Nostr Web Client

In short: people will attach stuff to bitcoin and we there is NO WAY for us to stop it.

They can do it in many different ways, and some of them are more harmful.

Using OP_RETURN for this purpose is less harmful for the network and noderunners than other methods, because it does not bloat UTXO set and has no validation cost.

But OP_RETURN has a limit which is too low for some of those protocols, so they need to use less efficient methods that increase the cost for everyone and do more harm.

Hence the idea to relax or remove the limit, to incentivise them to use less harmful method

HoloKat 8mo ago 💬 2

Seems like the number of times someone attached garbage would be smaller over all and removing the filter would just do the opposite. Why cater to those people because abuse is possible…

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

saunter 8mo ago 💬 2

No, the amount of spam will be the same as they will still do it by using p2tr outouts.

SuiGenerisJohn 8mo ago 💬 1

This is a thing I've been trying to pay attention. If there is no limit, couldn't someone eat entire blocks with arbitrary data fairly easily and at a relatively low cost because they could include all data into one trnasactions rather than the amiplified expense of having to do it through multiple transactions?

saunter 8mo ago

They could, but after 144kb it's cheaper to use those UTXO polluting method. So effectively this would be the limit

HoloKat 8mo ago 💬 2

I’d rather wait for those use cases to die than to accommodate them. Certainly let users decide whether they want to support non monetary transactions.

saunter 8mo ago

It's already happening now...

saunter 8mo ago

And those can be monetary too, like in case of BitVM, just on other layer

Neo ⚡️ 8mo ago

🎯💯