pull down to refresh
142 sats \ 2 replies \ @unschooled 18h \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
If relaxing op_return standardness limit seeks to make 'spam' prunable, then what are proponents of this change assuming about the long-term feasibility of running a 'full' (unpruned) bitcoin node?
If the blocks were generally not full, and this change would cause the blocks to be full again, I would see how there would be an argument that the blockchain is growing faster than necessary, but blocks have been almost consistently full for the past 27 months. I’m honestly not sure why opponents of this change think that the proposed change would make nodes more expensive to run. If a lot of OP_RETURNs were added to the blockchain, it would make the resulting blocks easier to validate and reduce the overall blocksize compared to blocks with a higher proportion of witness data. It seems to me that there are some misconceptions here.
reply
Thank you for your response.
I’m honestly not sure why opponents of this change think that the proposed change would make nodes more expensive to run.
Sorry, maybe you misunderstood my question, as my assumption has been that the proposed pr will do the opposite.
To perhaps rephrase (respond if you wish): if demand for arbitrary data-anchoring in Bitcoin increases in the near- to long-term, and it seems it might, is this pr a preemptive attempt at defending would-be node runners by making this data prunable?
And if that's the case what would the implications be if average plebs started being unable to run full nodes?
reply