Author: Toby Padilla 2016-01-26 03:30:38
Published on: 2016-01-26T03:30:38+00:00
The discussion revolves around the use of OP_RETURN and its support. The writer believes that there are valid use cases for it, and thus it is necessary to fully support the feature. However, currently, it is not supported because the Payments protocol came before OP_RETURN. The writer provides an example use case in the BIP and agrees that special wallet support would make the feature even better. If someone tries to use Core, the transaction would at least not be rejected. The writer also mentions exploring this area with key.run and wants functionality for voting based on aggregate OP_RETURN value. This is not to store data on the blockchain but to associate content pointers with transactions. Luke Dashjr replies to Toby Padilla's perspective stating that he cannot think of any non-spam use cases and that use cases should come before changes to support them. He also mentions that lost value is better because it has a cost to the spammer and deflates the rest of the bitcoins.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T03:18:48.242859+00:00