Yes, sorry if I was unclear. The temporary restriction of 257 B is ultimately based on the size, which doesn't accommodate for that design ideal. It's a tradeoff until a better solution is implemented. While it might not be optimal in all cases to have 128 scripts, the fact remains that size/depth _allows for it_. (And 128 depth is still unrealistic, even if you don't like the script-count framing.) Luke On 10/4/25 19:12, jeremy wrote: > > - Limit taproot control block to 257 bytes (128 scripts max), or at > least way less than it currently is. 340e36 scripts is completely > unrealistic. > > > this is a misunderstanding of taptree's depth purpose, which is not to > bound the number of elements directly. > > It's a bound on the huffman encoding to optimize for on-chain cost > with many scripts and known likelihood of execution. > > So the right way to constrain taproot is by bounding the minimum > probability of script execution. E.g., if it's one-in-4 billion chance > of executing, then you'd need depth 32. > > 128 depth was chosen because if a branch is (2^128 -1)/2^128 unlikely > to execute, then it's negligibly likely, the same order of probability > as being able to e.g. brute force a key. > > On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 6:46:16 PM UTC-4 /dev /fd0 wrote: > > Hi Luke, > > > We can do these all together in a temporary softfork that > self-expires after a year or two. > > That sounds reasonable and it could work if we can agree on the > specifics of this proposal. As Jeremy also mentioned in his email, > we could set up an auto-renewing restriction lasting 1–2 years > with the option to remove it later if we decide we want to. > > /dev/fd0 > floppy disk guy > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 1:39 AM Luke Dashjr wrote: > > If we're going this route, we should just close all the gaps > for the immediate future: > > - Limit (new) scriptPubKeys to 83 bytes or less. 34 doesn't > seem terrible. UTXOs are a huge cost to nodes, we should > always keep them as small as possible. Anything else can be > hashed (if SHA256 is broken, we need a hardfork anyway). > > - Limit script data pushes to 256 bytes, with an exception for > BIP16 redeem scripts. > > - Make undefined witness/taproot versions invalid, including > the annex and OP_SUCCESS*. To make any legitimate usage of > them, we need a softfork anyway (see below about expiring this). > > - Limit taproot control block to 257 bytes (128 scripts max), > or at least way less than it currently is. 340e36 scripts is > completely unrealistic. > > - Make OP_IF invalid inside Tapscript. It should be > unnecessary with taproot, and has only(?) seen abuse. > > We can do these all together in a temporary softfork that > self-expires after a year or two. This would buy time to come > up with longer-term solutions, and observe how it impacts the > real world. Since it expires, other softforks making use of > upgradable mechanisms can just wait it out for those > mechanisms to become available again - therefore we basically > lose nothing. (This is intended to buy us time, not as a > permanent fix.) > > Alternatively, but much more complex, we could redesign the > block weight metric so the above limits could be exceeded, but > at a higher weight-per-byte; perhaps weigh data 25% more per > byte beyond the expected size. This could also be a temporary > softfork, perhaps with a rolling window, so future softforks > could be free to lower weights should they be needed. > > Another idea might be to increase the weight based on > coin-days-destroyed/coin-age, so rapid churn has a higher > feerate than occasional settlements. But this risks > encouraging UTXO bloat, so needs careful consideration to > proceed further. > > Happy to throw together a BIP and/or code if there's community > support for this. > > Luke > > > On 10/2/25 16:42, 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 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 >> * >> o Makes DoS blocks likely impossible to create that >> would have any sufficient negative impact on the network. >> o Leaves enough room for hooks long term >> o Would substantially reduce the divergence between >> consensus  and relay policy >> o Incredibly little use onchain as evidenced above. >> o 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. >> o Would make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a >> 'large' datacarrier. >> o Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction. >> >> * *Reasons Against * >> o Bitcoin could need it in the future? Quantum? >> o 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+...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/6f6b570f-7f9d-40c0-a771-378eb2c0c701n%40googlegroups.com >> . > -- > 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+...@googlegroups.com. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/001afe1d-0282-4c68-8b1c-ebcc778f57b0%40dashjr.org > . > > -- > 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/1e0f9843-0f08-4dea-b037-24df38bf8ed0n%40googlegroups.com > . -- 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/0585bba3-fb88-41d6-b86c-167774c14eb9%40dashjr.org.