Dr. Bitcoin, MD's avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD drgo@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago
Don’t think there is a valid use case for greater than 80 byte op returns? What about storing your multisig wallet descriptor? This really blurs the lines between spam and bitcoin related. Strictly speaking, storing such data is spam because no node needs this data to verify transactions. But such descriptors contain info that is 100% needed by your wallet to spend your coins (although descriptors are not maximally data size efficient, especially since you should have keys backed up separately anyhow). @Peter Todd

Replies (13)

Dr. Bitcoin, MD's avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD drgo@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago
This is a nonsensical comment in this context. But I totally agree with you. For more nuance, jump to the bottom here and have a look at the technical side of this rather emotionally charged argument.
Bitcoin Optech
Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #373
This week’s newsletter summarizes a vulnerability affecting old versions of Eclair and summarizes research into full node feerate settings. Also ...
 H/t @David A. Harding I believe for these optech newsletters?
1 replies ↓
πŸŠπŸ’Šβš‘οΈπŸŒ½'s avatar
πŸŠπŸ’Šβš‘οΈπŸŒ½ 4 months ago
I was kidding about 1 trillion bytes, but 100k is orders of magnitude greater than where we are currently and I hope you see that point…. There has been no cogent argument to necessitate any change that would mandate V30 and blow open op return……. There is no impending functionality issue with #Bitcoin that would necessitate this, and if there is please point it out to me…….. Full disclosure: I am cool with old versions of Core and current version of Knots
1 replies ↓
Dr. Bitcoin, MD's avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD drgo@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago
A better reply would have been for you to opine on whether storing wallet descriptor data on chain is spam or not…my gut says it feels like spam because it’s not data used in transaction validation but it’s not the worst of spam because it leverages bitcoin blockchain immutability and availability to bring value to the bitcoin stored in the wallet. Maybe that’s a stretch. I dunno…
Dr. Bitcoin, MD's avatar
Dr. Bitcoin, MD drgo@nostrplebs.com 4 months ago
I don’t understand why going from close to zero op return limit to as much as you can possibly stuff in there in one jump is being proposed…other than avoiding to have to deal with the issue again and again and again for decades. There is a very clear and compelling argument as to why in the final steady state of a successful bitcoin blockchain the decentralized censorship resistant network must relay all valid transactions to miners…the logic is a few steps long but the rationale is accessible.
↑