reply on: A Knotty Irony - Nifynei shares her thoughts on the OP

pull down to refresh

123 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 20 Sep \ parent \ on: A Knotty Irony - Nifynei shares her thoughts on the OP_RETURN drama bitcoin

Thank you @Murch for consistently contributing to discussions on SN!

But isn't using OP_RETURN to store data 4x more expensive since there's no witness discount? I think that's what @LibreHans was hinting at.

222 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 20 Sep

Thanks. Librehans’s argument is a strawman. He says op_return is not better than inscriptions, so it has no upside. But op_return is slightly cheaper than storing data in payment outputs, and much less harmful. This improvement over data being stored in payment outputs is the central reason for the op_return increase.

The linked tweet by Mononaut describes a scheme that is akin to brc-20 and plans to store data in one or several payment outputs when the op_return limit is exceeded.

123 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 20 Sep

I think I really need to take @niftynei's intro to bitcoin transactions to understand all the differences between standard vs non-standard transactions, witness discount, OP_RETURN etc.

@niftynei when she reads this:

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibreHans 20 Sep

You should read about btc-20 tokens as well. It's funny that Murch brings them up as an argument for larger op_return, when they just need more storage because their design is ridiculously bad. Saying that brc-20 tokens need bigger op_return is making the case for not increasing op_return.