I am a reasonably technical lay-person, has anyone got a strong reason why the OP_RETURN data size increase is necessary or wanted? Is it a case of improving the infrastructure before we need it? Building out infrastructure and letting the use cases develop? I think I understand that the alternative uses of the Bitcoin network are maxing out the 80 byte limit, increasing the size of the block chain. Then, they are also using the UTXO address (or something) to post their data, bloating both the blockchain and the UTXO set. As these UTXOs are not valid transactions they can not ever be spent and will sit in the UTXO set for eternity. The UTXO set is stored in memory (RAM - expensive) and the blockchain is in storage (cheap). The workaround is to just increase the OP_RETURN size to stop the UTXO bloat. Blockchain gets bigger so more storage is needed by nodes, but nodes are mostly SPV nodes and don’t store the blockchain anyway. These nodes do require the UTXO set in RAM (somewhat). If the UTXO set were to get too large, nodes become too expensive and as a result the total number of nodes drops, reducing the security of the network as a whole. The Bitcoin core developer stance is they are being neutral to the various forms of users of the Bitcoin network by increasing the data limit. In effect, large OP_RETURN data transactions take up larger portions of each block without increasing the total block size beyond the already established 4MB maximum. So we’re still having the same maximum block size, just it’s likely it’ll be used more frequently. The OP_RETURN data is optional to store on a full node, so you don’t need store it. The growth of the blockchain size is still inline with previous projections if you assumed full size blocks for every block. So technically, nothing changes. Thus the developer stance of neutrality. The issue is then philosophical, being that a 100kb file size is well… concerning. 100kb allows for 640 x 480 pixel JPEG to be stored directly on the blockchain. I guess that’s the crux of the issue then right? Plausible deniability that running a bitcoin node isn’t distributing illicit material goes straight out the window. So the only nodes you can run would be lightweight nodes, and no one ever stores the full blockchain or they’ll get SWATed for CSAM. This is where I don’t get the WHY of the change. Why enable the undesirable use cases of the Bitcoin network because it’s “technically neutral” to do so, when clearly you’re opening the door to certain doom? Please help me understand.
