pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 2 replies \ @028559d218 7h \ parent \ on: Can Someone Please Tell Me What is Going On With Bitcoin Core AskSN
In my opinion they would be best off doing... nothing. When it is not clear what to do, in Bitcoin the best thing is to do nothing. Don't change anything.
Having said that I read all the comments of that PR and that's where I saw this
The explanation was that op_return is much better than fake keys, bare multisig, or unspendable UTXOs but I am not an expert read all the explanations for yourself.
As far as making it harder to run nodes... my understanding is that the bloating of the UTXO set with dust is the hardest thing about running nodes today. The storage of the 'data' from inscriptions isn't a big deal the 4mb block limit cannot be exceeded and that data just sits there.
It's the dust transactions and larger utxo set for low-powered nodes. If they were all op_return outputs they could be ignored/pruned/have a lesser impact.
A block can have up to 4 MB of witness data, but only up to 1 MB of other transaction data. OP_RETURN outputs are other data. If you store stuff in OP_RETURNs instead of witness data, the resulting block will be smaller. And yeah, it’s harm reduction as @028559d218 said. That’s also what I was trying to convey, but their post here is much pithier.
reply
I can see that @petertodd is suggesting that utxo bloat is a direct consequence of the OP_RETURN standardness limit, which appears a rational argument at first glance. How would I be able to verify this using my own node?
reply