From: Guus Ellenkamp <guus@activediscovery•net>
To: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: [BIP Proposal] Limit ScriptPubkey Size >= 520 Bytes Consensus.
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2025 17:59:36 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <83c68b1f-7b92-4a28-a79a-02d56eff2c84@activediscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aN_2qZzAu9gxa1h0@erisian.com.au>
If there are really so few OP_RETURN outputs more than 144 bytes, then
why increase the limit if that change is so controversial? It seems
people who want to use a larger OP_RETURN size do it anyway, even with
the current default limits.
On 10/4/25 00:15, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2025 at 02:59:32PM +0000, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
>> If "it's cheaper to use witness data" were enough of a barrier, nobody
>> would be using OP_RETURN outputs today except for opentimestamps and
>> maybe some other super-low-load applications.
> It isn't chepaer to use witness data until you're publishing more than
> ~143 bytes of data, due to the overhead of the setup transaction. (It's
> also not cheaper if you want extremely easy proof of publication of
> the data)
>
> Excluding the couple of months between the topic of increasing the
> OP_RETURN limit was raised on this list and the increased limit was
> merged into Bitcoin Core master, there have, in fact, been very few
> OP_RETURN outputs generated that are above the ~143B size. In particular,
> between blocks 900k and 915,843 I get:
>
> 15,003,149 total OP_RETURN outputs
> 131 OP_RETURN outputs larger than 83 bytes
> 81 OP_RETURN outputs of 144 bytes or more
> 19,707 OP_RETURN outputs with non-zero value
>
> cf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33453#issuecomment-3341177765
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
--
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/83c68b1f-7b92-4a28-a79a-02d56eff2c84%40activediscovery.net.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-05 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-02 20:42 [bitcoindev] " PortlandHODL
2025-10-02 22:19 ` Andrew Poelstra
2025-10-02 22:46 ` Andrew Poelstra
2025-10-02 22:47 ` 'moonsettler' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-03 7:11 ` Garlo Nicon
2025-10-02 22:27 ` Brandon Black
2025-10-03 1:21 ` [bitcoindev] " /dev /fd0
2025-10-03 10:46 ` 'moonsettler' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-03 11:26 ` /dev /fd0
2025-10-03 13:35 ` jeremy
2025-10-03 13:59 ` Andrew Poelstra
2025-10-03 14:18 ` /dev /fd0
2025-10-03 14:59 ` Andrew Poelstra
2025-10-03 16:15 ` Anthony Towns
2025-10-05 9:59 ` Guus Ellenkamp [this message]
2025-10-03 13:21 ` [bitcoindev] " Peter Todd
2025-10-03 16:52 ` 'moonsettler' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List
2025-10-03 15:42 ` Anthony Towns
2025-10-03 20:02 ` Luke Dashjr
2025-10-03 20:52 ` /dev /fd0
2025-10-04 23:12 ` jeremy
2025-10-05 10:59 ` Luke Dashjr
2025-10-08 15:03 ` Greg Tonoski
2025-10-08 18:15 ` Keagan McClelland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=83c68b1f-7b92-4a28-a79a-02d56eff2c84@activediscovery.net \
--to=guus@activediscovery$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoindev@googlegroups.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox