Anything up to the 1mb limit. OP_RETURN doesn't give you the discount that inscriptions love to use, but it can still use up the whole block making no room for standard transactions.
So two benefits:
1. Initial block download isn't slow because of it (inscriptions made it so slow)
2. Blocks don't get filled upto 4mb because of it.
But that's IF people choose to use it instead of the signature based inscriptions.
✅ EtherFi Airdrop Is Live!.
👉 https://telegra.ph/EtherFi-05-03 Claim your free $ETHFI.
That’s one big if. Especially since it would cost more.
But then if they don't use it, it has no effect, negative or positive.
What if there are thousands of unmined txns at full 1mb?
Then they are using OP_RETURN. But the premise we were working off of was that they were using the signatures and not OP_RETURN because it is cheaper to do so.
We can't go back and forth changing the premise.
They can do both it’s not either or
Are you suggesting that folks will continue spamming the blockchain in the same old way, while others begin using the new way?
Also, is the spam we're referring to mostly NFTs and new tokens? Or is it something else?
But using OP_RETURN takes away from using Witness space. It is literally like a sliding scale. If they are gonna do it, they already can, adding OP_RETURN doesn't improve anything for them other than signalling that there is now a place for them to do it and not be considered a nuisance... But I don't think that means they have some sort of right to anything. If they are using it in a way that is a nuisance, we reserve the right to change our minds...
ESPECIALLY when this is not a consensus change.
I see transactions in the mempool with op returns that reference previous transactions with inscriptions. It may be a sliding scale when it comes to individual blocks but it is not a sliding scale when it comes to the blockchain on a whole, they can use these options in tandem to reference each other.
BTW, I saw this and thought it was interesting.
nostr:nprofile1qqs8fl79rnpsz5x00xmvkvtd8g2u7ve2k2dr3lkfadyy4v24r4k3s4sppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qg7waehxw309ahx7um5wgkhqatz9emk2mrvdaexgetj9ehx2ap0sfm3mt argues that just because you filter a transaction doesn't mean you don't keep it in memory cache. You only refuse to relay it. Curious what exactly a filter does and doesn't do.
If your argument is that you just don't want it in your mempool, then it might be a strawman argument, but if you explicitly say you want to add friction to those transactions, that's fair.
I almost think it's more accurate to say "I want to prioritise standard transactions over data" or "I want the data transactors to feel unwelcome on this network" than to say "I don't want data on my node." or "I want to prevent data getting into my blockchain."
I want to add friction to those transactions so that users who want to make them would prefer to do so on another platform other than my money.
I think core developers should prioritize optimizing bitcoin for electronic peer to peer cash over data storage.
Weird how you think removing features isn’t negative.
negative means exactly removing something
it is a bad policy in software development, throws everyone off because sometimes even the feature you thought was stupid was used by a small minority who get very mad
add, never subtract, just make better features. this is how it can be that code written in #golang 12 years ago still compiles
the devs of go are the most wise computer programmers in the entire industry, not surprising when the most senior in charge invented the precursor to C and another built the operating system that basically everything now is (ken thompson and rob pike) they had decades of experience to learn this stuff and tehy are salty bastards about it for good reason, this modern "upgrade every other day" shit is so toxic to user experience, eventually they burn their entire loyal userbase
First, let's not put words in my mouth. 👍
Second, filtering types of data is objectively removing a feature. Filters are objectively negative things. Not in the "oh my feelings way", they often have positive effects, but they are negative features.
Often times, removing features is a good thing. Especially if it is unused, broken or unwanted.
Since this is not a consensus change, it should be noted that we have time to evaluate the damage and reverse it. We can all switch to knots or do something else if it has negative effects.
I know it's not that simple, but when shit is hitting the fan, that's when people get serious.
Removing a feature from the mempool policy (Removing the ability for them to set parameters on the OP_RETURN) is not the same as a node runner applying a filter. These 2 examples are not comparable one is removing the ability to set a limit, the other example is applying a limit.
Agreed. Didn't realise you were talking about that.
Yes, I agree that removing this optionality, especially when people are using it, is bad.
Thanks. This is interesting to me, but still a bit over my head. What incentive is there to use op_return at a higher cost ?
I think it is for the "good actors" who would rather build a protocol that is sustainable and uses something fit for purpose than to hack a solution with negative effects for users.
And to be clear, I am not pro or against this change, since it is not a consensus change, if I see negative externalities that don't look to disappear naturally, then I will switch to a client that adopts filters and encourage others to do so also. It'll certainly be an easier sell at that point in time.
What should we expect to fill the available space in op_return when the limit is removed? Will this be used for new tokens and NFTs? Or is just for large messages?
Unfortunately, I don't know. Twitter is probably a better place to learn, since if there are some taproot wizards and other malicious actors out there excited about this, then you'll learn quickly what they want to use it for.
