pull down to refresh
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
That’s not right. Inscriptions are stored in the witness section, so they do tend to increase block size. You can have only 1 MB of non-witness data, but blocks can be up to 4 MB if there is a lot of witness data.
Inscriptions were first popularized early 2023. Here is a chart of the 7-day average blocksize including that period:
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.
Every Bitcoin transaction must have at least one output. Inscription transactions publish the data in the witness of an input, but they still must have an output. This is why they often have one output with minimal amount.
Transactions with OP_RETURN outputs need an input to fund the transaction, but they already have an output for the OP_RETURN.
Hi @Murch ! Thank you for your working on Bitcoin!!!
What I meant to say is that if people are concerned about the block size... why not just promote a block-size decrease in a soft-fork?
Or why not have a soft-fork to remove/reduce the segwit discount? Bip-110 does neither of these things!
Bip-110 doesn't do anything about 'runes' memecoins... it doesn't prevent any endless number of op_return-based-metaprotocols which spam the utxo set at low fee rates...
My understanding is that the bloating of the utxo set is a far greater risk than the bloating of blocks... which runes memecoins could still cause. Yet... bip-110 still allows 80+ byte op_returns at all!
Thanks.
I’m not worried about blocksize or blockchain growth. When Segwit was activated, it was with the understanding that it was a blocksize increase that allowed blocks to be up to 4 MB.
The blockchain only grew by about 83.5 GB in 2025. That’s an average blocksize of about 1.57 MB (53,082 blocks in 2025).
For comparison, it grew by 88.7 GB in 2024 and 92 GB in 2023.
Blockchain size in bytes on Dec 31:
The UTXO set also shrank in count in 2025 (after growing significantly between 2023-04 and 2024-07):
TBH, a lot of the narratives seem pretty decoupled from what’s actually happening.
If you think a blocksize decrease or removing the segwit discount should be considered, why do you think that would be expected to lead to an improvement? And what improvements and other effects would you expect?
If you think a blocksize decrease or removing the segwit discount should be considered, why do you think that would be expected to lead to an improvement? And what improvements and other effects would you expect?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but here are my thoughts anyway:
I think that the witness discount distorts incentives, since it makes inscriptions significantly cheaper compared to any other kind of transaction. Large inscriptions also lead to bigger blocks.
If the witness discount were removed, data embedding would probably shift to the less harmful OP_RETURN outputs, since this would then be the cheapest way.
It would also reduce the blocksize and significantly reduce the transaction throughput, but blockspace demand right now is just a little less than blockspace production. So I would expect the feerates to explode again like they did in 2024 and 2017. While I’ve expected for a very long time that small payments would get priced out over time, such a move would probably make transactions very expensive immediately. What should then be the next move after that?
Or why not have a soft-fork to remove/reduce the segwit discount?
Yes, I would really be in favor of this!
My understanding is that the bloating of the utxo set is a far greater risk than the bloating of blocks... which runes memecoins could still cause.
UTXO set bloat becomes less of a problem with Utreexo.
Also OP_RETURN outputs are not part of the UTXO set.
Then, outside of treating the 'segwit' discount (which bip-110 doesn't even address) OR simply reducing the blocksize (which is obviously much simpler...)
What is the point of Bip-110? This is why I don't use knots or support bip-110. They don't really know what they are trying to solve.
I agree that the BIP-110 approach is not perfect. I would prefer a removal of the witness discount. But I am also not going to oppose BIP-110, since it would still reduce inscription spam.
Friend it will result in a hard-fork, it is not needed, it increases risks for plebs, it doesn't know the problem it is trying to solve (low block-space utilization), and most importantly you could easily end up on the wrong side of a hard-fork which is coming for bip-110 users.
Most users are better running Core on default settings, getting a lightning wallet and using those everywhere they possibly can to educate people on what Bitcoin is.
Hard fork means that new blocks are invalid by the old rules. Bip110 is a soft fork.
In case of a chain split you will not lose any coins on any side of the split. If you don't make any transactions you can wait and see which chain will be the one accepted by the people. No risks here.
Sure there is 'no risk'... but a lot of plebs don't know that. They don't even know that once September approaches the bip-110 will 'auto-activate'... and their nodes will have different rules from the vast majority of miners. There could easily be a 'hard-fork'... and any transactions they make could easily leave their utxos vulnerable confusing their view of the entire network.
My understanding is that 110 nodes once "active" will sever connections with core nodes putting them on a new network leaving 'their new' network incredibly vulnerable - it is a terrible idea and creates 2 tokens.
Influencers IMO are leading plebs down a dark path they are not accurately explaining.
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
Blocks might have the same weight but one look at a block explorer shows that blocks are not the same size in terms of bytes:
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.
OP_RETURNs are not part of the UTXO set.
OP_RETURNs are not part of the UTXO set.
No they aren't... but someone can 'pretend' than an op_return creates a 'token' therefore 'pretending' that one op_return and lots of outputs... means lots of tokens. "Runes" memecoins do this but there are unlimited arbitrary possibilities.
Blocks might be the same size in terms of weight but one look at a block explorer shows that blocks are not the same size in terms of bytes:
Blocks are bigger due to the 'witness discount', witness data weighs less than transactional data
No they aren't... but someone can 'pretend' than an op_return creates a 'token' therefore 'pretending' that one op_return and lots of outputs... means lots of tokens. "Runes" memecoins do this but there are unlimited arbitrary possibilities.
Yeah, they can pretend but Bitcoin nodes do not care about Runes. It's just an unspendable script with an OP_RETURN and some unimportant data to them.
Blocks are bigger due to the 'witness discount', witness data weighs less than transactional data
Correct. This witness discount is exactly what inscriptions make use of, causing blocks to balloon up.
Yeah, they can pretend but Bitcoin nodes do not care about Runes. It's just an unspendable script with an OP_RETURN and some unimportant data to them.
Correct. That's why it's impossible to stop. Even if bip-110 were fully implemented and adopted... it wouldn't stop runes memecoins or any other arbitrary schemes for gambling on random data.
Bip-110 has an 83 byte op_return limit right? So it doesn't stop Runes at all
Bip-110 has an 83 byte op_return limit right? So it doesn't stop Runes at all
Fine by me. I don't see OP_RETURNs as the problem.
Inscriptions are the problem.
No. Neither are the problem.
The problem is the bloating of the UTXO set with dust.
If i created a 'metaprotocol' that says that ONE op_return plus 100 non-op_return outputs results in 100 "magic tokens"... and all the degens show up to gamble on that and bloat the UTXO set... creating millions of dust to "pretend" they have magic tokens...
That's an issue.
The solution?
It's not bip-110. It's higher fees from legitimate usage so that it's too expensive to gamble with. Bip-110 does NOT stop arbitrary data, or colored coins, or omnicoin or omnilayer or bloat from "runes" tokens or degens spamming op_return. It fixes none of those things.
FEES are the only thing that really stops spam IMO and fees result from actual usage and payments. I don't know why people think bip-110 is some sort of solution. I can come up with zillions of 'arbitrary schemes' for embedding data and gambling on it and this bip doesn't prevent any of them.
I agree that UTXO set bloat is causing problems for node runners now, but in the long run this should be solved by Utreexo.
And yes, higher fees discourage spam. But inscriptions benefit from a 75% witness discount. JPEGs on the chain are significantly cheaper than regular monetary transactions. That's a misalignment of incentives if I've ever seen one.
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.