Good point about individual choice. That's ignored entirely too much in this discussion. However, censoring all spam from the **timechain** going forward through filters, is not gonna work. Putting some pressure on it through simple OP_RETURN settings may help, or running a massively filtered implementation of the Bitcoin software. But if you want it relatively absent from the timechain completely, we're talking a consensus rules change... and a new exploit might be found again anyway or an old one made worse. To me the only effective solution that is also ethical and LONGLASTING, is that everyone gets to run their own OP_RETURN policy and filters and such, which they already do (but I can see the argument that this change to Core will sneak a lot stuff in without proper discussion or consideration of the purpose of the network and the reason for running the node, which violates some of the expectations some noderunners have, shame on you guys for not having a good faith discussion about the ethics here), AND that the discussion converges on a further way to make spam ***COSTLY***, WITHOUT incentivizing slipstream to the point that it becomes the de facto method of bitcoin transaction submission. No one in the mainstream discussion I have seen has yet discussed methods of doing this simple approach in enough detail to understand what the tradeoffs are, where the sweet spot might be, how long the default OP_RETURN could be to allow arbitrary data, how to make OP_RETURN the default way of inputting arbitrary data so that spam costs a full vbyte, or other similar kinds of tweaks that individual users can make and that Core can make as the current de facto Bitcoin implementation.

Replies (4)

@Guy Swann thoughts on my thoughts? View quoted note →
jb55's avatar jb55
The utxoset size is *permanent* it can’t be pruned like other block data unless you consolidate the spend into a smaller set of utxos basically think of them as a coin purse where if you put two coins in, the only way to shrink the bag is to spend to coins with no change. JPEGs in witness data means that they will likely be unspendable, meaning that there is a permanent storage increase requirement on all nodes. But they are no provably unspendable so you can’t discard them from the coin purse. This is really bad. OP_RETURNs are *provably* unspendable, meaning they can be ignored from the utxoset perspective (never goes in the coin purse) By trying to stop both witness jpegs and large OP_RETURN pushes, it will push people to do even worse things like large multisigs that stores data in the signatures. This is how the whitepaper is permanently stored in the utxoset. This is even worse for utxo bloat. At this point the censor proponents would say well thats not economically viable… but none of these methods really is. Some are cheaper than others, sure, but overall it’s still the most expensive data storage out there. People have to burn the hardest money on the planet if they want to play stupid games. The point is people are going to store data anyway, the *least bad* is OP_RETURN, because it minimizes the *permanent* storage burden on pruned nodes.
View quoted note →
I don't get one point. Why completely remove the limit, and not just raise it to 160 and see what will happen ? (as it was down in 2014) from 80 limit to unlimited... there is a clear difference (it is really an extremist vision). Surprising and unexpected usage will for sure appear. Interesting view :
Yeah if I were in charge of this decision for Core, I would double it and just get on with life, and see what happens. And maybe actually discuss things.