zforce on Nostr: You’re conflating a few different things together, which is ok, but let me explain ...
You’re conflating a few different things together, which is ok, but let me explain why some of that is wrong.
‘OP_RETURN’ is a script which was made into a standard output type a long time ago in Bitcoin Core. It allows users to append data to unspendable transaction outputs. There is debate around how much data should be allowed (hence 40 bytes) but this isn’t directly related to inscriptions themselves.
The transaction size doesn’t really matter in regard to inscriptions or whether a transaction is valid or not, as long as it pays to be included in the block and is mined.
Aside from the fact that inscriptions couldn’t be prevented with changes to OP_Return data size limits, why would any miners or node runners want to implement them? Miners generally want to maximize the amount of Bitcoin they can earn, which means that they will include any valid, fee paying transactions in a block, typically prioritizing the ones which will pay the most. That’s the core of what makes Bitcoin so censorship resistant. What incentive is there for miners to disallow tons of valid, high fee transactions?
In my opinion, there’s no issue. If people want to pay 100,000 sats to inscribe, let them. If Bitcoin is as successful as I think it will be (sat/cent parity at a minimum) then that transaction will one day be $1,000 (100,000 sats = $1,000). There will be much less wasteful use of blockspace at those prices and with that level of demand. Paying $7 for a BRC20 token is much more appealing than $1,000 and these people will run out of Bitcoin.
Oh, plus all the Bitcoin they spent makes Bitcoin stronger. So they can HFSP, while we HFHB (have fun hashing blocks).
‘OP_RETURN’ is a script which was made into a standard output type a long time ago in Bitcoin Core. It allows users to append data to unspendable transaction outputs. There is debate around how much data should be allowed (hence 40 bytes) but this isn’t directly related to inscriptions themselves.
The transaction size doesn’t really matter in regard to inscriptions or whether a transaction is valid or not, as long as it pays to be included in the block and is mined.
Aside from the fact that inscriptions couldn’t be prevented with changes to OP_Return data size limits, why would any miners or node runners want to implement them? Miners generally want to maximize the amount of Bitcoin they can earn, which means that they will include any valid, fee paying transactions in a block, typically prioritizing the ones which will pay the most. That’s the core of what makes Bitcoin so censorship resistant. What incentive is there for miners to disallow tons of valid, high fee transactions?
In my opinion, there’s no issue. If people want to pay 100,000 sats to inscribe, let them. If Bitcoin is as successful as I think it will be (sat/cent parity at a minimum) then that transaction will one day be $1,000 (100,000 sats = $1,000). There will be much less wasteful use of blockspace at those prices and with that level of demand. Paying $7 for a BRC20 token is much more appealing than $1,000 and these people will run out of Bitcoin.
Oh, plus all the Bitcoin they spent makes Bitcoin stronger. So they can HFSP, while we HFHB (have fun hashing blocks).