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.

I think I really need to take @niftynei's [intro to bitcoin transactions](https://base58.school/courses/bitdevbasics01) to understand all the differences between standard vs non-standard transactions, witness discount, `OP_RETURN` etc.

@niftynei when she reads this:

![](https://m.stacker.news/108823)

bitcoin

A Knotty Irony - Nifynei shares her thoughts on the OP_RETURN drama

Scoresby

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.