Not a terrible idea 💡
Login to reply
Replies (15)
Pretty sure this would break everything.
Correct
Slightly less retarded idea is to invalidate future blocks with OP Returns greater than 83 bytes but you're probably not going to get consensus for that which would result in a fork and I'm sure someone smarter than me could come up with a reason that breaks everything
op_return is used in the coinbase tx as a place to park the segwit witness data as a hash
Or, what if a hard fork to remove child porn from the blockchain? Because once enough idiots update to core 30 the blockchain is going to be filled up with child porn.
Yeah that sounds about right.
If it were up to me I'd strongly consider limiting them to 160 bytes or some other similar, reasonably small amount.
But the debate is... well there is little serious nuanced debate happening.
Why? What does it break?
The witness hash?
You serious? What witness?
It's part of Segwit, and a bit complex
Segwit blocks can be more than 1MB, but the pre-segwit nodes (they still work) look at just the first 1MB and therefore the blockhash is the hash of just the first 1MB
Therefore, in order to have some hashing of the entire Segwit block, necessary to make sure we all agree on what is in the entire block, the hash of the remainder of the block has to be snuck into the first 1MB.
The way they chose to do this was by putting it into an OP_RETURN in the coinbase transaction. i.e. that has the hash of all the witness data of that block
View quoted note →
Thats not what people are talking about. People are talking about transactions with plaintext data. I dont think anyone is saying remove the coinbase.
I guess the word “completely” doesn’t mean what it says then.
Yeah technically your right. Its more about removing the plaintext in general transactions.
