pull down to refresh
185 sats \ 7 replies \ @028559d218 2 May \ on: My High-Level Synopsis of the Recent OP_RETURN Debates bitcoin
This is not accurate. Ordinals is just a numbering system for sats... it 'pretends' that sats are ordered from 1 to whatever depending on the 'order' in which they were originally mined (it's dumb).
Inscriptions are specifically the use of Witness data to combine the 'ordering' of Sats with arbitrary data... so you can "own" that data based on "ordinals theory." So you can "sell" that Jpeg/specific sat to another moron.
Op_return isn't used for this, just some arbitrary witness data that's associated with the 'ownership' of a particular "sat" (based on "ordinals" theory) which can then be traded or identified.
Like if i pretended that sat # 237568274691 is in the 'transaction' where the witness was 'revealed'... I "own" that particular sat and I can sell it to other people.
Runes are specifically not large data files. And Runes don't even use 'ordinal theory' from what I understand. A 'rune' is just a made-up token identified by a tiny op_return in a transaction. The 'dog' token is identified by a 'dog' tag in an op_return in a 'normal' Bitcoin transaction... and whoever owns that 'output' owns that 'token'.
Which then can be traded with other morons (for the purposes 'creating' memecoins).
Which has more value long-term, Bitcoin as 'sound money' or this stuff?
Will the users of jpegs and memecoins 'pay the miners' indefinitely?
See Giacomo's presentation from Bitcoin Prague 2023 Ordinals Are Retarded
Op_return isn't used for this,
Then why we have to remove it?
reply
Because op_return the filter... isn't working. It is not filtering the blockchain in its current state. So it needs adjustment. It will be more beneficial and cheaper for the spammers to use it rather than something else (I am not an expert but this is the explanation I keep reading)
reply
Thanks, I appreciate the points of differentiation. At this point, I didn't have the mental bandwith to look into how these shitcoins work (although, I acknowledge that I should have.)
What I'm finding confusing is that I'll read that these things don't use
OP_RETURN (as you've said), because witness discounts make other opcodes cheaper.But when the point is raised, 'well, why would they change, even with
OP_RETURN limits eased?' the response is, 'well, they probably won't but they should (especially Citrea), because of UTXO bloat.' (see Sjor's latest message in mailing list); when this was asked of Todd, he was very explicit in citing the needs of Citrea (#968877)reply
What I'm finding confusing is that I'll read that these things don't use OP_RETURN (as you've said), because witness discounts make other opcodes cheaper. But when the point is raised, 'well, why would they change, even with OP_RETURN limits eased?' the response is, 'well, they probably won't but they should (especially Citrea), because of UTXO bloat.' (see Sjor's latest message in mailing list); when this was asked of Todd, he was very explicit in citing the needs of Citrea (#968877)
Citrea's case is rather unique: it is a technical requirement for them that a specific transaction in their presigned transaction graph contain 144 bytes of "arbitrary data" (data relevant to the light client protocol used by Citrea's bridge) -- this data MUST be put onchain in a single tx, which means that the envelope technique used by inscriptions will not work because envelopes require two transaction (a commit and a reveal). To work around the 80 byte OP_RETURN limit Citrea is using one 80 byte OP_RETURN output and two "unspendable" Taproot addresses that each have 32 bytes of data embedded directly in the address, combined creating the 144 bytes needed. Citrea devs have publicly said they would use a single 144 byte OP_RETURN if they could, but are going with the workaround in the meantime.
To the broader question about "when would someone use OP_RETURN instead of witness space e.g. envelopes", Vojtěch Strnad did an analysis and his conclusion was:
TL;DR: OP_RETURN is cheaper for data smaller than 143 bytes.
reply
reply
reply
WIthout understanding how the ****coins are being used, and how they are propagated, it's impossible to mitigate them.
It's one of those cases where the 'devil is in the details' and talk is cheap...
People say oh 'we'll just block arbitrary data Bitcoin is only monetary etc etc'.
Great! I agree! Now I ask, well how exactly do you do that???
reply