Charlie. It's a good sign seeing David's comment.

@DavidBurkett38 Hoping to see this endorsed by the others as well 🙏

@DavidBurkett38 Stomp large amount of data into chain via OP_RETURN is already possible. With technique you can combine them so you have a unlimited data size. It's just inefficient. So yes I agree, give it a efficient way.

@DavidBurkett38 Appreciate your thoughts here. 🫡

@DavidBurkett38 I have a few concerns about expanding op_return limits Blockchain bloat, higher fees, network spam and increased costs for node operators seem like potential risks Will Litecoin users benefit, or will LitVM capture most of the value?

Litecoin holders benefit from the added LitVM utility and potentially higher LTC price from generating more demand for Litecoin network assets. Also, LitVM offloads much of non payments related transactions like Runes and Ordinals by enabling people to move their assets over to the L2 to play in the EVM world.

@DavidBurkett38 Thanks for replying I just don’t see why we should unnecessarily risk Litecoin’s security and simplicity to benefit a separate project

@DavidBurkett38 Appreciate your thoughts here.

@DavidBurkett38 I’m probably just an old curmudgeon who dislikes change 😂

@DavidBurkett38 We need everyone in decentralization. I think it's good to be skeptical and cautious when talking about the L1. We should be protective.

@DavidBurkett38 This is over my head but I hope developers can respond to litvm's request.

@DavidBurkett38 Well it's a good starting point to kick off the discussion. We'll see where it all goes. That's the great thing about decentralization.

@DavidBurkett38 @tbuuol @liteverse_king

@DavidBurkett38 @tbuuol @liteverse_king 🫡

@DavidBurkett38

@DavidBurkett38 Haha exactly

@DavidBurkett38 🔥🔥🔥

@DavidBurkett38 Keeping it Lit!

@DavidBurkett38 That’s the goal!

@DavidBurkett38 @esteexbt check this out

@DavidBurkett38 @esteexbt Thank you for sharing.

@DavidBurkett38 Would be dropping my few cents on the LTC github. This needs more more traction

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you fam!

@DavidBurkett38 🫡

@DavidBurkett38 Please let us know what you think on the GitHub fam.

@DavidBurkett38 Always active and here we go to Github to sky it up

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you fam. Please leave your comments within the GitHub.

@DavidBurkett38 Separating it from the LitVM V2 requirement keeps the discussion focused on its own merits

@DavidBurkett38 Yes, not required for LitVM V2, but it would help us on our build, so we don't need to create workarounds.

@DavidBurkett38 Fully supporting this on GitHub! Anything that streamlines LitVM V2 without touching core consensus is a win.

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you fam!

@DavidBurkett38 🤞👊

@DavidBurkett38

@DavidBurkett38 Haha, it's a little more technical than I usually post, but we need all the help we can get.

@DavidBurkett38 By learning something new, a person continues to improve.

@DavidBurkett38 Curious to see what the core developers and wider Litecoin community make of this 👀

@DavidBurkett38 It's been a good discussion so far.

@DavidBurkett38 calling all decentralized freedom money supporters. i'm here, i'm decentralized, i'm free...... what's the actual policy we're discussing

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you for joining the convo. The link to the GitHub is the second post attached.

@DavidBurkett38 I'm not a fan of core30 and in my view creating efficiency for non monetary data on chain automatically shifts the direction of the blockchain. Admittedly, I'm not a dev. but raising the opreturn limit for which the ends are obviously more non monetary data is a bad idea.

Thank you for your thoughts here. Overall, this update would enable LitVM, the L2 (or similar projects), to more easily develop solutions to bring non monetary type transactions off the L1 and onto the L2. Enabling the L1 to focus on what it does best. Decentralized freedom money.

@DavidBurkett38 LTC keeps building.

@DavidBurkett38 TOGETHER!

@DavidBurkett38 This could simplify the creation of new applications based on Litecoin and help expand the LitVM ecosystem.

@DavidBurkett38 Seems to be some things to think about, but overall it would enable us to move quicker, yes. LitVM V2 shipping = more utility for Litecoin

@DavidBurkett38 We are active....✊️ Heading to Github right away 👀

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you!

@DavidBurkett38 Litecoin Meta is here 💙💪

@DavidBurkett38 Indeed!

@DavidBurkett38 Interesting proposal, keeping it optional while improving Litecoin’s capabilities is worth discussing.

@DavidBurkett38 Yes, good convo so far.

@DavidBurkett38 83 bytes to 100,000 bytes ?!? If there's a workaround, just leave the Core alone!!

@DavidBurkett38 Thank you for your feedback. Any reason why you don't like the update? It seems like a win win to me.