pull down to refresh
55 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 4 May \ parent \ on: My High-Level Synopsis of the Recent OP_RETURN Debates bitcoin
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
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.
Yet, after wrestling with the realities of capital flight, labor markets, and the geopolitical underpinnings of global trade, I find myself questioning whether tariffs might, in certain contexts, serve as a justifiable compromise.
As the saying goes, "two wrongs don't make a right". Part of the reason the world is so screwed up is because so many people who claim to have good principles fold like a house of cards when it comes down to it. It is sad to see another one gone.
For me, the argument against tariffs is simple: taxation is theft, theft is bad, tariffs are taxes, so tariffs are bad. Repeal the tariffs -- and all other taxes!
You could borrow against your BTC to pay for the house, or at least a down payment. You can also do the same for the mortgage payments. But ideally if you have mortgage payments, you have income you can use to pay. And ideally, the price of BTC goes up enough over time that paying back the loan is "free" (it could also go the other way and you get liquidated if you cannot maintain your collateral ratio, so be careful with that). There is also the option of selling BTC for fiat to buy the house / make the down payment, which likely has tax implications and of course you lose exposure to BTC price movements. Good luck and happy house hunting!
You had a chance to reply to my OP re: the statement of VTXO's being centrally coordinated shitcoins
If you shared a full explanation of why you claim that VTXOs are a scam, and that explanation was not supported by opinions, factual errors, or logical fallacies, then I would consider responding to the claim directly. But that's not what you did. You did a drive-by name-calling and left it at that. There is nothing there of substance to respond to. Time scamming.
but are clearly confused about what Bitcoin is
VTXO's are literally centrally coordinated shitcoins being shilled as scaling
no technical explanation only ad hom
pRoNoUnS iN tHe BiO
and more ad hom
exactly the quality of argumentation I expect from a time scammer
Worth mentioning Zerosync as well, which doesn't help with IBD per se but enables a node to sync to the chain tip with full security faster than proof-less syncing.
Have you looked at Winden? https://winden.app/s
It is based on the Magic Wormhole protocol:
also shared in #848887