Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE OP_IF OP_PUSH

From: Kostas Karasavvas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:11:33 +0200

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> I think the right way so people don't invent deviant things is to
>> increase the size of OP_RETURN, I don't get this number of 80B, you can
>> hardly store a signature (of what?) in there and not the "what" if the
>> "what" is a hash for example
>>
>
> Updating the size of OP_RETURN to support a hash (or two), a signature,
> and maybe a few more bytes for metadata, would be very helpful in a number
> of scenarios. It is still a limit but a reasonable one. Otherwise, I think
> we'll have a lot more inscription-style scenarios.
>

I wouldn't be against an increase in OP_RETURN but I don't think it will
make any difference in how often inscription-style use cases will be used.
They will be used primarily for much larger datasets than, say 120 bytes,
and they also have the segwit discount.