Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 15:49:41 -0700
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of moonsettler@protonmail.com designates 79.135.106.96 as permitted sender) client-ip=79.135.106.96;
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 22:47:38 +0000
To: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
From: "'moonsettler' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Cc: PortlandHODL <admin@qrsnap.io>, Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] [BIP Proposal] Limit ScriptPubkey Size >= 520 Bytes Consensus.
Message-ID: <FIpHCygrCyfUu_jNgLJumi-06nYm5P6rmUVc01R3SmhdMVbQo9-8Lyxbh5yGUPrHFQRtyYQ_RvgltQNuoulyXmdnuQSklTab_sM5X63FUs4=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aN76f2wKPHFcj8qt@mail.wpsoftware.net>
References: <6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n@googlegroups.com> <aN76f2wKPHFcj8qt@mail.wpsoftware.net>
Feedback-ID: 38540639:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Reply-To: moonsettler <moonsettler@protonmail.com>
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

Hi All,

Agreed, this is something we should consider.

> I would even suggest going lower than 520 bytes.

200 should be enough.

If this should apply to OP_RETURN (nulldata) or not, is something I can't make my mind up on.

BR,
moonsettler

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 12:31 AM, Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:42:06PM -0700, 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.
> 
> 
> Personally, I like this. Unlike restrictions on opcode behavior or
> witness data, it is impossible for there to be any existing UTXOs which
> "might turn out to need" scriptpubkeys greater than 520 bytes. In a
> post-covenant world I suppose this could change.
> 
> There is a risk of confiscation of coins which have pre-signed but
> unpublished transactions spending them to new outputs with large
> scriptPubKeys. Due to long-standing standardness rules, and the presence
> of P2SH (and now P2WSH) for well over a decade, I'm skeptical that any
> such transactions exist.
> 
> In any case, if confiscation is a worry, as always we can exempt the
> current UTXO set from the rule -- if you are only spending outputs that
> existed prior to the new rule, your new UTXOs are allowed to be large.
> 
> 
> I would even suggest going lower than 520 bytes.
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Poelstra
> Director, Blockstream Research
> Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
> Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
> 
> The sun is always shining in space
> -Justin Lewis-Webster
> 
> --
> 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/aN76f2wKPHFcj8qt%40mail.wpsoftware.net.

-- 
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/FIpHCygrCyfUu_jNgLJumi-06nYm5P6rmUVc01R3SmhdMVbQo9-8Lyxbh5yGUPrHFQRtyYQ_RvgltQNuoulyXmdnuQSklTab_sM5X63FUs4%3D%40protonmail.com.