Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 14:59:31 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 13:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: PortlandHODL <admin@qrsnap.io>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Limit ScriptPubkey Size >= 520 Bytes Consensus.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_540_1866751492.1759437726892"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_540_1866751492.1759437726892
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_541_616318533.1759437726892"

------=_Part_541_616318533.1759437726892
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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 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 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  
<https://github.com/portlandhodl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubkeys.csv>

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/6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_541_616318533.1759437726892
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Proposing: Softfork to after (n) block height; the creation of outpoints wi=
th greater than 520 bytes in the ScriptPubkey would be consensus invalid. <=
br /><br />This is my gathering of information per BIP 0002<br /><br />Afte=
r 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 O=
P_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.=C2=A0<br /><ul><li><b>Reasons for<br=
 /></b><ul><li>Makes DoS blocks likely impossible to create that would have=
 any sufficient negative impact on the network.</li><li>Leaves enough room =
for hooks long term<br /></li><li>Would substantially reduce the divergence=
 between consensus=C2=A0 and relay policy</li><li>Incredibly little use onc=
hain as evidenced above.</li><li>Could possibly reduce codebase complexity.=
 Legacy Script is largely considered a mess though this isn't a complete di=
sablement it should reduce the total surface that is problematic.</li><li>W=
ould make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a 'large' datacarrier.</li><=
li>Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction.<br /><br /></li></ul></li><li><b=
>Reasons Against=C2=A0</b><ul><li>Bitcoin could need it in the future? Quan=
tum?<br /></li><li>Users could just create more outpoints.</li></ul></li></=
ul>Thoughts?<br /><br /><a href=3D"https://github.com/portlandhodl/portland=
hodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubkeys.csv">source of onchain data=C2=A0</a><br=
 /><br />PortlandHODL<br /><br />

<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/6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind=
ev/6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_541_616318533.1759437726892--

------=_Part_540_1866751492.1759437726892--