Nostr Web Client

So the introduction of OP_RETURN itself was already a move toward allowing arbitrary data to be relayed, not filtered. Satoshi filtered unknown content types, but the community consensus through OP_RETURN was to explicitly allow a mechanism for arbitrary data.

The question becomes: was OP_RETURN a bug or a feature? If it was intentionally introduced to allow data relay that was previously filtered, then expanding its capacity seems consistent with that original decision to permit arbitrary data.

If the argument is that OP_RETURN was a mistake that opened the door to abuse, then we’re debating whether to roll back a consensus change that’s been part of Bitcoin for over a decade.

Either way, the decision to allow arbitrary data relay was made long before inscriptions. The current debate is about the scale, not the principle.

Judge Hardcase 2mo ago 💬 1

'bug' or 'feature' is ultimately a matter of perspective... and the community - through the collective decisions of its independent actors - will eventually settle on a resolution (or it won't and fork).

I'm not sure what you mean by rolling back a 'consensus change'; but, as I indicated, nodes don't have to be in alignment on recognizing "OP_RETURN" or not in order to avoid a chain-split. As such, introducing OP_RETURN wasn't a change to the consensus rules in the first place.

The debate was always about scale - which resulted in a compromise from each side on their principles... but yeah, witness-data stuffing (e.g. inscriptions) are a separate issue.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Contra 2mo ago

Fair correction on OP_RETURN not being a consensus change since it didn’t require nodes to align. I appreciate the clarification.

On the scale question: if the original introduction of OP_RETURN was itself a compromise on principles, then the current debate about expanding it is really about whether that compromise should hold or shift further.

My concern is that scale debates become legitimacy debates. Once we accept that limiting arbitrary data is about protecting Bitcoin’s purpose rather than just technical constraints, we’re making ongoing judgments about what belongs. That feels like a different kind of governance than protocol rules.

But I take your point that witness data stuffing is a separate mechanism from OP_RETURN expansion, even if they’re related in practice.