JackTheMimic13d agoI feel like we have gotten off on the wrong exit. OP_RETURN is a testing code that should have never been made standard in 2014. The sole problem of OP_RETURN and Annex are data storage burden. I admit with Moore's Law, it is likely not a storage issue. My contention is that processing, bandwidth and RAM do not adhere to Moore's.
Both OP_RETURN and Annex increase the bandwidth necessary for expedient download. Especially with future low end hardware.
To be clear, I find BIP 110 wanting.
- My approach would be to modularize the reference code into about 5-6 manageable chunks instead of the monolithic codebase it is today. With node policy, consensus, the Bitcoin spec, and peer logic, so on as separate modules independent but adhering to the same spec.
- Remove OP_RETURN standardness
- Remove the witness discount
- Review the BIP 341 OP_codes
With that, spam would simply pay for their data usage and ACTUALLY compete on level ground with simple transactions. (Instead of at a 1/4 weight discount)
💬 1 replies
Thread context
Root: 0c1f266cd15c…
Replying to: e488035c7c15…
Replies (1)
Rusty Russell13d agoYou don't understand. There are no rulers. You cannot prevent people doing stupid things. This is fundamental, and hardest to emotionally grasp.
You can, however, use existing incentives to minimize the damage to the system. That's why OP_RETURN is standard: people used to embed data in outputs, which have to be stored forever and be available for fast lookup. OP_RETURN is straight harm prevention. Luke used the coinbase input to embed prayers, which has the same effect, but you have to be a miner.
The only strong incentive is fees. That's unvarnished capitalism, which has the benefit of being *simple* and *distributed*, but it's not *fair*. Assholes with more money than me are a real problem! But not one we know how to solve in a decentralized system.
000