Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 2
Last scraped
Edited on 11/06/2025, 23:14:45 UTC
I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.
I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).
Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.
I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
The rest of this is very well written, and I like that you described some possibilities. For that, I leave you some merit. I think a lot has been said about potential consequences everywhere where this was discussed, and because I don't want to continue this particular subtopic further I'll leave it at that. Now that it has been merged, we will soon see what will really happen. I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:
As pointed out up-thread: it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
Quote
it's almost always been the case that working on alternatives would pay a lot more and so people who have worked extensively on Bitcoin have done so out of principle.
I didn't know that, to be honest. I thought core devs received enough donations to make working on other projects a lot less tempting. Obviously, this kind of information isn't public, so we have to take your word for it -- and I don't see any reason to deny it.
Version 1
Scraped on 11/06/2025, 22:49:35 UTC
I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.
I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).
Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.
I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
The rest of this is very well written, and I like that you described some possibilities. For that, I leave you some merit. I think a lot has been said about potential consequences everywhere where this was discussed, and because I don't want to continue this particular subtopic further I'll leave it at that. Now that it has merged, we will soon see what will really happen. I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:
As pointed out up-thread: it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/
Original archived Re: Removing OP_return limits seems like a huge mistake
Scraped on 11/06/2025, 22:44:43 UTC
I do wonder though whether this change would be reverted or not if the naysayers end up being mostly right in the future.
I wonder how an outcome could look where the "naysayers end up being mostly right". I guess you refer to a possible wave of spam via big OP_RETURN data transactions.But is this a realistic outcome? We have to take into account that the limits increase does not create additional incentives for data transactions, because there are already cheaper options like the Taproot "exploit". And the Bitcoin Stamps method is almost as cheap as the OP_RETURN method (but much more harmful to nodes resources).
Then all what's left for such an outcome is a "social" effect, i.e. some people could think that "Bitcoin" now "approves" the usage as a data storage and thus are more comfortable using tokens or NFTs based on OP_RETURN.
I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
The rest of this is very well written, and I like that you described some possibilities. For that, I leave you some merit. I think a lot has been said about potential consequences everywhere where this was discussed, and because I don't want to continue this particular subtopic further I'll leave it at that. Now that it has merged, we will soon see what will really happen. I guess however this would be an extremely weak effect. Because the big "spam" waves like Ordinals Inscriptions benefitted from scarcity. If you created a big NFT paying a lot of fees to a miner to mine a non-standard transaction, then if this type of transaction became "standard", this would lower the scarcity and thus the price of the NFT.
An example: A couple of pages ago a new OP_RETURN based "non standard token" protocol was mentioned. The "scarcity" of these tokens due to their non-standardness (and thus the potential re-selling value) was one of the promised "features". However, with OP_RETURN limits lifted, this would mean that many nodes could treat these tokens as "standard" and thus it would be easier to create them. In the long run this would lead to less of these transactions, because they still cost fees but lack any "scarcity".
I could also imagine a "vengeance spam wave" from those opposing this PR. This would however probably be a short term effect.
It looks like the subject was brought up again with a different approach, but I'm not smart enough to understand how its different or the implication of the 5 commits being merged as of 2 days ago:
As pointed out up-thread: it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.You might have also missed that in the middle the project published a statement clarifying its approach to the default policy behavior for relay: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2025/06/06/relay-statement/