Assuming usage of OP_RETURN as the garbage can for non-financial data that would otherwise go into the UTXO set is naive.
First, it's more expensive than inscriptions, control block embedding and other techniques.
Second, you're expecting developers of ordinals, inscriptions, stamps, brc-20, etc to *change* their protocol to accommodate. There's zero evidence this is going to happen.
Third, you're assuming that these are people that want to act as good stewards of the Bitcoin protocol. They spam specifically to hurt Bitcoin. They've demonstrated this by spamming in the first place. That's like asking malicious spray painting vandals to paint a particular wall that's easy to wash off. Again, no evidence that this is going to happen.
The logic is misguided and makes unfounded assumptions.
Replies (30)
You’re attacking the straw man, when the real culprit are the NEW venture capital funded business models that will use op return to complete their objectives. It’s not an OR as they’ve said, it’s an AND.
Core is corrupt. No other explanation.
I don't think the OP_RETURN limit changes were made with the expectation of attracting use cases that currently use UTXOs and the witness discount.
I think they were made in anticipation that there would be layer 2 solutions that need more immediate ways to anchor their state to the chain, like Citrea zkp's; using inscriptions would require two transactions across two different block heights (I thinl).
Even if they will not do that, should they have that option with V30?
Another avenue is not necessary.
Is pulling the data with op return not easier then in the UTXO set?
If so, that can be an incentive.
I think the case for Core bending the project to fit a specific business model chain use is pretty strong. That would be unfortunate, since the block size war was won by people who didn't think that the project should be led around by someone's short-sighted profit model.
Yes
For a financial network, 80 bytes of non-Bitcoin data is WAY more than generous. I'm all for making this a block protocol rule, along with the necessary date encoding fixes.
If you hold #Bitcoin, do you have a stake in Citrea or any other business hoping to profit on L2?
No. So why should the HODLers, running the nodes, which are the network, give a shit what Citrea or anyone else wants on L2 on top of their network?
They shouldn’t.
Core have completely gone rogue here. All 5 maintainers need to go, that will be a signal to all the morons who have supported them that their input on Bitcoin is no longer desired and will not be accepted.
Multiple developer posts/gists and community threads say Citrea historically used a construction of “1 OP_RETURN + 2 unspendable Taproot outputs” (because of the 80-byte limit) and that the project intended to move to one or more larger OP_RETURN outputs once Core’s policy changed.
Now who's a major stakeholder in Citrea? Jameson Lopp
No conflicts of interest detected.
I don't assume that's the reason for the change in the first place...
Next level Game theory. 🧡
Interesting to read different views over the last couple of days from Nick Szabo, Adam Back and many others. Problem in this game is you don’t know who the fuck is DeNiro and who is Pacino.
#bitcoin
cc
@walker @Efrat Fenigson @jb55 @HODL @THE Bitcoin Podcast @roadx @Jeff Booth @Lyn Alden
View quoted note →👆🏼
Yep
I think OP_RETURN policies that are more accommodating will have 2 dominant outcomes:
#1) those who can think of a use case for large amounts of arbitrary data - but discouraged from doing so by having to go through the trouble of figuring out how to abuse the UTXO set - will suddenly have a convenient mechanism for implementing their use case; and,
#2) those same people - due to the ease of achieving results vis a vis #1 - will be inspired to come up with more such use cases.
Any information on the long term financing of Core devs from e.g. OpenSats? If that were to be “enough”, would this long term financing not make them akin to a corporate employee, where they need to stay busy to justify themselves? Instead of ad-hoc financing to solve specific issues
Just stumbled across this recently. I can relate because I am a corporate employee, so I know that incentive system particularly well.
This argument is equally viable with good intentions from their side, I’m not saying they are trying to break Bitcoin nor anything like that
But does it really matter? It seems like the pushback to this move was anticipated and preemptively countered with shoring up installation base librerelay, which will be able to get these non-standard transactions to miners anyways.
So you agree there is no point in filters for op return because no one uses it anyways. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
It's definitely an AND; but, venture capital funded business models will still have the same incentives to just stuff the UTXO set that Core acknowledges isn't going anywhere. The AND will be people like me - who aren't interested in even figuring out how to abuse the UTXO set; but just might come up with a personal use case for a large OP_RETURN if Bitcoin is transformed from a P2P electronic cash system into a one-time fee forever file storage system.
Yes, it matters.
This is a social issue, not a technical one.
Money is a social technology and the network is saying - this is a monetary network.
You give these socially retarded halfwits FAR too much credit if you think they thought of any second or third order effects; they just want to exercise power.
That’s what leftists do, ie the blue haired fagg brigade at Core who are all leftoids and should be nowhere near my money.
But without a solution to the UTXO bloat, OP_RETURN proponents have the higher ground here. Even though I totally agree with you - spammers aren't going to play nice.
But with that said I'll not upgrade, because that is not a solution.
If the only solution is based on the op_return than we have solved nothing.
I think op_returns will get very little usage. There might be some “hey look this is new!” spike, but unless you really need something in an output for technical reasons, I think most data publication will continue to use the witness
Looks like Jimmy is done pulling his punches. Good.
View quoted note →#Knots fixes this. It filters inscriptions spam and limits OP_RETURN. Running #Knots
Who are you seeing doing any of those things? As far as I can tell you're arguing about strawman.
The real question is “what is something you’d really need in an op_return readily relayed for technical reasons” because whatever that is will be the next shitcoiner product grift.
You are right, the straw man is Core still being a good faith actor in bitcoin.
Why make the change then genius
Why fix a security bug that hasn’t been exploited yet?
Absolutely. I would also add the simple premise that node operators should be able to have increased configurability of their nodes. I hear a lot of personal attacks and fear mongering, but I have not heard much about the importance of nodes to control what they relay. I think thats the core issue (no pun intended)
