Replying to ihsotas

I think the filter controversy is talking past each other mostly. Utxo is not the preferred place to put data which I believe is why op return was created in the first place. People who want to put data into the chain currently use the utxo set because it is cheaper and can do so with greater size than op return…this is not good. We can’t make them stop but we can offer a less bad option. Perhaps people would be willing to pay a bit more and put their trash in the trash can instead of just tossing their garbage into a sensitive area. Time will tell.

I think the maxim “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” applies here. I also think the conspiracy theories and calling core devs shitcoiners is perhaps the worst outcome of all this.
Avatar
Super Testnet 3mo ago

Most of the people who put spam in utxos use a protocol called Stamps. The Stamps protocol was created out of an explicit desire to put the data in the utxo set. See, for example, this quote from the cofounder: "The point of Stamps is to offer a method of encoding on-chain art that is highly resilient to tampering and goes a step further than Ordinals by being unprunable." source: https://thedefiant.io/news/nfts-and-web3/bitcoin-stamps-seek-to-improve-on-ordinals

Enlarging op_return to accommodate these people and make their data prunable seems pointless, as they have explicitly said they don't want their data to *be* prunable. If the point is to accommodate other, "less popular" protocols or one-off spammers, then the cure seems far worse than the disease: apart from Stamps, hardly anything uses output stuffing, so even if those other unpopular protocols *do* switch to op_return (which I doubt many will do), you'll get a very small benefit in that one respect at the expense of making low-effort spamming far easier for the masses.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.