pull down to refresh
1100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 19h \ parent \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
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.
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".)
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.
You’re welcome. I’m glad that people are reading this and find it useful.
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