Replying to Avatar leadbyexample

I keep writing the following but still not getting convincing replies.

Foreword is that I love filters, wouldn't ever accept to host garbage in my mempool as long as I have a choice.

BUT.

OP_FALSE of taproot allows to store arbitrary contiguous data in a single transaction up to almost 4MB in size and with a 75% discount, so what is it that makes a 100kb OP_RETURN, paid for in full, into a recipe for disaster in particular?

The argument that while data in witness would require a specific software to read, while OP_RETURN is in the clear, doesn't convince me too much, especially since there are plenty of web explorers showing the organic waste being placed in the blockchain from a simple browser.
Avatar
Tauri 2mo ago

Sanctioning more data in the way the op return upgrade did, invites more data.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
leadbyexample 2mo ago

and that is true, just like it's true that any sensible man should heavily criticize any and all means, old and new, to add garbage to the blockchain, yet this reason alone cannot possibly cover for the massive drama of the last months, especially if compared to the lack thereof when taproot was still to come.

Avatar
Tauri 2mo ago

The drama is not loud enough imo. Leaving the huge attack vector they opened aside, totally unforced, this move shattered a long held belief that technological robustness compensates for the downsides of human governance. It also showed how much the cypherpunk culture has eroded over the years. The don’t trust verify has become trust the experts (devs), even when it has become obvious that they are compromised.