Kostas Karasavvas [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-02-04 🗒️ Summary of this message: Increasing the ...

📅 Original date posted:2023-02-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: Increasing the size of OP_RETURN to support a hash, signature, and metadata would be helpful, but inscription-style use cases will still be primarily for larger datasets.
📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230204/c2c7730d/attachment.html>;