Damus
D++ profile picture
D++
@D++
Why I'm for loosening the OP_RETURN limits ⏎

- In practice, OP_RETURN is already unconstrained: see Carman's OP_RETURN bot or Portland's Slipstream.

- Encoding arbitrary data via OP_RETURN is far more responsible than doing so in witness data, as it's 4x more costly.

- OP_RETURNs are prunable and do not pollute the UTXO set, making them vastly preferable to faux outputs that burden every node indefinitely.

- Mining non-standard transactions that bypass mempools undermines decentralized transaction propagation, disrupts fee estimation, and increases block propagation latency (especially when compact block construction fails due to missing transactions).

- This latency disproportionately impacts smaller miners and encourages direct submission to large, well-connected players, widening the profitability gap and increasing centralization.

- Layer 2 protocols are especially sensitive to fee miscalculations, making transparent and measurable fee behavior essential to their reliability.

While I share the distaste many have expressed toward tokens, inscriptions, and BitVM (when used as a casino), I care deeply about minimizing harm to bitcoin’s base layer. Allowing larger, standardized OP_RETURNs is a pragmatic step in that direction.
135❤️8❤️3🤙3💯1🚀1🧐1
Nyoro~n · 45w
i tend to agree that a scenario exists where 'eventually' OP_Return limits should be relaxed, but in my head that scenario happens like maybe in a decade if a sustained effort to bloat the chain proves to exceed the desire for users to 'use bitcoin' far exceeding the efforts today or historically. ...
Brisket · 45w
I've no problem with: "Allowing larger, standardized OP_RETURNs" I've no problems having the default filter changed. I object to having the filter removed so that someone can't easily but deliberately change it.
𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫 · 45w
i like these points and sounds rational I really dislike seeing people get blocked from discussion on github its ironic that the discussion about 'censoring' (filtering) transactions gets censored
Tauri · 45w
Do you think filters work? Because reading all this sounds like intellectual dishonesty for me.
FOU · 45w
I’m against core blocking valid points of view from qualified devs. I’m against giving up the fight to hamper arbitrary data inclusion into bitcoin. I’m for giving individual nodes the right to choose their own filter settings.
Jean Do · 45w
Couldn't the same result be achieved -- over time with an option for opting-out, by doubling the -datacarriersize default with each future release? It might leave the choice (at least the perception of choice) with the individual node runner. It might offer the chance to learn over time that it is...
Stark · 45w
Too much nuance in your take here. Nobody wants to discuss the actual issue. They just want to debate jpegs and ad hominem. Nuance makes people feel unsafe. Ignorance is peace.