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
Rijndael 2mo ago 💬 1

I think op_returns will get very little usage. There might be some “hey look this is new!” spike, but unless you really need something in an output for technical reasons, I think most data publication will continue to use the witness

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
🐢 2mo ago

The real question is “what is something you’d really need in an op_return readily relayed for technical reasons” because whatever that is will be the next shitcoiner product grift.