Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 1
Generated: 17:33:00
OP_RETURN has practical uses too. Coinjoin transactions are valid transactions, but limiting OP_RETURN filters them. Imagine if the whole network imposed the same limit as Knots, then no coinjoin transaction would have been mined. Not all the applications of data transfer are limited to storing images or data. Apart from OP_RETURN, BIP444 blocks OP_IF, which is used in nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsqgxv43pk4mqurmp2u522mc9cvn3n0vzv6vxvy8zs6ulq46cdf7khz53utk7y . It's a valid use-case which enables inheritance planning on Bitcoin. The choices made in BIP444 are not limited to OP_RETURN and those choices are detrimental. It goes against the principle of "Don't fuck with people's money".
2025-12-03 20:02:14 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (1)

The spammers fuck with peoples money and abuse Bitcoin. Coinjoin are valid transactions and Knots allows them. No one is against storing hashes of up to 80 Bytes in OP_RETURN. 100 000 Bytes is abuse of spammers. Inscriptions are abuse of spammers. BIP444 fixes those things as much as possible or at least limits the abuse on Bitcoin.
2025-12-03 20:52:25 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓ Reply