Is Adding Functionality To Bitcoin A Problem?

Adding cognition codes to Bitcoin tin summation the types of functions users are capable to perform, but choosing their size limits has been a taxable of debate.

Watch The Episode On YouTube oregon Rumble

Listen To This Episode Here:

• Apple
• Spotify
• Google
• Libsyn

In this occurrence of “Bitcoin, Explained,” hosts Aaron van Wirdum and Sjors Provoost sermon OP_RETURN and what immoderate person called the “OP_RETURN Wars.” More specifically, they sermon a blog station by BitMEX Research titled “The OP_Return Wars of 2014 – Dapps Vs Bitcoin Transactions.”

Van Wirdum and Provoost commencement disconnected by explaining that OP_RETURN is an cognition codification (a portion of codification for Bitcoin transactions) that volition render invalid immoderate transaction that includes it successful an input. This means that outputs that see OP_RETURN are unspendable, which successful crook means that Bitcoin nodes tin safely region specified UTXOs from their UTXO set, which saves connected storage.

Early successful Bitcoin’s years, radical started utilizing bitcoin for much than conscionable transactions. As 1 illustration fixed by Provoost demonstrates, idiosyncratic uploaded the full Bitcoin achromatic insubstantial onto the blockchain. The BitMEX station explains that Layer 2 protocols, similar Counterparty, were rolling retired decentralized applications connected the blockchain. This benignant of non-transaction information was initially embedded successful multisig transactions, but this meant that each Bitcoin nodes had to download, process and store this information forever, which comes astatine a cost.

Van Wirdum and Provoost explicate that successful 2014, Bitcoin developers agreed to fto nodes process and guardant transactions with OP_RETURN outputs to mitigate this problem. These transactions would beryllium amended for uploading data, since their outputs tin beryllium removed from the UTXO set.

The “OP_RETURN Wars” notation to a statement betwixt Bitcoin developers and (most notably) Counterparty developers implicit the maximum size of specified transactions. Provoost explains wherefore the maximum of 40 bytes was initially chosen, wherefore this was aboriginal accrued to 80 bytes and however these considerations person changed implicit time.