Just curious—can you still embed non-transactional data in a fake public key that pretends to be part of a multi-sig, but is actually, say, the Bitcoin whitepaper?
If that’s still possible and it bloats the UTXO set, why open the OP_RETURN floodgate that invites even more spam onto the blockchain?
Because OP_RETURN doesn’t add to the UTXO set
Bit it increases the cost of running a node for a node-runner who wants to have an archival node.
Opt out of it in your node
High tx costs will deter them further from “spamming”.
But I’m of the opinion a valid transaction is a valid transaction, fuck personal feelings
True, but as you pointed out, stopping spam is not an option. The junk addresses that bloat the UTXO set are always an option, as is witness script data, which, while pruneable, also increases the UTXO set.
So what we’re discussing here are different ways to reduce the impact on node operators of an action transactors have many ways to perform.
Option 1: multisig. Bloats the utxo set, is more complicated to implement for developers.
Option 2: simple, put data, people can just mine things.
Option 1 and 2 are valid options today.
But today if you want to do #1: freaking great do it, nodes will propagate your txns and you even get a discount!
Today with #2: oh your data is too big? Nope you gotta submit that directly to a miner. But if you get it there the miner is free to mine it and people have to accept it once it’s in a block.
I just don’t really understand this silly idea that changing mempool policy means that 10x more people are going to start paying 4x the price to put things on chain.
