Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 07:25:46 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on June 24, 2025, 10:01:57 AM

--snip--
AFAIK there's still no full node software that allow prune only OP_RETURN output. Besides, it doesn't change the fact you still need to download and verify whole block first.

I understand that. But the point is, what's the lesser evil? Data that's embedded by way of OP_RETURN, or data embedded in the UTXO-set?

I agree with @stwenhao, OP_RETURN is less harmful than other option to add arbitrary data on Bitcoin blockchain.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 07:25:46 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on June 24, 2025, 10:01:57 AM

--snip--
Bitcoin Stamps (also called SRC-20) actually use P2MS. Here's the proof, https://github.com/stampchain-io/stamps_sdk/blob/main/docs/src20specs.md.

Thanks for reminding me. I remember posting about this during the Ordinals craze, and that it couldn't be pruned at all?

P2MS is old form of address with N-of-M signature requirement to spend it. So Bitcoin node which prune all P2MS UTXO from it's UTXO list unable to verify TX that spend one or more P2MS UTXO and likely to treat it as invalid TX.

Quote from: stwenhao on Today at 07:43:58 AM

So, in general, it is the question, if some people want to make enough developers angry, to move dust expiry from theoretical discussion land into practice: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/dust-expiry-clean-the-utxo-set-from-spam/1707

Some people really have wild idea. If it become reality, it may turn into mouse and cat game where token/NFT protocol will enforce or recommend to create UTXO with higher satoshi value.