Startseite
Podcasts
Stephan Livera Podcast Podcast
Bitcoin Core OP RETURN and spam explained by a Core Dev with Antoine Poinsot | SLP661

Bitcoin Core OP RETURN and spam explained by a Core Dev with Antoine Poinsot | SLP661

Stephan Livera Podcast vor 1 Jahr

0:00

1:26:13

Stephan and Antoine discuss the complexities surrounding
Bitcoin's OP_RETURN functionality and the ongoing debate about
spam filtering on the Bitcoin network. They explore the
implications of consensus rules, standardness, and the historical
context of these discussions.

Antoine provides insights into the motivations behind changes in
Bitcoin Core's policies and the potential future of Bitcoin as
both a currency and a data storage solution. The conversation
highlights the urgency of addressing OP_RETURN issues while also
considering the broader implications of spam filtering and its
impact on Bitcoin's usability and miner centralization.

The conversation also touches upon the growth of the UTXO set,
the challenges of managing spam, and the philosophical
differences between Bitcoin Core and alternative
implementations.

Takeaways

Bitcoin is defined by its consensus rules.

There are tighter rules for unconfirmed transactions in Bitcoin
Core.

Standardness rules help prevent harmful transactions from being
relayed.

The OP_RETURN output was standardized to mitigate negative
externalities.

Historical context shows little demand for non-standard
transactions.

The urgency to fix OP_RETURN issues is debated among developers.

Filters can work in certain contexts but not universally.

Concerns about miner centralization are significant for Bitcoin's
future.

Speculating on motivations can detract from logical arguments.

The future of Bitcoin Core depends on adapting to user demand.
Miners are incentivized to include all transactions, including
spam.

Economic demand drives the use of alternative relay networks.

Filtering transactions may not effectively stop spam propagation.

The UTXO set growth is influenced by various factors, including
spam.

Changing Bitcoin's consensus rules can have unintended
consequences.

The cat and mouse game of filtering may lead to centralization
risks.

Communication between developers and users is crucial for
consensus.

The future of OP_RETURN is uncertain and requires community
engagement.

Inscriptions and meta-protocols complicate the UTXO set issue.

Bitcoin's core philosophy resists changes that could limit its
flexibility.

Timestamps:

(00:00) - Intro

(01:42) - Understanding Consensus & Relay policies in Bitcoin

(05:21) - Historical context of standardness Rules in Bitcoin
Core

(11:05) - Are Bitcoin Core proponents being paid to ‘break’
Bitcoin?

(13:42) - Differentiating b/w OP_RETURN PR & the general spam
filtering debate

(18:34) - Sponsors

(22:46) - Is Bitcoin Money or a Data Storage protocol? How do
most Core devs view it?

(25:36) - Why not raise the OP_RETURN limit to ~150 bytes?

(29:02) - How urgent is it to fix the issue?

(31:56) - Why not let the node runners choose what they want to
relay?

(39:03) - Do filters work or do they not?

(43:27) - Are concerns about UTXO bloat, miner centralisation,
block propagation etc. being overplayed by Core devs?

(46:40) - Sponsors

(50:30) - Will miners who mine spam be penalised if node runners
run knots?

(1:00:28) - Is Bitcoin Core serious about stopping UTXO bloat?

(1:07:00) - Why did Core not try to stop bare multisig spam?

(1:08:58) - Should Bitcoin devs be playing a whackamole game with
spammers?

(1:18:24) - Summary & Future of OP_RETURN and spam concerns

Links:

https://x.com/darosior

https://x.com/darosior/status/1922682098160111982

https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/addressing-community-concerns-and-objections-regarding-my-recent-proposal-to-relax-bitcoin-cores-standardness-limits-on-op-return-outputs/1697

Sponsors:

Bold Bitcoin

CoinKite.com (code LIVERA)

Lana by Galoy

Stephan Livera links:

Follow me on X: @stephanlivera

Subscribe to the podcast

Subscribe to Substack