MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACrqygAMsO1giYuxm=DZUqfeRjEqGM7msmEnZ-AHws3oA2=aqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca8622cb-445e-4258-bbac-b3ee1ce95f4c@protonmail.com>
 <57f780b1-f262-9394-036c-70084320e9cf@peersm.com>
 <CACrqygCNf3Gv8+VjhyqS4GTb3Epo8qXEKGtQB6sqyR6ib44-fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACrqygCNf3Gv8+VjhyqS4GTb3Epo8qXEKGtQB6sqyR6ib44-fA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:11:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CABE6yHtM2Dqc63_eURSr7dMirJti5sYnqvHj7vQ_Ab9FC_d04g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c4812c05f3e0606d"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Debate: 64 bytes in OP_RETURN VS taproot OP_FALSE
 OP_IF OP_PUSH
Precedence: list

--000000000000c4812c05f3e0606d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.

--000000000000c4812c05f3e0606d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Chris=
topher Allen via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr">On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 3:52 AM Aymeric Vitte via bitcoin-dev &lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think =
the right way so people don&#39;t invent deviant things is to<br>
increase the size of OP_RETURN, I don&#39;t get this number of 80B, you can=
<br>
hardly store a signature (of what?) in there and not the &quot;what&quot; i=
f the<br>
&quot;what&quot; is a hash for example<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
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&=
#39;ll have a lot more inscription-style scenarios.</div><div></div></div><=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div>I wouldn&#39;t be against an increase in O=
P_RETURN but I don&#39;t think it will make any difference in how often ins=
cription-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 discoun=
t.<br></div></div>

--000000000000c4812c05f3e0606d--