pull down to refresh
182 sats \ 10 replies \ @k00b 5 Aug 2023 \ on: Remove arbitrary restrictions on OP_RETURN by default by petertodd bitcoin
While I don't like arbitrary data being stored on bitcoin, it seems like people are going to do it anyway.
Most objections suggest this invites more arbitrary storage. If everyone is already at the party, sending out more invitations isn't going to make it worse. Is everyone already at the party though?
The biggest reason I see for accepting this is that OP_RETURN outputs are unspendable and can be pruned.
Stampchains are a much nastier way of storing data since they use bare multisig outputs which as far as I know can't be pruned and thus also pollute the UTXO set. OP_RETURN would be the lesser evil of the two.
reply
I don't buy this logic that somehow we must appease bare multisig trolls with another open door / vector, to incentivize them to close their window a bit in exchange.
There's no guarantees that would be the case. The opposite could be true, especially when you look at who is advocating for this loosening of the default policy.
reply
disagree with this logic. opening up another vector for storing data onchain just allows for super special stamp-ordinal-bullshit grift to be re-introduced.
this will not reduce spam. it may increase it.
reply
I never said it would reduce spam.
reply
well at the very least you stated it wouldn't make it worse since everyone is already at the party, which i disagree with. This can start a new party next door, where people from the old party just move to this one for novelty sake, and you get the whole phenomenon happening all over again with the same degens in a new frat house.
reply
We don't meaningfully disagree. I said it wouldn't make it worse if everyone is already at the party. If everyone is at the party it's not clear to me this increases degeneracy.
I don't have a dog in this fight.
Is everyone already at the party though?
The whole argument for or against this change depends on this question imo and I think it's reasonable to assume everyone is not at the party.
Also to inject more nuance (... continuing to not have an opinion one way or another), in some cases prohibiting something increases the number of people doing it.
reply
All fair. but in my experience, prohibition has more blowback if that prohibition comes post a phenomenon.
this current prohibition/limit has been in place for years, prior the current phenomenon, and for good reason(s) that I'm not sure have ceased yet.
there's other dynamics too. fucking icebergs man.
reply
Such a change would just further legitimize arbitrary data storage on-chain, and put a win on the board for a dev who is increasingly hostile towards the original goals of Bitcoin.
reply
It would legitimize it. I agree. But prohibiting it isn't working, right?
put a win on the board for a dev who is increasingly hostile towards the original goals of Bitcoin.
Who is the dev?
reply
deleted by author
reply