Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake

[Ferib]

Concept ACK.

I support removing arbitrary limits on Core.  Sometime, people need to acknowledge that the nature of Bitcoin is to be a permissionless network, where information can be embedded in many forms, and trying to stifle all of them creates more problems than it solves.  For example, the Ordinals could be implemented far more efficiently if certain limits were removed, than by bloating the chain with UTXO dust that will remain unspent forever.

I don't think I agree on this. Yes, Bitcoin must be a permissionless network. But no, I don't think any arbitrary should be embedded.

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can do some complex things like Discreet Log Contract. But people would argue that more complex network like Ethereum L2's or even IPFS are much better solution for data storage. I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage. I don't think Bitcoin was designed for this purpose as on-chain data/bloat as we can see in the blockchain trillema

[nutildah]

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network.

There are several legit projects that use OP_RETURN to store data:

 - any type of transaction radio broadcast service, like Blockstream Satellite
 - OpenTimestamps by Peter Todd
 - the Liquid Network uses it to embed commitment data

It seems it was standardized in Bitcoin Core 0.9 as a reaction to a small trend of stuffing data in UTXOs back in 2013. So really not much has changed in this regard, only the scale of the UTXO data bloat, which is now much larger.

Fun fact: Eligius mining pool (now Ocean) was the first pool to accept OP_RETURN transactions pre-0.9.

[tromp]

I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage. I don't think Bitcoin was designed for this purpose as on-chain data/bloat as we can see in the blockchain trillema

Monero is far more bloated than Bitcoin; its transactions are bloated, its PoW is bloated, but worst of all, its UTXO set is completely bloated, as nothing is ever recognized as spent [1].

[1] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html

[ABCbits]

Concept ACK.

I support removing arbitrary limits on Core.  Sometime, people need to acknowledge that the nature of Bitcoin is to be a permissionless network, where information can be embedded in many forms, and trying to stifle all of them creates more problems than it solves.  For example, the Ordinals could be implemented far more efficiently if certain limits were removed, than by bloating the chain with UTXO dust that will remain unspent forever.

I don't think I agree on this. Yes, Bitcoin must be a permissionless network. But no, I don't think any arbitrary should be embedded.

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can do some complex things like Discreet Log Contract. But people would argue that more complex network like Ethereum L2's or even IPFS are much better solution for data storage. I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage. I don't think Bitcoin was designed for this purpose as on-chain data/bloat as we can see in the blockchain trillema

While i agree it would be great if people use something else to store their arbitrary data, there are people who still choose Bitcoin despite being more costly. It have been proven that Ordinal and BRC-20 is more popular than solution offered by various Bitcoin sidechain/L2. Monero isn't flawless either in this case, due to TX_EXTRA field on Monero TX,

[nutildah]

Monero isn't flawless either in this case, due to TX_EXTRA field on Monero TX,

That's true. I forgot to mention that there is something called Mordinals that does exactly that. It is tremendously unpopular, however, because you can't actually transfer ownership of a Mordinal. It also led to Monero devs introducing TX_EXTRA field limits in late 2023.

[Ferib]

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network.

There are several legit projects that use OP_RETURN to store data:

 - any type of transaction radio broadcast service, like Blockstream Satellite
 - OpenTimestamps by Peter Todd
 - the Liquid Network uses it to embed commitment data

It seems it was standardized in Bitcoin Core 0.9 as a reaction to a small trend of stuffing data in UTXOs back in 2013. So really not much has changed in this regard, only the scale of the UTXO data bloat, which is now much larger.

Fun fact: Eligius mining pool (now Ocean) was the first pool to accept OP_RETURN transactions pre-0.9.

Yes, there may be "legit" projects with good intentions. But why can't they just push that stuff into a L2 and push only a small commitment on-chain? Wouldn't that make chain more efficient at doing what it was supposed to do, transacting coins, while also inheriting the strengths of Bitcoin?

I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage. I don't think Bitcoin was designed for this purpose as on-chain data/bloat as we can see in the blockchain trillema

Monero is far more bloated than Bitcoin; its transactions are bloated, its PoW is bloated, but worst of all, its UTXO set is completely bloated, as nothing is ever recognized as spent [1].

[1] https://phyro.github.io/grinvestigation/why_grin.html

Thanks for pointing this out, I am aware that the crypto behind Monero is indeed much more bloated but I guess that is the price to pay for on-chain privacy?

Concept ACK.

I support removing arbitrary limits on Core.  Sometime, people need to acknowledge that the nature of Bitcoin is to be a permissionless network, where information can be embedded in many forms, and trying to stifle all of them creates more problems than it solves.  For example, the Ordinals could be implemented far more efficiently if certain limits were removed, than by bloating the chain with UTXO dust that will remain unspent forever.

I don't think I agree on this. Yes, Bitcoin must be a permissionless network. But no, I don't think any arbitrary should be embedded.

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can do some complex things like Discreet Log Contract. But people would argue that more complex network like Ethereum L2's or even IPFS are much better solution for data storage. I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage. I don't think Bitcoin was designed for this purpose as on-chain data/bloat as we can see in the blockchain trillema

While i agree it would be great if people use something else to store their arbitrary data, there are people who still choose Bitcoin despite being more costly. It have been proven that Ordinal and BRC-20 is more popular than solution offered by various Bitcoin sidechain/L2. Monero isn't flawless either in this case, due to TX_EXTRA field on Monero TX,

I think we have yet to see a good Bitcoin L2 as I can't imagine Bitcoin's BRC-20/Runes being anything close to the performance (and therefore adoption) of existing EVM-like chains. I think most users enjoy tokenized Bitcoins on already-existing EVM-like L1/L2's with a rich eco-system of apps.

TIL TX_EXTRA also allows for arbitrary data, cool

[tromp]

Thanks for pointing this out, I am aware that the crypto behind Monero is indeed much more bloated but I guess that is the price to pay for on-chain privacy?

You can get similar privacy on a Mimblewimble chain with widespread use of CoinSwap [1], which not only doesn't pay any bloating price, but actually reduces historical tx footprints fourfold.

[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/scalability-vs-privacy-chart/8114

[Satofan44]

I don't think I agree on this. Yes, Bitcoin must be a permissionless network. But no, I don't think any arbitrary should be embedded.

I think the OP_RETURN and other various techniques are simply a flaw in the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can do some complex things like Discreet Log Contract. But people would argue that more complex network like Ethereum L2's or even IPFS are much better solution for data storage.

Just because you think this that doesn't validate your opinion in any way. Unless you have a solution to this problem, your opinion is practically worthless. If you spend more time reading about this topic you will see that there are no ways to prevent arbitrary embedding. If we removed OP_RETURN fully on a consensus level this would lead to embedding of data in ways that are much worse.

I think Monero is peak Bitcoin in the way that it is a p2p digital cash system without all these "flaws" that Bitcoin have, which allow for data storage.

Monero has many flaws of its own, the only benefit that it has is the transaction privacy. Don't exaggerate, especially not when it almost underwent a successful 51% attack.

Yes, there may be "legit" projects with good intentions. But why can't they just push that stuff into a L2 and push only a small commitment on-chain? Wouldn't that make chain more efficient at doing what it was supposed to do, transacting coins, while also inheriting the strengths of Bitcoin?

You can tell them to do it and if they say No, what are you going to do about it? You said it yourself Bitcoin must be a permissionless network but at the same time you want to dictate to others how they should do things. These 2 stances are not compatible, and in any case no attacker will listen to you.

[d5000]

Yes, there may be "legit" projects with good intentions. But why can't they just push that stuff into a L2 and push only a small commitment on-chain?

Because the value of a NFT is not based on that logic. It is based on qualities like "status" and "scarcity". Also long term security may play a role.

Status can be achieved in storing the data on the blockchain with the highest reputation - Bitcoin. The "OG" chain, as some NFT folks advertised their stuff. And Bitcoin has also the most reliable long term security. There are NFT projects on Solana or Dogecoin too, but how do you know if these chains still exist in 20 or even 10 years?

Heck, the Stampchain protocol advertises itself as "unpruneable". So they are proud of the damage and additional cost they create for node operators.

And the scarcity aspect is based on the theory that NFTs on a chain with high transaction fees will not be created that often than on low-fee chains or L2s. There are lots of NFTs on Doge and LTC too, but nobody talks about them, they're probably worthless now that the NFT market has generally crashed.

This is the mindset of the NFT folks. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to stop them as several methods can't be simply filtered, as it was said several times in the related threads.

There is even a method to store arbitrary data in private keys (no, that's not a typo, it's even more uncensorable than NFTs in public keys). This could even work on a chain like Grin, I think. Or does Grin include some magic that doesn't allow users to use weak cryptography?

It all boils down at the end that OP_RETURN is the least problematic way to store data and thus, in theory, should be encouraged to be used to replace other methods.

Why would there be? it's simply just *worked*, at least for almost anyone with a node that accepted inbounds, since before the start of this dumb debate.

I had expected some spammer to try to create some kind of novel NFT concept selling the idea to be "the first" "officially allowed" OP_RETURN based NFTs. Or some weird anti-NFT fanatics spamming the blockchain. But fortunately it looks I was wrong, until now

[gmaxwell]

Good podcast on the subject: https://x.com/hellmoneypod/status/1978476389536858204

[Satofan44]

Good podcast on the subject: https://x.com/hellmoneypod/status/1978476389536858204

It's also available on other platforms, here's the episode on YouTube. I like many of the points that they touched upon. People need to constantly be reminded of the following: You do not need to have an opinion on everything. Many topics are going to be beyond your abilities or knowledge. There's even a terrific comment on the YouTube video.

So after crusading against core because he thinks it will allow CSAM on the blockchain, his solution will involve him staring at all the Csam In perpetuity to filter it out.

However, they are definitely underestimating the percentiles though. People who understand the situation regarding OP RETURN correctly are somewhere in the 95 to 99 percentile in terms of technical knowledge, probably closer to 99. I've encountered very few people that understand the issue even after receiving explanations several times and in different ways. When the user distribution is like this, it is very easy to capitalize on it through misinformation. It is the same tactic that they used during the fork wars to scam people to buy the Btrash shitcoin.

[tvbcof]

Good podcast on the subject: https://x.com/hellmoneypod/status/1978476389536858204

It's also available on other platforms, here's the episode on YouTube. I like many of the points that they touched upon. People need to constantly be reminded of the following: You do not need to have an opinion on everything. Many topics are going to be beyond your abilities or knowledge. There's even a terrific comment on the YouTube video.
...

I had to bite the bullet and research this thing for a week or two (off and on) because I've been away from Bitcoin since the blocksize stuff.  It took a bit of focus, and I also had somewhat orthogonal views back in the old days which, when dredged up, certainly helped me conclude that the so-called 'core' position made the most sense.  Again, Maxwell's (and other's) willingness to take the time he/they did on this thread was a big help to me.

The interesting take-away for me was that it seems the 'bad guys' cranking out spam code are in the higher wrungs of those who understand technically and from a systems analysis level, AND care about Bitcoin in the way that I did early on.  Very valuable participants in the ecosystem IMHO.  That sentiment certainly does not extend to most of the people who actually _use_ the spam developments (though perhaps I'll dabble with them myself for shits-n-giggles one of these days when I have nothing better to do.)

[d5000]

Before it gets buried in the 20000 pages: In the Wall Observer the topic has recently being "rediscovered".

cAPSLOCK has created an exhaustive list with arguments from both sides, including everything (also completely crazy or irrelevant ones) in this post.

If somebody is interested, I have responded here to some of the arguments (except those that are totally irrelevant for the debate).

[tromp]

There is even a method to store arbitrary data in private keys (no, that's not a typo, it's even more uncensorable than NFTs in public keys). This could even work on a chain like Grin, I think. Or does Grin include some magic that doesn't allow users to use weak cryptography?

No; the magic in Grin doesn't stretch into the impossible (which I think banning weak keys is).
Storing arbitrary data in private keys is the only known way to get a third-decent spam rate in Grin [1].

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559008.msg65827139#msg65827139

[Satofan44]

There is even a method to store arbitrary data in private keys (no, that's not a typo, it's even more uncensorable than NFTs in public keys). This could even work on a chain like Grin, I think. Or does Grin include some magic that doesn't allow users to use weak cryptography?

No; the magic in Grin doesn't stretch into the impossible (which I think banning weak keys is).
Storing arbitrary data in private keys is the only known way to get a third-decent spam rate in Grin [1].

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559008.msg65827139#msg65827139

In conclusion, there is no way to fully prevent spam and ensure that Bitcoin is only a peer-to-peer cash protocol. The magic of information technology. I think a lot of people have a hard time accepting this, even if we demonstrate it to them with these arguments they still refuse to accept it or they try to ignore it. In regards to the "only known way" part, I said something that relates to that:

I don't like the spam but the only real solution would be to change to a protocol like Grin's where the types of transactions are extremely restricted. No Lightning, no sidechains, no contracts, no decentralized swaps ...

This is what you would have to do and it probably would still not work. It is just that Grin is not that interesting or relevant for someone to figure out other ways a way to store data there too (yet). Should we keep removing things from Bitcoin in a desperate attempt to stop the unavoidable? Even if we introduced a centralized transaction review committee, it would be still possible to obfuscate data into transactions in ways that would get approval by the review board. So what should people do? Whine and yell that doomsday is coming or accept that this is how information technology has always worked?

If we turned Bitcoin into Grin I am sure many new ways would be found in the near future.

[tromp]

Storing arbitrary data in private keys is the only known way to get a third-decent spam rate in Grin [1].
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5559008.msg65827139#msg65827139

If we turned Bitcoin into Grin I am sure many new ways would be found in the near future.

Let me offer a modest bounty of $256 for a substantially better way than outlined in [1], such as a Grin spam rate >= 40% with similar decoding cost.

[fillippone]

For those who were not in Lugano, I am posting here a debate about the topic here:



There were some heated exchanges between Luke and Peter.
Hopefully, it will help more people to have an opinion about this.

[Wind_FURY]

For those who were not in Lugano, I am posting here a debate about the topic here:



There were some heated exchanges between Luke and Peter.
Hopefully, it will help more people to have an opinion about this.

The video is eight hours long, can you give us the timestamp in where Peter and Luke started debating?

Plus to start the conversation, could you give us the context or a short summary of Peter and Luke's debate? Your opinion on the matter would also be appreciated. 👍

We can't expect people to post an eight hour video and start debating.

[NABiT]

For those who were not in Lugano, I am posting here a debate about the topic here:



There were some heated exchanges between Luke and Peter.
Hopefully, it will help more people to have an opinion about this.

The video is eight hours long, can you give us the timestamp in where Peter and Luke started debating?

The link goes straight to it, at least it did when I clicked on it.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I’ll be sticking with Core, I am running version 29.0 but will hold off from upgrading to 30.0 for now just incase anything unexpected happens.

The Core devs have never let us down. I know we should always, Don’t trust, verify etc but I was obviously here for the fork wars and I thought it was obvious then who the sound minds were and which side to be on.

I’m not sure if I trust Luke Dash Jr, he seems a bit eccentric and unpredictable. I will gladly take his fork coins if they decide to fork off.

High fees and all that Ordinals BS was very frustrating, network congestion was annoying but Bitcoin still worked as designed, tick tock next block, every 10-20 minutes. If that’s the worst it can get with 30.0 onwards then I will take the chance.