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 create more OP_RETURN outputs after this change. 

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

<br /><div><br /></div><div>/dev/fd0<br />floppy disk guy<br /><br /></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto" class="gmail_attr">On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24 AM UTC+5:30 PortlandHODL wrote:<br/></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="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 gathering of information per BIP 0002<br><br>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 &#39;large&#39; ScriptPubkeys; the reward for not invalidating them at the consensus level is lower than the risk of their abuse. <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  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 reduce the total surface that is problematic.</li><li>Would make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a &#39;large&#39; datacarrier.</li><li>Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction.<br><br></li></ul></li><li><b>Reasons Against </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><br><a href="https://github.com/portlandhodl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubkeys.csv" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=https://github.com/portlandhodl/portlandhodl/blob/main/greater_520_pubkeys.csv&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1759539247538000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0UYKjSqXjBPcRtmeVK0RCP">source of onchain data </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 email to <a href="mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />