pull down to refresh
1568 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 19h \ parent \ on: Quick questions about OP_RETURN? Quick answers here. bitcoin
Generally, a configuration option should be provided when one can provide recommendations when the configuration option should be used and how it should be adjusted. Historically, it looks like the vast majority of Bitcoin Core nodes use the default configuration. When at least about 10% of nodes accept a transaction, it propagates somewhat reliably to all nodes in the network that accept them.
This means that if the default configuration for the OP_RETURN limit were raised or removed altogether, such transactions would soon after the release reliably propagate and, perhaps a little later, also get mined by a larger proportion of the block authors. Node operators setting a lower limit would do so at their detriment: they would download the transactions after an announcement from their peers, reject adding it to their mempool, then download the same transactions again when a block includes them, incurring increased bandwidth and extra latency on the updating to the latest chain tip.
Some proponents of the increased limit argue that the configuration option should not have been added in the first place, as it is ineffective to locally configure a different limit, and that the configuration option is even less useful after dropping the limit. Other contributors argue that setting a lower limit only harms the node operator, and removing the configuration option takes away control needlessly.
With all due respect, I don't think you've answered the question.
Your make valid points for the justification of the increase in the limit and explain that individual nodes may be harming themselves, default settings are the norm and the transactions will be propagated anyway. You've even pointed out that the ability to configure this setting was debated anyway and some consider that it shouldn't have been added.
But the question asks something different, something I am wondering also. As a sovereign node runner in an open permissionless network, why does this PR propose to remove the ability for me to configure the mempool settings on my own node?
If I make a decision that harms myself and doesn't make any difference to the propagation of transactions, isn't that for me to decide and bear the consequences of?
It's like re-using addresses, commonly accepted as poor for privacy but there is no rule in the protocol that permits it. It's up to me to understand and accept the consequences.
reply