Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 09:26:16 AM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 09:19:37 AM

Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Using OP_RETURN also doesn't bloat the UTXO set, which I'd argue is more important than limiting the growth of the size of the blockchain.

Good point. Since BRC-20 become popular, UTXO growth at far faster pace.

Quote from: Medusah on Today at 09:33:20 AM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on Today at 09:19:37 AM

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Sure, but this brings us back to the point. You cannot dictate how people use Bitcoin. You would never prohibit someone from using Legacy, so why prohibiting someone from doing that?

I get your point, but in practice there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.