Author: Jorge Timón 2018-08-15 20:33:43
Published on: 2018-08-15T20:33:43+00:00
In a recent discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, it was suggested that op_return outputs could be pruned as they are not spendable. It was also noted that adding a hash in the witness script data would not improve things and would even make them worse. This does not help with "block size bloat". In terms of timestamping, it was recommended to use pay 2 contract instead of op_return if that is the sole purpose for its use. When asked about using a BIP process to claim a prefix, Christopher Allen advised against using an op_return prefix. He stated that this allows for transaction censorship. In his case, where he uses an IPFS hash in an op_return, the IPFS multihash prefix information is removed to post a "bare" SHA256 hash. This is done to minimize any ability for a miner to identify the transaction. He is looking for more responsible ways to publish this hash, such as having the hash be in the witness script data so that it can be easily purged from nodes that do not wish to preserve it and prevent block size bloat. However, to do so everyone has to do it the same way and ideally have it look like any other transaction. There has not been a solid proposal for best practices here yet.
Updated on: 2023-06-13T04:03:30.253776+00:00