Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Merits 4 from 1 user
Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
by
d5000
on 19/05/2025, 19:47:25 UTC
⭐ Merited by mikeywith (4)
Those 10-20% you worry about are mostly coming from large private farms that deliberately avoid tagging their coinbases to stay under the radar -- not from tiny hobbyist miners.
Okay, I may be a bit less worried in this case. Basically you state that in the current mining landscape a centralization effect is negligible. I'd still argue there may be a long term effect that could change this (e.g. all larger pools offering Slipstream-style accelerators) and above all smaller pools could be at disadvantage, but that's speculation as we don't know what will happen in a few years.

The main problem is that the frog video is now part of the UTXO set.
At least they used the Taproot exploit and not the "fake address" method, so only one small output is in the UTXO set. And I guess it may be even spendable, as it's value is above the dust limit. I don't know the Ordinals format well enough however, I guess this output will only be spent when the owner of this Inscription changes.

In the case of OP_RETURN, such "accidental" outputs can also occur (as long as there is no Ordinals variant based on OP_RETURN  Roll Eyes), but as they're not related to ownership they should be spent fastly.

They could go one step further by excluding TX that create new P2MS output, since AFAIK there's no wallet software create P2MS output these days.
But then we would again arrive at the cat and mouse game gmaxwell mentioned. They would probably simply use other kinds of outputs for their next version, and that one would potentially not be distinguishable from regular payments anymore.