pull down to refresh
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
Blocks might have the same weight but one look at a block explorer shows that blocks are not the same size in terms of bytes:
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.
OP_RETURNs are not part of the UTXO set.
OP_RETURNs are not part of the UTXO set.
No they aren't... but someone can 'pretend' than an op_return creates a 'token' therefore 'pretending' that one op_return and lots of outputs... means lots of tokens. "Runes" memecoins do this but there are unlimited arbitrary possibilities.
Blocks might be the same size in terms of weight but one look at a block explorer shows that blocks are not the same size in terms of bytes:
Blocks are bigger due to the 'witness discount', witness data weighs less than transactional data
No they aren't... but someone can 'pretend' than an op_return creates a 'token' therefore 'pretending' that one op_return and lots of outputs... means lots of tokens. "Runes" memecoins do this but there are unlimited arbitrary possibilities.
Yeah, they can pretend but Bitcoin nodes do not care about Runes. It's just an unspendable script with an OP_RETURN and some unimportant data to them.
Blocks are bigger due to the 'witness discount', witness data weighs less than transactional data
Correct. This witness discount is exactly what inscriptions make use of, causing blocks to balloon up.
Yeah, they can pretend but Bitcoin nodes do not care about Runes. It's just an unspendable script with an OP_RETURN and some unimportant data to them.
Correct. That's why it's impossible to stop. Even if bip-110 were fully implemented and adopted... it wouldn't stop runes memecoins or any other arbitrary schemes for gambling on random data.
Bip-110 has an 83 byte op_return limit right? So it doesn't stop Runes at all
Bip-110 has an 83 byte op_return limit right? So it doesn't stop Runes at all
Fine by me. I don't see OP_RETURNs as the problem.
Inscriptions are the problem.
No. Neither are the problem.
The problem is the bloating of the UTXO set with dust.
If i created a 'metaprotocol' that says that ONE op_return plus 100 non-op_return outputs results in 100 "magic tokens"... and all the degens show up to gamble on that and bloat the UTXO set... creating millions of dust to "pretend" they have magic tokens...
That's an issue.
The solution?
It's not bip-110. It's higher fees from legitimate usage so that it's too expensive to gamble with. Bip-110 does NOT stop arbitrary data, or colored coins, or omnicoin or omnilayer or bloat from "runes" tokens or degens spamming op_return. It fixes none of those things.
FEES are the only thing that really stops spam IMO and fees result from actual usage and payments. I don't know why people think bip-110 is some sort of solution. I can come up with zillions of 'arbitrary schemes' for embedding data and gambling on it and this bip doesn't prevent any of them.
I agree that UTXO set bloat is causing problems for node runners now, but in the long run this should be solved by Utreexo.
And yes, higher fees discourage spam. But inscriptions benefit from a 75% witness discount. JPEGs on the chain are significantly cheaper than regular monetary transactions. That's a misalignment of incentives if I've ever seen one.
Blocks aren't bloated due to inscriptions... maybe the UTXO set is, but not blocks themselves. Blocks are the same size.
And UTXO set bloat can and does occur with 10 byte op_returns (with bip-110 doesn't fix) so imo bip-110 changes nothing.