Create account

replied 1290d
Play the Devil's advocate, what's the harm in allowing larger OP_RETURNs? I guess it clutters the blocks, but since we have to send multiple TXs for message, the overhead makes us use even more bytes in the long run. We still pay per byte, so it's not like a larger OP_RETURN would directly cause heavier usage. Right now, I don't think anyone's worrying about it.
replied 1290d
playing devils advocate to your devils advocate, what's wrong with stringing txs together like member does? If it comes down to overhead then that in turn comes down to cost. If we upped op_return some miners could respond by upping fees to 2 or 3 sats/b.
replied 1290d
It does increase development complexity. So fewer features and more bugs for the same effort.
replied 1290d
Only that the overall amount of bytes used is more, & I think the main complaint about larger OP_RETURN is bloating. I suppose there's a sweet spot. Unintended Consequences.
replied 1290d
If they collude, I suppose, but unless there's a lot more TX, they'd be leaving sats on the table for other miners for no large extra burden.