pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 8 replies \ @SimpleStacker 17h \ on: Nicolas Dorier (BTC Payserver): increasing OP_RETURN limit will help our users bitcoin
Having recently synced a fullnode from scratch, using old hardware, IBD took an entire month, whereas same hardware 3 years ago IBD took 3 days.
IMO, UTXO bloat is the main technical issue facing Bitcoin right now, so to the extent that larger OP_RETURN sizes will actually cause the shitcoiners to move their data there instead of in witness script, that seems like a positive development.
Right but in the thread don't they touch on the fact that not many are likely to move to OP_RETURN because it will still be cheaper to do it the other way.
reply
Not many will move from using inscriptions (Taproot input scripts) to OP_RETURN (an output type). But some that are storing arbitrary data that aren't inscriptions (JPEGs etc), but are using fake public keys creating unprovably-unspendable outputs that permanently bloat the UTXO set, will hopefully switch to OP_RETURN.
reply
reply
indeed
reply
Right, that's why I qualified my statement with "to the extent that"
I hope the spamming is just a fad and all the spammers lose all their money. No one needs jpegs on the blockchain and there are better technologies for that.
reply
IBD took an entire month, whereas same hardware 3 years ago IBD took 3 days. IMO, UTXO bloat is the main technical issue
If you do full IBD, UTXO size is not the main issue for you, you anyway fully process all the blocks after
assumevalid.reply
Hmm, I assumed my problem was that I couldn't hold the UTXO in memory and so it was constantly using my HD which is a lot slower. I don't know enough about the details to really know what else could be the problem.
reply
Depends on amount of RAM you have and other settings (like
dbcache, especially important during IBD).reply