Published on: 2014-11-20T23:39:16+00:00
The current size of the OP_RETURN in the blockchain is causing concerns among application developers who find it insufficient for many legitimate uses. While increasing the size could potentially lead to a faster-growing blockchain, there have been no issues with the current size of 40 bytes. Wladimir supports increasing the OP_RETURN size and believes it can be done safely without any worries. There is even a suggestion to increase it beyond 80 bytes.The debate revolves around the use of OP_RETURN, which allows small amounts of data to be stored within bitcoin transactions. The proposal is to increase the size from 40 bytes to 80 bytes, but some worry that this could encourage people to use the blockchain as a convenient transport channel. Counterparty, however, has found a way around the limit by using multi-sig outputs instead. Open Assets also requires more than 40 bytes to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output. In October 2014, there were 1,674 OP_RETURNs with an average size of 14.37 bytes per block. Increasing the size to 80 bytes would have minimal impact on bandwidth and storage requirements while being extremely useful for many use cases where a hash alone is insufficient. These statistics should take into account the number of Counterparty transactions that could have been OP_RETURNs if they had been permitted.In an email conversation, Pieter Wuille explains that any wallet offering functionality beyond maintaining a balance and sending coins will result in privacy loss. However, HD wallets provide the advantage of separating secret data and public data. While there are risks associated with upgrading to stealth addresses, such as potential loss of metadata and coins if not backed up properly, OP_RETURN offers a solution that eliminates these risks.Flavien Charlon expresses concern about the use of OP_RETURN, arguing that it encourages people to use the blockchain as a transport channel. However, he acknowledges that Counterparty has managed to bypass the 40-byte limit by using multi-sig outputs. Charlon believes that Open Assets needs to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output, which is not possible within the current size limit. Storing only a hash is inadequate for building interesting applications. There were 1,674 OP_RETURNs in October 2014, and increasing the size to 80 bytes would have negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements while being highly useful.Chris Pacia and Pieter Wuille discuss the use of stealth addresses with out-of-band communication in relation to HD wallets. Chris expresses concern that this approach would negate the benefits of HD wallets and require more frequent backups. Pieter explains that any wallet offering additional functionality beyond balance maintenance will require backups. HD wallets offer the separation of secret data and public data, reducing the risk of lost coins. In terms of upgrading to stealth, manual backup is necessary, whereas OP_RETURN eliminates the need for manual backups.Adam Back discusses the use of the blockchain as a backup mechanism, highlighting its inefficiency and unreliability due to its broadcast nature. He suggests alternative methods such as cloud storage or disk encryption for decentralized long-term storage. Back also raises concerns about the use of stealth addresses and the potential loss of benefits from HD wallets if out-of-band communication is used instead of OP_RETURN.The concern with OP_RETURN is that it encourages the use of the blockchain as a convenient transport channel rather than solely for data validation. Counterparty has been successful in using the blockchain for storage and transport by employing multi-sig outputs. However, the 40-byte limit hinders Open Assets' ability to store a URL in the OP_RETURN output. Storing only a hash is suitable for basic timestamping applications but lacks the capacity to build more interesting functionalities. Increasing the size to 80 bytes would have a negligible impact on bandwidth and storage requirements while providing significant utility. Pieter Wuille emphasizes the importance of discouraging the use of blockchain as a transport channel.The idea of using the blockchain for transaction data is gaining popularity due to convenience, backup, and atomicity. However, data design must be compressed and minimal for scalability. The blockchain's use as a convenient channel is not sufficient justification, as there are other reliable channels available. Backup on the blockchain is inefficient, and cheaper methods like cloud storage or disk encryption provide secure backup. Atomicity can be achieved through out-of-band communication, avoiding the need for transactions on the blockchain. Slow transports can offer better security than interactive transports.Jorge Timón and Alan Reiner discuss potential use cases that require larger OP_RETURN sizes. While Jorge couldn't think of any, Alan mentions his previous irritation with the reduction to 40 bytes, as he wanted to put ECDSA in signatures in the OP_RETURN. Although he couldn't recall the application, it could be used for sending a payment with a signature timestamped in the blockchain.In a discussion about OP_RETURN sizes, it is mentioned that the decision to make it 40 bytes was justified for timestamping purposes.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T10:40:35.801028+00:00