pull down to refresh

What makes a UTXO unprunable? Which projects are making unprunable UTXOs?
52 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 17h
The UTXO set represents all spendable pieces of Bitcoin. A fullnode must have all UTXOs in order to be able to validate transactions. If some nodes were to discard some UTXOs and these UTXOs later get spent in a transaction, the network would fork as some nodes follow the blockchain in which the coins get spent and others would start forming an alternative chaintip.
There have been several cases of "blockchain graffiti" in which messages were left in pubkey hashes, and counterparty/Stamps deliberately used 1-of-3 bare multisig outputs to store data in two of the public keys (leaving the UTXO spendable per the third key). Recently, Citrea announced that they would store some data in pubkey hashes to embed non-malleable data in transactions with timely confirmation. A part of the motivation for dropping the OP_RETURN limit is that some consider it harm reduction to allow OP_RETURN payloads of 100 bytes instead of Citrea forging ahead with writing permanently to the UTXO set.
reply
What makes a UTXO unprunable?
Any non-zero unspent transaction output that is not provably unspendable.
An output script starting with OP_RETURN is provably unspendable, so it can be pruned.
But an output with a fake public key or fake script hash (such as produced by STAMPS) is unspendable, but that's not always obvious. Thus these outputs must be retained in the UTXO set. These are the most harmful ones.
reply
31 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 17h
Mostly right, but…
Any non-zero unspent transaction output that is not provably unspendable.
…UTXOs are allowed to have an amount of 0 per consensus rules, the dust limit is also just a mempool policy.
reply
Are you saying that zero amount UTXOs are retained in the UTXO set?
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 16h
Yes, it is consensus-valid to create and spend UTXOs with an amount of 0. Therefore, any full node must retain them to not potentially be forked off the network.
reply