Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default by petertodd \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default by petertodd github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28130

2131 sats \ 23 comments \ @Rsync25 5 Aug 2023 bitcoin

150 sats \ 1 reply \ @pillar 5 Aug 2023

I encourage people who are against this proposal to add their feedback in the github PR and make their voice heard.

If the pro-spam idea doesn't find resistance, there is a chance that it will make it through. And Bitcoin's blockchain will become more and more a storage layer for any kind of shit, departing from the original vision of a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

If you run a node, ask yourself: would I put this change in my node? If the answer is no, go to the PR and explain why.

125 sats \ 0 replies \ @RdioActiv 5 Aug 2023

Node operators have to store this NFT trash for free, while the Miners profit greatly off the priority fees.

It ain't right.

200 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlokchainB 6 Aug 2023

I don’t understand how you can spam when you have to pay a fee to use blockspace. If you pay the fee who cares what data you put on the chain.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @03365d6a53 6 Aug 2023

I'm in this camp. Fees need to rise massively from here to offset block reward halvings.

anything that makes on chain transactions more expensive is therefore a win, if we see value in a sustainably high security / difficulty level.

510 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 6 Aug 2023

NACK

It's easy to say let the market decide. But markets don't exist out of nowhere. The marketplace must be designed so that the incentives of participants are aligned. Bitcoin acknowledged this reality from birth.

This proposal creates misaligned incentives. It asks node operators to host arbitrary data that is of no value to them without compensation. The question of whether there is sufficient incentive to operate a node is already somewhat shaky. This proposal would make it worse.

And this is a good point to remember, to all those who lean towards laissez faire, as I do myself: Satoshi when he created Bitcoin made opinionated design decisions about the network. It is appropriate for Bitcoin devs to continue making opinionated design decisions about what the network is for. We need to make sure that the devs make decisions that are supportive of the principles of sound money and financial liberty. I don't see how turning Bitcoin into a decentralized storage layer supports that goal.

If people are interested in decentralized storage, which I believe is a worthy goal, they should start a different project. Perhaps bitcoin can be part of that solution as the way to incentivize hosts... but don't put it directly on the blockchain please.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 5 Aug 2023

NACK

56 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_bitcoiner 5 Aug 2023

Yeahh.. how about no?

42 sats \ 1 reply \ @RdioActiv 5 Aug 2023

Fucking Shitcoiners trying to hijack Bitcoin. 😑

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badgerr 5 Aug 2023

deleted by author

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @badgerr 5 Aug 2023

deleted by author

182 sats \ 10 replies \ @k00b 5 Aug 2023

While I don't like arbitrary data being stored on bitcoin, it seems like people are going to do it anyway.

Most objections suggest this invites more arbitrary storage. If everyone is already at the party, sending out more invitations isn't going to make it worse. Is everyone already at the party though?

180 sats \ 1 reply \ @shibe 5 Aug 2023

The biggest reason I see for accepting this is that OP_RETURN outputs are unspendable and can be pruned.

Stampchains are a much nastier way of storing data since they use bare multisig outputs which as far as I know can't be pruned and thus also pollute the UTXO set. OP_RETURN would be the lesser evil of the two.

111 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 5 Aug 2023

I don't buy this logic that somehow we must appease bare multisig trolls with another open door / vector, to incentivize them to close their window a bit in exchange.

There's no guarantees that would be the case. The opposite could be true, especially when you look at who is advocating for this loosening of the default policy.

1527 sats \ 4 replies \ @BITC0IN 5 Aug 2023

disagree with this logic. opening up another vector for storing data onchain just allows for super special stamp-ordinal-bullshit grift to be re-introduced.

this will not reduce spam. it may increase it.

80 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 5 Aug 2023

I never said it would reduce spam.

125 sats \ 2 replies \ @BITC0IN 5 Aug 2023

well at the very least you stated it wouldn't make it worse since everyone is already at the party, which i disagree with. This can start a new party next door, where people from the old party just move to this one for novelty sake, and you get the whole phenomenon happening all over again with the same degens in a new frat house.

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 5 Aug 2023

We don't meaningfully disagree. I said it wouldn't make it worse if everyone is already at the party. If everyone is at the party it's not clear to me this increases degeneracy.

I don't have a dog in this fight.

Is everyone already at the party though?

The whole argument for or against this change depends on this question imo and I think it's reasonable to assume everyone is not at the party.

Also to inject more nuance (... continuing to not have an opinion one way or another), in some cases prohibiting something increases the number of people doing it.

103 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 5 Aug 2023

All fair. but in my experience, prohibition has more blowback if that prohibition comes post a phenomenon.

this current prohibition/limit has been in place for years, prior the current phenomenon, and for good reason(s) that I'm not sure have ceased yet.

there's other dynamics too. fucking icebergs man.

31 sats \ 1 reply \ @RdioActiv 5 Aug 2023

Such a change would just further legitimize arbitrary data storage on-chain, and put a win on the board for a dev who is increasingly hostile towards the original goals of Bitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 5 Aug 2023

It would legitimize it. I agree. But prohibiting it isn't working, right?

put a win on the board for a dev who is increasingly hostile towards the original goals of Bitcoin.

Who is the dev?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @badgerr 5 Aug 2023

deleted by author

11 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 6 Aug 2023

I do not trust Peter Todd.

17 sats \ 0 replies \ @BITC0IN 6 Aug 2023

You shouldn't trust anyone.

Verify.