Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:51:28 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::32f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n@googlegroups.com>
 <842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n@googlegroups.com> <MH0kp4ehOxe8iikzhdxmFXM7GmIzpHGzGFujVeAdyUF_usOKf_CkToIBGSM2fB75TugGLsebVk8gM4OlS2VLHpGKIgmjkWDQuOwZeIr-F-E=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MH0kp4ehOxe8iikzhdxmFXM7GmIzpHGzGFujVeAdyUF_usOKf_CkToIBGSM2fB75TugGLsebVk8gM4OlS2VLHpGKIgmjkWDQuOwZeIr-F-E=@protonmail.com>
From: "/dev /fd0" <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 16:56:55 +0530
Message-ID: <CALiT-Zop43oiYxz1qaLm8RGZHOrd-_antFksY2VfgpzrKqPzCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Proposal] Limit ScriptPubkey Size >= 520
 Bytes Consensus.
To: moonsettler <moonsettler@protonmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b17fa906403f6113"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

--000000000000b17fa906403f6113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi moonsettler,

> People could just add many OP_RETURNs to a transaction, that makes it
more cumbersome and marginally more expensive.

This is exactly what I wrote in my email and I consider it a positive
thing. I think we are just looking at this proposal from different
perspectives.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:16=E2=80=AFPM moonsettler <moonsettler@protonmail.=
com>
wrote:

> Hi Floppy,
>
> There are only weak arguments for this proposal to extend to OP_RETURN, a=
t
> least nothing I would normally entertain;
> but also there are weak arguments to make an exception for OP_RETURN
> explicitly.
>
> People could just add many OP_RETURNs to a transaction, that makes it mor=
e
> cumbersome and marginally more expensive.
>
> BR,
> moonsettler
>
>
> On Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 10:58 AM, /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.co=
m>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi portlandhodl,
> >
> > We can't predict future usage, so it would be great if this was
> restricted to OP_RETURN. While there is no real use for a scriptPubKey
> larger than 520 bytes as shown in the data you shared, it is possible tha=
t
> users may create more OP_RETURN outputs after this change. It does not
> affect the UTXO set but will cost more and economically discourage the us=
e
> of multiple OP_RETURN outputs.
> >
> > /dev/fd0
> > floppy disk guy
> > On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 PortlandHODL =
wrote:
> >
> > > Proposing: Softfork to after (n) block height; the creation of
> outpoints with greater than 520 bytes in the ScriptPubkey would be
> consensus invalid.
> > >
> > > This is my gathering of information per BIP 0002
> > >
> > > After doing some research into the number of outpoints that would hav=
e
> violated the proposed rule there are exactly 169 outpoints. With only 8
> being non OP_RETURN. I think after 15 years and not having discovered use
> for 'large' ScriptPubkeys; the reward for not invalidating them at the
> consensus level is lower than the risk of their abuse.
> > >
> > > -   Reasons for
> > >     -   Makes DoS blocks likely impossible to create that would have
> any sufficient negative impact on the network.
> > >     -   Leaves enough room for hooks long term
> > >     -   Would substantially reduce the divergence between consensus
> and relay policy
> > >     -   Incredibly little use onchain as evidenced above.
> > >     -   Could possibly reduce codebase complexity. Legacy Script is
> largely considered a mess though this isn't a complete disablement it
> should reduce the total surface that is problematic.
> > >     -   Would make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a 'large'
> datacarrier.
> > >     -   Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction.
> > >
> > > -   Reasons Against
> > >     -   Bitcoin could need it in the future? Quantum?
> > >     -   Users could just create more outpoints.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > source of onchain data
> > >
> > > PortlandHODL
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d=
4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
CALiT-Zop43oiYxz1qaLm8RGZHOrd-_antFksY2VfgpzrKqPzCg%40mail.gmail.com.

--000000000000b17fa906403f6113
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi moonsettler,<div><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=A0People could =
just add many OP_RETURNs to a transaction, that makes it more cumbersome an=
d marginally more expensive.</div><div><br></div><div>

This is exactly what I wrote in my email and I consider it a positive thing=
. I think we are just looking at this proposal from different perspectives.

</div><div><br></div><div>/dev/fd0</div><div>floppy disk guy</div></div><br=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D=
"gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:16=E2=80=AFPM moonsettler &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:moonsettler@protonmail.com">moonsettler@protonmail.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0p=
x 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Floppy,=
<br>
<br>
There are only weak arguments for this proposal to extend to OP_RETURN, at =
least nothing I would normally entertain;<br>
but also there are weak arguments to make an exception for OP_RETURN explic=
itly.<br>
<br>
People could just add many OP_RETURNs to a transaction, that makes it more =
cumbersome and marginally more expensive.<br>
<br>
BR,<br>
moonsettler<br>
<br>
<br>
On Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 10:58 AM, /dev /fd0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:a=
licexbtong@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">alicexbtong@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br>
<br>
&gt; Hi portlandhodl,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; We can&#39;t predict future usage, so it would be great if this was re=
stricted to OP_RETURN. While there is no real use for a scriptPubKey larger=
 than 520 bytes as shown in the data you shared, it is possible that users =
may create more OP_RETURN outputs after this change. It does not affect the=
 UTXO set but will cost more and economically discourage the use of multipl=
e OP_RETURN outputs.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; /dev/fd0<br>
&gt; floppy disk guy<br>
&gt; On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 PortlandHODL=
 wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; Proposing: Softfork to after (n) block height; the creation of ou=
tpoints with greater than 520 bytes in the ScriptPubkey would be consensus =
invalid.<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; This is my gathering of information per BIP 0002<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; After doing some research into the number of outpoints that would=
 have violated the proposed rule there are exactly 169 outpoints. With only=
 8 being non OP_RETURN. I think after 15 years and not having discovered us=
e for &#39;large&#39; ScriptPubkeys; the reward for not invalidating them a=
t the consensus level is lower than the risk of their abuse.<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; -=C2=A0 =C2=A0Reasons for<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Makes DoS blocks likely impossib=
le to create that would have any sufficient negative impact on the network.=
<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Leaves enough room for hooks lon=
g term<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Would substantially reduce the d=
ivergence between consensus and relay policy<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Incredibly little use onchain as=
 evidenced above.<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Could possibly reduce codebase c=
omplexity. Legacy Script is largely considered a mess though this isn&#39;t=
 a complete disablement it should reduce the total surface that is problema=
tic.<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Would make it harder to use the =
ScriptPubkey as a &#39;large&#39; datacarrier.<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Possible UTXO set size bloat red=
uction.<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<br>
&gt; &gt; -=C2=A0 =C2=A0Reasons Against<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Bitcoin could need it in the fut=
ure? Quantum?<br>
&gt; &gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0-=C2=A0 =C2=A0Users could just create more out=
points.<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; Thoughts?<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; source of onchain data<br>
&gt; &gt; <br>
&gt; &gt; PortlandHODL<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro=
ups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=
 an email to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt; To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/m=
sgid/bitcoindev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitco=
indev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CALiT-Zop43oiYxz1qaLm8RGZHOrd-_antFksY2VfgpzrKqPzCg%40mail.gmail=
.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/ms=
gid/bitcoindev/CALiT-Zop43oiYxz1qaLm8RGZHOrd-_antFksY2VfgpzrKqPzCg%40mail.g=
mail.com</a>.<br />

--000000000000b17fa906403f6113--