pull down to refresh
42 sats \ 5 replies \ @BTC_Commons 5 May \ parent \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
Follow up question:
Would phasing out OP_Return limits stop a third party from resorting to VERY BAD data storage methods?
In other words, if there is nothing stopping them from using, for example, fake pubkeys now, what would stop them from using them if we relaxed some OP_Return filters?
We can’t stop anyone from using fake pubkeys, but using OP_RETURN would be cheaper and less malicious, so if they want to be perceived as good actors they would switch. If they continue to use fake pubkeys, even while having other options, they reveal themselves as obviously malicious.
reply
That means if they are malicious we can't do anything at the protocol level, regardless of whether OP_return is there or not, correct?
This is something that is confusing to me, because if that is the case, then no matter what happens with this debate, Bitcoin is just a sitting duck waiting to be defenestrated by someone with the right backing and know-how.
And if there is something we can do against a bad actor, then why not do it now, instead of rolling the red carpet and hoping they will behave themselves?
By the way, the long form replies are very helpful. Thank you for taking the time.
reply
That means if they are malicious we can't do anything at the protocol level, regardless of whether OP_return is there or not, correct?
The only effective recourse would be a protocol change that amends all output types such that they incorporate a proof that the output scripts are spendable when they are created. Even then, data could be embedded via other transaction fields or grinding pubkeys and signatures.
This is something that is confusing to me, because if that is the case, then no matter what happens with this debate, Bitcoin is just a sitting duck waiting to be defenestrated by someone with the right backing and know-how.
Pretty much. That’s why many people were upset about Stamps specifically. Stamps were unabashedly malicious by needlessly polluting the UTXO set. (They were even explicitly marketed as "unprunable".)
And if there is something we can do against a bad actor, then why not do it now, instead of rolling the red carpet and hoping they will behave themselves?
As explained, there isn’t much that can be done, except social pressure or hard forks with really horrible trade-offs. OP_RETURN is a mitigation in the sense that it would have 5–10 bytes less overhead for a small data payload and more for large data payload than fake pubkeys. So, it’s not only a request to be a good citizen, but also provides a (small) financial incentive to be a good citizen by being cheaper.
By the way, the long form replies are very helpful. Thank you for taking the time.
You’re welcome. I’m glad that people are reading this and find it useful.
reply
If you were insane and mandated that txns came with signatures you could prove they were spendable but yeah.
Within the realm of reasonable solutions there's not much you can do. That's the nature of a digital ledger that ultimately is a distributed database.
People are going to store arbitrary content. Trying to stop it is futile. What we can do though is provide aligned incentives.
reply