Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 01:58:55 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 18:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n@googlegroups.com>
References: <6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Proposal] Limit ScriptPubkey Size >= 520 Bytes Consensus.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_27574_1744206277.1759454478764"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_27574_1744206277.1759454478764
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_27575_56320201.1759454478764"

------=_Part_27575_56320201.1759454478764
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi portlandhodl,

We can't predict future usage, so it would be great if this was restricted=
=20
to OP_RETURN. While there is no real use for a scriptPubKey larger than 520=
=20
bytes as shown in the data you shared, it is possible that users may create=
=20
more OP_RETURN outputs after this change. It does not affect the UTXO set=
=20
but will cost more and economically discourage the use of multiple=20
OP_RETURN outputs.=20

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 PortlandHODL wrot=
e:

> Proposing: Softfork to after (n) block height; the creation of outpoints=
=20
> with greater than 520 bytes in the ScriptPubkey would be consensus invali=
d.=20
>
> This is my gathering of information per BIP 0002
>
> After doing some research into the number of outpoints that would have=20
> violated the proposed rule there are exactly 169 outpoints. With only 8=
=20
> being non OP_RETURN. I think after 15 years and not having discovered use=
=20
> for 'large' ScriptPubkeys; the reward for not invalidating them at the=20
> consensus level is lower than the risk of their abuse.=20
>
>    -=20
> *Reasons for *
>       - Makes DoS blocks likely impossible to create that would have any=
=20
>       sufficient negative impact on the network.
>       - Leaves enough room for hooks long term
>       - Would substantially reduce the divergence between consensus  and=
=20
>       relay policy
>       - Incredibly little use onchain as evidenced above.
>       - Could possibly reduce codebase complexity. Legacy Script is=20
>       largely considered a mess though this isn't a complete disablement =
it=20
>       should reduce the total surface that is problematic.
>       - Would make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a 'large'=20
>       datacarrier.
>       - Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction.
>      =20
>       - *Reasons Against *
>       - Bitcoin could need it in the future? Quantum?
>       - Users could just create more outpoints.
>   =20
> Thoughts?
>
> source of onchain data =20
> <https://github.com/portlandhodl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubke=
ys.csv>
>
> PortlandHODL
>
>

--=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/=
842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_27575_56320201.1759454478764
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi portlandhodl,<br /><br />


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 that users may creat=
e more OP_RETURN outputs after this change.=20

It does not affect the UTXO set but will cost more and economically discour=
age the use of multiple OP_RETURN outputs.

<br /><div><br /></div><div>/dev/fd0<br />floppy disk guy<br /><br /></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Friday=
, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 PortlandHODL wrote:<br/></=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-=
left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">Proposing: Softfork=
 to after (n) block height; the creation of outpoints with greater than 520=
 bytes in the ScriptPubkey would be consensus invalid. <br><br>This is my g=
athering of information per BIP 0002<br><br>After doing some research into =
the number of outpoints that would have violated the proposed rule there ar=
e exactly 169 outpoints. With only 8 being non OP_RETURN. I think after 15 =
years and not having discovered use for &#39;large&#39; ScriptPubkeys; the =
reward for not invalidating them at the consensus level is lower than the r=
isk of their abuse.=C2=A0<br><ul><li><b>Reasons for<br></b><ul><li>Makes Do=
S blocks likely impossible to create that would have any sufficient negativ=
e 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 onchain as evidenced above.<=
/li><li>Could possibly reduce codebase complexity. Legacy Script is largely=
 considered a mess though this isn&#39;t a complete disablement it should r=
educe the total surface that is problematic.</li><li>Would make it harder t=
o use the ScriptPubkey as a &#39;large&#39; datacarrier.</li><li>Possible U=
TXO 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? Quantum?<br></li><li=
>Users could just create more outpoints.</li></ul></li></ul>Thoughts?<br><b=
r><a href=3D"https://github.com/portlandhodl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater=
_520_pubkeys.csv" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" data-saferedirecturl=
=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=3Den&amp;q=3Dhttps://github.com/portlandh=
odl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubkeys.csv&amp;source=3Dgmail&amp;u=
st=3D1759539247538000&amp;usg=3DAOvVaw0UYKjSqXjBPcRtmeVK0RCP">source of onc=
hain data=C2=A0</a><br><br>PortlandHODL<br><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/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind=
ev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_27575_56320201.1759454478764--

------=_Part_27574_1744206277.1759454478764--