Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Edited on 17/05/2025, 23:17:15 UTC
Quote from: ABCbits on May 10, 2025, 10:58:56 AM
Quote from: BayAreaCoins on May 10, 2025, 05:05:06 AM
Could the removal of OP_RETURN be applied to Testnet first and then see how "bad" people can fuck it up there first?

As i stated on earlier page, it just mean people will switch to OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness script (this is what Ordinal does). You'll see bloated blockchain since Ordinal need to create 2 on-chain TX to do an operation and spike on UTXO growth if people use it to create token/NFT where the owner representation using an address/UTXO with small amount of Bitcoin.

Should we see this "bloat" on Bitcoin Testnet 4 right now?  I've sent some coins over to try it out hands-on:  https://mempool.space/testnet4/tx/f6de3d16e35e3e1e041d50495cd566192d7f9e8977a3f43c5a347e39b5b3a76b

Edit:  I think I see it, thanks.
Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Scraped on 10/05/2025, 23:17:04 UTC
Quote from: ABCbits on May 10, 2025, 10:58:56 AM
Quote from: BayAreaCoins on May 10, 2025, 05:05:06 AM
Could the removal of OP_RETURN be applied to Testnet first and then see how "bad" people can fuck it up there first?

As i stated on earlier page, it just mean people will switch to OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF inside witness script (this is what Ordinal does). You'll see bloated blockchain since Ordinal need to create 2 on-chain TX to do an operation and spike on UTXO growth if people use it to create token/NFT where the owner representation using an address/UTXO with small amount of Bitcoin.

Should we see this "bloat" on Bitcoin Testnet 4 right now?  I've sent some coins over to try it out hands-on:  https://mempool.space/testnet4/tx/f6de3d16e35e3e1e041d50495cd566192d7f9e8977a3f43c5a347e39b5b3a76b