-
@ D++
2025-05-03 04:08:07
Why I'm for loosening the OP_RETURN limits ⏎
- In practice, OP_RETURN is already unconstrained: see Carman's OP_RETURN bot or Portland's Slipstream.
- Encoding arbitrary data via OP_RETURN is far more responsible than doing so in witness data, as it's 4x more costly.
- OP_RETURNs are prunable and do not pollute the UTXO set, making them vastly preferable to faux outputs that burden every node indefinitely.
- Mining non-standard transactions that bypass mempools undermines decentralized transaction propagation, disrupts fee estimation, and increases block propagation latency (especially when compact block construction fails due to missing transactions).
- This latency disproportionately impacts smaller miners and encourages direct submission to large, well-connected players, widening the profitability gap and increasing centralization.
- Layer 2 protocols are especially sensitive to fee miscalculations, making transparent and measurable fee behavior essential to their reliability.
While I share the distaste many have expressed toward tokens, inscriptions, and BitVM (when used as a casino), I care deeply about minimizing harm to bitcoin’s base layer. Allowing larger, standardized OP_RETURNs is a pragmatic step in that direction.