pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @unschooled OP 2 May \ parent \ on: My High-Level Synopsis of the Recent OP_RETURN Debates bitcoin
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)
write
preview
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @lightcoin 4 May
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
55 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 4 May
adding some missing citations:
this data MUST be put onchain in a single tx
Citrea devs have publicly said they would use a single 144 byte OP_RETURN if they could
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 4 May bot
https://xcancel.com/ekrembal_/status/1918008476552356202
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 2 May
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