Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Relax OP_RETURN standardness restrictions

From: Greg Tonoski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2025 20:56:59 +0200

It can't be a serious proposal therefore I didn't answer it.
Bitcoiners run node software without that prospective bug so they
already decided against the change. I also care about Bitcoin's
survival and I agree with you. Thank you for Bitcoin Knots which is
more powerful and less buggy Bitcoin node software implementation,
superior to Bitcoin Core..

On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:53 AM Luke Dashjr <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> It should be needless to say, but this idea is utter insanity. Disappointing to see positive responses, and not one sensible reply calling it out yet. The bugs should be fixed, not the abuse embraced. If attackers continue to bypass filters, we can go back to a full whitelist approach. We're now 2+ years into this wave of attacks, and the damage it has already done should be more than enough to prove the hands-off attitude is not viable. Am I the only one left on this list who actually cares about Bitcoin's survival?
>
> On 4/17/25 14:52, 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Standardness rules exist for 3 mains reasons: mitigate DoS vectors, provide upgrade hooks, or as a nudge to deter some usages.
>
> Bitcoin Core will by default only relay and mine transactions with at most a single OP_RETURN output, with a scriptPubKey no larger than 83 bytes. This standardness rule falls into the third category: it aims to mildly deter data storage while still allowing a less harmful alternative than using non-provably-unspendable outputs.
>
> Developers are now designing constructions that work around these limitations. An example is Clementine, the recently-announced Citrea bridge, which uses unspendable Taproot outputs to store data in its "WatchtowerChallenge" transaction due to the standardness restrictions on the size of OP_RETURNs[^0]. Meanwhile, we have witnessed in recent years that the nudge is ineffective to deter storing data onchain.
>
> Since the restrictions on the usage of OP_RETURN outputs encourage harmful practices while being ineffective in deterring unwanted usage, i propose to drop them. I suggest to start by lifting the restriction on the size of the scriptPubKey for OP_RETURN outputs, as a first minimal step to stop encouraging harmful behaviour, and to then proceed to lift the restriction on the number of OP_RETURN outputs per transactions.
>
> Antoine Poinsot
>
> [^0]: See section 6.1 of their whitepaper here https://citrea.xyz/clementine_whitepaper.pdf
> --
> 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 [email-masked].
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/rhfyCHr4RfaEalbfGejVdolYCVWIyf84PT2062DQbs5-eU8BPYty5sGyvI3hKeRZQtVC7rn_ugjUWFnWCymz9e9Chbn7FjWJePllFhZRKYk%3D%40protonmail.com.
>
> --
> 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 [email-masked].
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/03be4934-f0ff-4b58-880d-861d63a4f970%40dashjr.org.

-- 
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 [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAMHHROx7s31%2BcdKe0d3BdZDcjgshvsLc%3DfdS_JFmA5Ve%3DkBuJw%40mail.gmail.com.