Published on: 2023-08-09T13:06:49+00:00
The email discusses the use of OP_RETURN in the blockchain and its impact on full node operators. It seeks clarification on whether using OP_RETURN or segwit/taproot witness space would result in fewer bytes on the blockchain, specifically for small inscriptions. The writer also asks about the prunability of OP_RETURN outputs and if there are tools available for full node operators to prune this data. They mention PR 2791 by Pieter Wuille, which implements pruning of provably-unspendable outputs, including OP_RETURN outputs.The email further asks about the default setting and enabling/disabling options for unspendable output pruning. It inquires about the potential impact of pruning OP_RETURN outputs on new nodes during initial block download (IBD) and whether it would differ for pruning Taproot witness space. The author seeks clarification on the policy change's impact on full node operators, the prunability of OP_RETURN outputs, and the consequences of pruning on assisting new nodes during IBD.Sjors Provoost suggested sending an email to notify their intention of merging a pull-request that removes restrictions on OP_RETURN outputs. The rationale behind this proposal is to potentially eliminate transaction pinning vectors. The author acknowledges the concern but argues that it is a potential issue with any relaxation of standardness rules. The email provides links to further information on transaction pinning from the Bitcoin Operations Guide and Peter Todd's website.
Updated on: 2023-08-11T15:44:41.295327+00:00