On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> I think the right way so people don't invent deviant things is to >> increase the size of OP_RETURN, I don't get this number of 80B, you can >> hardly store a signature (of what?) in there and not the "what" if the >> "what" is a hash for example >> > > Updating the size of OP_RETURN to support a hash (or two), a signature, > and maybe a few more bytes for metadata, would be very helpful in a number > of scenarios. It is still a limit but a reasonable one. Otherwise, I think > we'll have a lot more inscription-style scenarios. > I wouldn't be against an increase in OP_RETURN but I don't think it will make any difference in how often inscription-style use cases will be used. They will be used primarily for much larger datasets than, say 120 bytes, and they also have the segwit discount.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
