pull down to refresh

22 sats \ 5 replies \ @anon 1 May \ parent \ on: Can Someone Please Tell Me What is Going On With Bitcoin Core AskSN
There is a contradiction when saying that spam filters do not work and simultaneously wanting to remove the opreturn limit. Isn't there?
Why is most arbitrary data stored in the witness then? Likely, since there is a opreturn limit, i.e. effective spam filter in place
Note that witness data can be ignored by node runners to keep our machines as lean as possible
write
preview
42 sats \ 4 replies \ @028559d218 1 May
The spam filters literally aren't working currently. If they were... we wouldn't even be talking about this stuff.
It's stored in the witness because it's disguised as program code... and because witness data gets the ~75% discount.
It can be 'ignored' ie not 'computed' (that's my understanding at least) but it cannot be pruned. The nodes ignore anything in op_if op_end (iiuc) but it is still stored.
Op_return outputs can be pruned plus don't bloat the utxo set plus are 4x more expensive for spammers
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 1 May
I am trying to wrap my head around this, it feels like a contradiction...
Please explain: if filters (opreturn limit) don't work then why do you need to get rid of them?
plus are 4x more expensive for spammers
Aren't they more expensive, due to said opreturn limit?
reply
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 1 May
Please see Murch's comments here #968695 and here #967847
best explanations i've seen...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 2 May
Thank you 🫡
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 1 May
No, they are more expensive because output script data is not discounted. Since the data for OP_RETURN outputs is stored in the output script, you have to pay a full byte. Only data in the witness is discounted.
reply