Peter Todd’s Proposal Stirs Tensions
The post Peter Todd’s Proposal Stirs Tensions appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd proposed removing arbitrary size limits on OP_RETURN, igniting an intense debate. The entire debacle reveals deep divisions over Bitcoin’s purpose and future. OP_RETURN is the operation code (opcode) that allows small data payloads to be embedded in Bitcoin (BTC) transactions. Bitcoin Core Developers and Community Clash Over OP_RETURN Limits Peter Todd’s proposal #32359 on GitHub would lift long-standing restrictions on how much data can be stored using OP_RETURN, which is currently capped at 80 bytes. One of Satoshi Nakamoto’s theories’ candidates, Peter Todd, argues that the change would simplify Bitcoin’s codebase. The cryptography developer also highlights its potential to improve efficiency without endangering the network. As OP_RETURN outputs are unspendable, they do not bloat the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set that all Bitcoin full nodes must track for transaction validation. “The restrictions are easily bypassed by direct substitution and forks of Bitcoin Core,” Todd noted in his GitHub comments. Peter Todd’s proposal to remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return. Source: GitHub According to Peter Todd, formalizing higher limits would reflect existing practices and benefit use cases like sidechains and cross-chain bridges. Many in the Bitcoin community view the change as a dangerous shift toward non-monetary use cases for the pioneer crypto. This is reminiscent of the 2014 OP_RETURN Wars when spam concerns forced developers to reduce the data cap from 80 to 40 bytes before raising it again. That era saw services like Veriblock flood the chain with data, leading to increased block sizes and transaction fees. “Sidechain builders shouldn’t influence Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin on its base layer is money and should be only focused on money,” warned Willem S, founder of Botanix Labs. Willem argues that changing standard rules to make development easier sets a troubling precedent, particularly when workarounds already exist. Proposal Is A…
The post Peter Todd’s Proposal Stirs Tensions appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com.
Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd proposed removing arbitrary size limits on OP_RETURN, igniting an intense debate. The entire debacle reveals deep divisions over Bitcoin’s purpose and future. OP_RETURN is the operation code (opcode) that allows small data payloads to be embedded in Bitcoin (BTC) transactions. Bitcoin Core Developers and Community Clash Over OP_RETURN Limits Peter Todd’s proposal #32359 on GitHub would lift long-standing restrictions on how much data can be stored using OP_RETURN, which is currently capped at 80 bytes. One of Satoshi Nakamoto’s theories’ candidates, Peter Todd, argues that the change would simplify Bitcoin’s codebase. The cryptography developer also highlights its potential to improve efficiency without endangering the network. As OP_RETURN outputs are unspendable, they do not bloat the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) set that all Bitcoin full nodes must track for transaction validation. “The restrictions are easily bypassed by direct substitution and forks of Bitcoin Core,” Todd noted in his GitHub comments. Peter Todd’s proposal to remove arbitrary limits on OP_Return. Source: GitHub According to Peter Todd, formalizing higher limits would reflect existing practices and benefit use cases like sidechains and cross-chain bridges. Many in the Bitcoin community view the change as a dangerous shift toward non-monetary use cases for the pioneer crypto. This is reminiscent of the 2014 OP_RETURN Wars when spam concerns forced developers to reduce the data cap from 80 to 40 bytes before raising it again. That era saw services like Veriblock flood the chain with data, leading to increased block sizes and transaction fees. “Sidechain builders shouldn’t influence Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin on its base layer is money and should be only focused on money,” warned Willem S, founder of Botanix Labs. Willem argues that changing standard rules to make development easier sets a troubling precedent, particularly when workarounds already exist. Proposal Is A…
What's Your Reaction?
