My take on this extra data is unconventional. To me, the inscription garbage is just an extreme form of monetarily inefficient transactions.

#Bitcoin rewards monetary efficiency. The smaller you can make your transaction, the less it’s going to cost you. The larger your transaction, the more it costs in sats/vByte. This pressures users to adopt space-saving features, such as SegWit or Taproot.

Even so, some people choose less space-efficient formats because they value it for some reason. For example, multisig transactions are less space-efficient than single-sig. Those extra signatures take space. Multisig enjoyers are willing to pay the additional cost because they value the multisig feature.

But value is subjective. Whether multisig is “worth it” is entirely up to the individual. The way Bitcoin adjudicates these differences in preference is with the fee market. You express your desire for space-inefficient transactions by footing more of the security budget (fees to miners).

Inscriptions are merely the most extreme form of inefficient transaction. They’re still monetary transactions. Sats still moved. But they moved in a particular way that the sender assesses is worth the additional cost.

To me, there’s no *categorical* difference between legacy address transactions, single-sig SegWit, multisig, and inscriptions. They’re just differently efficient with respect to bytes and money movement.

The beauty of the Bitcoin fee market is that it rewards patience and punishes inefficiency. You can pay for scarce block space with either time or money. You can wait until the pool clears, or you can pay to be first in line.

Bitcoin is a self-regulating system that automatically ejects low-value use cases thanks to NgU. Satoshi Dice is no more because its design is no longer efficient due to the market value of block space. The same thing should happen to inscriptions in the fullness of time.

Notes:

1. OP_RETURN is already unlimited at the consensus level. The current controversy is only about policy (what unconfirmed transactions nodes treat as spam and drop rather than forwarding to peers).

2. Changing this policy has nothing to do with block size or initial block download (IBD).

Yes. In my opinion this is not a hill worth dying on.

It really makes no difference how it lands. If the battle pushes people to alt node implementations (knots or Libre) then IMO that’s a good outcome.

Everything is good for Bitcoin.

Grok says...

This change, proposed by Peter Todd, has sparked intense discussion because it touches on fundamental questions about Bitcoin’s purpose, design, and future. Below, I’ll break down the key points, arguments, and implications of this conversation, addressing the technical, philosophical, and practical aspects while critically examining the perspectives presented.

---

### **What is the Context?**

The PR (#32359) proposes removing restrictions on OP_RETURN outputs in Bitcoin Core, the reference implementation used by most Bitcoin nodes. OP_RETURN is an opcode that allows small amounts of arbitrary data (historically capped at 80 bytes) to be embedded in Bitcoin transactions. These outputs are unspendable and prunable, meaning they don’t clutter the UTXO (Unspent Transaction Output) set but are stored in the blockchain. The PR would:

- Remove the 80-byte size limit on OP_RETURN data.

- Eliminate the rule allowing only one OP_RETURN per transaction.

- Remove related configuration options like `-datacarrier` and `-datacarriersize`.

This change is controversial because it could make it easier to store larger amounts of arbitrary data on Bitcoin’s blockchain, potentially shifting its use case from a decentralized currency to a general-purpose data storage system. The conversation on Stacker News, initiated by user @028559d218 (referencing “wizkid057”), reflects concerns about this shift and its implications.

---

### **Key Arguments in the Conversation**

#### **1. Philosophical Concerns: Bitcoin’s Identity**

The original post by @028559d218, quoting “wizkid,” argues that merging PR #32359 would fundamentally alter Bitcoin’s nature:

- **Bitcoin as Money**: Wizkid claims that removing OP_RETURN limits would make Bitcoin “no longer a decentralized currency,” “no longer money,” and “no longer a store of value.” They argue Bitcoin would become an “arbitrary data storage system,” betraying the expectations of users and node runners.

- **Hyperbole or Reality?**: User @optimism challenges this as hyperbole, suggesting the existential crisis is overstated. They argue that arbitrary data storage is already happening (e.g., via inscriptions in SegWit witness data), and the PR merely makes it technically easier at a higher cost (since OP_RETURN data doesn’t benefit from SegWit’s fee discount).

- **Community Sentiment**: Posts on X echo this divide. Some users (@DeFiTropical, @chad_agn) see the change as reigniting debates about Bitcoin’s purpose (sound money vs. all-purpose protocol), likening it to the Blocksize Wars. Others (@agentic_t, @niftynei) support relaxing OP_RETURN limits, viewing them as arbitrary restrictions that hinder Bitcoin’s utility or miner revenue.

**Critical Take**: The claim that Bitcoin would “no longer be Bitcoin” is dramatic but reflects a real tension. Bitcoin’s design prioritizes financial transactions, and excessive data storage could strain its decentralized infrastructure (e.g., node storage costs, bandwidth). However, dismissing the PR as an existential threat ignores that arbitrary data is already stored via other mechanisms (inscriptions, witness data). The debate hinges on whether Bitcoin can balance its role as sound money with other use cases without compromising its core principles.

#### **2. Technical Implications: Arbitrary Data Storage**

The conversation delves into how OP_RETURN changes affect Bitcoin’s blockchain:

- **Current State**: OP_RETURN is capped at 80 bytes, but other methods (e.g., SegWit witness data) allow larger data storage at a lower cost due to the SegWit discount (witness data is weighted at 1/4 the cost of non-witness data). Inscriptions, like NFTs or “Runes” memecoins, exploit this, embedding data in witness fields.

- **PR Impact**: Removing OP_RETURN limits would make it easier to store large data (up to 100KB in a single chunk, per wizkid’s comment) without needing to split it into multiple 500-byte witness chunks. However, OP_RETURN data is 4x more expensive due to lacking the SegWit discount, as noted by @optimism and Sjors.

- **Spam and Scams**: @028559d218 worries that spammers and scammers (e.g., NFT or memecoin creators) will exploit larger OP_RETURNs to upload “reams” of data, potentially including illicit material. Wizkid highlights risks like node operators inadvertently storing illegal data, which could expose them to legal liability.

- **Counterargument**: @Murch argues that OP_RETURNs are less harmful than other data storage methods (e.g., inscriptions) because they’re prunable and don’t bloat the UTXO set. They suggest that restrictive node policies (e.g., rejecting large OP_RETURNs) harm node operators more than spammers, as nodes miss out on transaction relay, feerate estimation, and block validation efficiency.

**Critical Take**: The technical debate reveals a trade-off. Relaxing OP_RETURN limits could streamline data storage, keeping transactions in the mempool and reducing reliance on direct miner submissions (which centralize mining). However, it risks encouraging speculative or malicious use cases, especially if fees remain low. The SegWit discount makes witness data a cheaper alternative, so the PR’s practical impact may be limited unless paired with broader changes (e.g., adjusting the discount, though Sjors notes this might require a hard fork).

#### **3. Economic Dynamics: Fees and Incentives**

The conversation explores how transaction fees influence data storage:

- **Low Fees**: @028559d218 notes that current fees (1-3 sats/vB) are low, with blocks often underutilized. This enables spammers to embed data cheaply, as seen with memecoins using ~10 bytes in OP_RETURNs.

- **Future Fees**: They ask how high fees must rise to “outprice” spammers, especially as the block subsidy declines (halving every 4 years). @optimism calculates that a 10KB JPEG inscription costs 60,000 sats at 2 sats/vB, while OP_RETURN costs 240,000 sats. At higher fees (e.g., 20 sats/vB) and a 5x Bitcoin price increase, a JPEG would need to be worth ~$3,000 to break even, potentially deterring frivolous use.

- **Miner Incentives**: @Murch points out that data storage is a “millions of dollars business,” and miners benefit from higher-fee transactions. Restrictive node policies could push data transactions to mining pools directly, centralizing revenue to large miners.

**Critical Take**: Low fees and block underutilization exacerbate spam, as speculators can afford to embed data. Rising fees and Bitcoin’s value could naturally deter low-value use cases (e.g., memecoins), but this assumes sustained transaction demand. The declining subsidy makes miner reliance on fees critical, so dismissing data-driven transactions could harm Bitcoin’s security model. However, prioritizing miner revenue over node efficiency risks centralization, as smaller nodes struggle with storage demands.

#### **4. Social and Governance Issues: Community Input**

The discussion touches on Bitcoin’s development process:

- **Censorship Concerns**: @unschooled expresses unease about voices being “effectively censored” in Bitcoin Core discussions, suggesting some developers treat the repository as their own. This echoes wizkid’s call for broader community input, arguing the change is too significant for mailing list debates alone.

- **Need for Discourse**: @optimism advocates for patient, open discussion, warning that past changes (e.g., script size constraints) led to unintended consequences like inscriptions. They hope for “team discourse without escalation.”

**Critical Take**: Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos demands inclusive governance, but the technical complexity of Core development often limits participation to a small group. Excluding broader input risks alienating users, especially on changes that could redefine Bitcoin’s purpose. However, open-ended debates can stall progress or devolve into unproductive conflict, as seen in past scaling wars.

#### **5. Practical Questions: What Can Be Done?**

The conversation grapples with solutions:

- **Running Bitcoin Knots**: @028559d218 mentions running Bitcoin Knots (a Bitcoin Core fork with stricter mempool policies) to filter spam, but notes that consensus-valid data (in blocks) is still stored. @optimism warns that Knots nodes may face validation delays, as seen with OCEAN pool’s empty blocks.

- **Fee Market**: Higher fees could deter spam, but @028559d218 fears low transaction demand threatens Bitcoin’s viability more than spam. They hypothesize a future where fees remain low and blocks are filled with “50% monkey JPEGs,” questioning if Bitcoin is on a path to failure.

- **UTXO Bloat**: The growing UTXO set (16GB in 2023, per @optimism) and dust outputs from memecoins concern users, as they increase node storage costs. @028559d218 wonders why spammers don’t consolidate dust during low-fee periods.

**Critical Take**: Solutions like Knots offer partial control but don’t address consensus-valid data in blocks. Relying on high fees assumes a robust transaction market, which isn’t guaranteed. UTXO bloat and dust are real issues, but spammers’ failure to consolidate suggests speculative behavior prioritizes quick profits over long-term efficiency.

---

### **What Do I Make of This?**

This conversation is a microcosm of Bitcoin’s ongoing identity crisis: Is it primarily a decentralized currency, a store of value, or a versatile protocol for various use cases? The PR #32359 debate exposes deep divides in the community, with valid points on both sides:

- **Against the PR (Wizkid, @028559d218)**: Relaxing OP_RETURN limits risks turning Bitcoin into a data storage platform, undermining its monetary purpose. The ease of uploading large or illicit data could burden nodes and expose operators to legal risks. Bitcoin’s social contract—its promise to users as sound money—could be violated, alienating its core base.

- **For the PR (@Murch, @optimism)**: Arbitrary data storage is already happening, and OP_RETURN is a less harmful, prunable way to handle it. Restrictive policies hurt nodes more than spammers, and blocking data transactions could centralize mining. The PR aligns with economic realities (miners need fees) and keeps the mempool transparent.

**My Take**: The truth lies in the messy middle. Bitcoin’s design must balance its monetary role with practical realities like miner incentives and user demands. The PR doesn’t “destroy” Bitcoin, as wizkid claims, but it does amplify risks of abuse (e.g., spam, illicit data) without addressing underlying issues like the SegWit discount or low transaction demand. The community’s fear of change is understandable—past updates led to unintended consequences like inscriptions—but resisting all evolution risks stagnation.

The bigger issue is Bitcoin’s long-term sustainability. Low fees and underutilized blocks signal weak demand, which is more threatening than spam. If fees don’t replace the declining subsidy, miners may exit, weakening security. Data-driven transactions, while controversial, contribute to fees, but prioritizing them over financial use cases could erode Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos.

---

### **What’s the Best Thing to Do?**

The conversation’s question—“What is the best thing to do?”—has no easy answer, but here are reasoned steps:

1. **Broaden the Discussion**: Move beyond mailing lists and GitHub to platforms like Stacker News or X, ensuring diverse voices (users, node runners, miners) are heard. Bitcoin’s decentralized nature demands inclusive governance.

2. **Delay the PR**: @optimism’s call for patience is wise. Rushing the change risks unintended consequences, as seen with inscriptions. A thorough analysis of incentives (e.g., SegWit discount, miner behavior) is needed.

3. **Explore Technical Mitigations**: Investigate soft-fork options to adjust witness data weighting or incentivize prunable outputs. Research ways to filter illicit data without centralizing control.

4. **Educate the Community**: Clarify OP_RETURN’s role and the PR’s implications to counter hyperbole and misinformation. Tools like Umbrel can empower users to run nodes with custom policies (e.g., Knots).

5. **Monitor Fee Dynamics**: Track whether rising fees naturally deter spam or if low demand persists. If fees remain low post-halving (2028, 2032), Bitcoin’s security model needs urgent reevaluation.

---

### **Final Thoughts**

The PR #32359 debate isn’t just about OP_RETURN—it’s about Bitcoin’s soul. The community must navigate this carefully, balancing innovation with fidelity to Bitcoin’s original vision. Spam and scams are annoying but manageable; a fractured community or a centralized network would be fatal. Open discourse, not censorship or rushed decisions, is the path forward.