Is Adding Functionality To Bitcoin A Problem?
Adding operation codes to Bitcoin can increase the types of functions users are able to perform, but choosing their size limits has been a topic of debate.Watch The Episode On YouTube or RumbleListen To This Episode Here...
Adding operation codes to Bitcoin can increase the types of functions users are able to perform, but choosing their size limits has been a topic of debate.
Watch The Episode On YouTube or Rumble
Listen To This Episode Here:
In this episode of “Bitcoin, Explained,” hosts Aaron van Wirdum and Sjors Provoost discuss OP_RETURN and what some have called the “OP_RETURN Wars.” More specifically, they discuss a blog post by BitMEX Research titled “The OP_Return Wars of 2014 – Dapps Vs Bitcoin Transactions.”
Van Wirdum and Provoost start off by explaining that OP_RETURN is an operation code (a piece of code for Bitcoin transactions) that will render invalid any transaction that includes it in an input. This means that outputs that include OP_RETURN are unspendable, which in turn means that Bitcoin nodes can safely remove such UTXOs from their UTXO set, which saves on storage.
Early in Bitcoin’s years, people started using bitcoin for more than just transactions. As one example given by Provoost demonstrates, someone uploaded the entire Bitcoin white paper onto the blockchain. The BitMEX post explains that Layer 2 protocols, like Counterparty, were rolling out decentralized applications on the blockchain. This type of non-transaction data was initially embedded in multisig transactions, but this meant that all Bitcoin nodes had to download, process and store this data forever, which comes at a cost.
Van Wirdum and Provoost explain that in 2014, Bitcoin developers agreed to let nodes process and forward transactions with OP_RETURN outputs to mitigate this problem. These transactions would be better for uploading data, since their outputs can be removed from the UTXO set.
The “OP_RETURN Wars” refer to a debate between Bitcoin developers and (most notably) Counterparty developers over the maximum size of such transactions. Provoost explains why the maximum of 40 bytes was initially chosen, why this was later increased to 80 bytes and how these considerations have changed over time.
Original source
Read on Bitcoin MagazineRelated market context
Blockworks Acquires Messari in Deal Highlighting Crypto’s Data Consolidation Race
Bitcoin Magazine Blockworks Acquires Messari in Deal Highlighting Crypto’s Data Consolidation Race Blockworks, the New York-based...
Bitcoin Trader Says Retail Will Return After A Sudden 20% BTC Candle
TL;DR X trader Cup says Bitcoin may be in a quiet accumulation phase before a larger move. The post claims retail traders could re...
NEURA Robotics raises $1.4B to build global data collection facilities, with Tether leading the charge
NEURA's initiative could revolutionize robotics and stablecoin use, potentially reshaping economic transactions and data collectio...
Bitcoin price faces new risk as big buyers lose conviction
Bitcoin’s largest buyers are no longer behaving like a reliable backstop for the largest cryptocurrency. The exchange-traded funds...
Scotland’s World Cup return after 28 years brings crypto along for the ride
Scotland's World Cup return highlights the growing intersection of sports and crypto, potentially reshaping fan engagement and inv...
Over 60 crypto CEOs rally behind BRCA in push to protect non-custodial developers
The BRCA's passage could significantly boost innovation in the US crypto sector by providing legal clarity for non-custodial devel...