On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 06:21:18PM -0700, /dev /fd0 wrote: > > We can't predict future usage,
Aside from proof-of-publication (i.e. data storage directly in the UTXO set) there is no usage of script which can't be equally (or better) accomplished by using a Segwit v0 or Taproot script. > so it would be great if this was restricted > to OP_RETURN. While there is no real use for a scriptPubKey larger than 520 > bytes as shown in the data you shared, it is possible that users may create > more OP_RETURN outputs after this change. It does not affect the UTXO set > but will cost more and economically discourage the use of multiple > OP_RETURN outputs. > Restricting it to OP_RETURN would have zero effect on people trying to use scriptpubkeys for data storage. They would switch to any of the 65 or so other OP_RETURN equivalents, and failing that, switch to OP_RESERVED, then to OP_FALSE, then to `0 1 EQVERIFY`, and so on. A restriction that applies specifically to OP_RETURN outputs is no restriction at all. -- Andrew Poelstra Director, Blockstream Research Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew The sun is always shining in space -Justin Lewis-Webster -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/aN_Wz5YbZ9NieQu0%40mail.wpsoftware.net.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
