Hi Floppy,

There are only weak arguments for this proposal to extend to OP_RETURN, at least nothing I would normally entertain;
but also there are weak arguments to make an exception for OP_RETURN explicitly.

People could just add many OP_RETURNs to a transaction, that makes it more cumbersome and marginally more expensive.

BR,
moonsettler


On Friday, October 3rd, 2025 at 10:58 AM, /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi portlandhodl,
>
> 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.
>
> /dev/fd0
> floppy disk guy
> On Friday, October 3, 2025 at 3:29:24 AM UTC+5:30 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
> >     -   Makes DoS blocks likely impossible to create that would have any sufficient negative impact on the network.
> >     -   Leaves enough room for hooks long term
> >     -   Would substantially reduce the divergence between consensus and relay policy
> >     -   Incredibly little use onchain as evidenced above.
> >     -   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.
> >     -   Would make it harder to use the ScriptPubkey as a 'large' datacarrier.
> >     -   Possible UTXO set size bloat reduction.
> >         
> > -   Reasons Against
> >     -   Bitcoin could need it in the future? Quantum?
> >     -   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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/842930fb-bede-408a-8380-776d4be4e094n%40googlegroups.com.