People will not use it until we disable P2MS because it’s a similar cost, but one is “unprunable” so they of course want to do P2MS.
Anyone that cares about cost also uses inscriptions. Those will not switch to OP_RETURN for 4x.
Discussion
We should at least give them the option
Are we sure anybody is actually doing P2MS because it's unprunable, and not because of the datacarrier limit? (and/or to be jerks)
Yes
What protocol(s) are doing that?
stamps
Fair enough, but stamps uses counterparty, and the counterparty FAQ says this about OP_RETURN and prunability: https://docs.counterparty.io/docs/basics/faq/#what-happens-if-and-when-op_return-data-is-auto-pruned
> Counterparty only needs some Bitcoin full nodes somewhere to have an unpruned copy of the blockchain. As every Counterparty full node is also a Bitcoin full node, this is easily done.
stamps references the counterparty behavior as the reason why stamps uses bare multisig and says
https://github.com/mikeinspace/stamps/blob/main/BitcoinStamps.md
> The length of the string means that Counterparty defaults to bare multisig, thereby chunking the data into outputs rather than using *the limited* (and prunable) OP_RETURN.
Since counterparty refutes/denies the pruning argument, it's IMHO safe to conclude that stamps is actually using bare multisig because of the datacarrier limit anyway.
“prunable OP_RETURN”
That’s the end.