[Note: this is my first post to the list]

Businesses storing data on-chain is undesirable but sadly unavoidable.
Therefore one might as well *facilitate* data storage beyond just OP_RETURN
by offering a more efficient way to store data on-chain, while still being
almost as expensive in use per byte of payload (i.e., data) compared to
using OP_RETURN.

Storing data using OP_RETURN is still inefficient per byte of payload so a
more efficient dedicated data storing facility might be created that stores
more payload data per on-chain byte. Such a facility should be (marginally)
cheaper to use per payload byte compared to using a hack such as OP_RETURN.
This would encourage the use of this facility in favor of OP_RETURN or
other hacks, while at the same time dramatically reducing the footprint of
storing data on-chain.

Zac

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 4:29 AM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> > If only one hash is allowed per block, then those who wish to utilize
> > the hash will have to out-bid each other ("fee-bidding"). This hash can
> > then be used to create another chain ("merged-mining")
>
> Merged mining at present only needs one hash for a merkle root, and
> that's stored in the coinbase. It would be even simpler to add the
> following rules:
>
> 1) No OP_RETURN transactions allowed at all
> 2) If you want to commit data, do so in that one transaction in the
> coinbase
>
> Also curious about how you'd handle the payment - do I need to put in a
> transaction that burns bitcoins for the tx fee? That isn't free in terms
> of storage either.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>