Global Feed Post Login
Replying to Avatar jimmysong

Assuming usage of OP_RETURN as the garbage can for non-financial data that would otherwise go into the UTXO set is naive.

First, it's more expensive than inscriptions, control block embedding and other techniques.

Second, you're expecting developers of ordinals, inscriptions, stamps, brc-20, etc to *change* their protocol to accommodate. There's zero evidence this is going to happen.

Third, you're assuming that these are people that want to act as good stewards of the Bitcoin protocol. They spam specifically to hurt Bitcoin. They've demonstrated this by spamming in the first place. That's like asking malicious spray painting vandals to paint a particular wall that's easy to wash off. Again, no evidence that this is going to happen.

The logic is misguided and makes unfounded assumptions.

Avatar
Judge Hardcase 3mo ago

I think OP_RETURN policies that are more accommodating will have 2 dominant outcomes:

#1) those who can think of a use case for large amounts of arbitrary data - but discouraged from doing so by having to go through the trouble of figuring out how to abuse the UTXO set - will suddenly have a convenient mechanism for implementing their use case; and,

#2) those same people - due to the ease of achieving results vis a vis #1 - will be inspired to come up with more such use cases.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.