They point to Bitcoin soft fork to face op_return dilemma

This October 4th, two developers presented BIP-447. soft fork (soft bifurcation), a change in the rules that nodes can adopt without fragmenting the network.

Titled “Selective reduction of block space for transactions using Op_return’s POD + arbitrary data without breaking Merkle Tree revalidation”, BIP-447 addresses the use of registrationembedded in Bitcoin via op_return as data such as text or images. This is the code that adds non-sales information to the transaction.

As reported by Cryptootics, operations on op_return Connected to the present «Customer war»reflecting the tension between different approaches that the authors of BIP-447 consider problematic.

• Meanwhile, Luke Daschle featured on Bitcoin Knot Filtered by pattern to block transactions with inscription. As read in the BIP-447 repository, this filtering encourages users to bypass P2P (person-to-person) networks, send transactions directly to large pools, and concentrate mining power on those platforms.

• The other is the next version of this client, Bitcoin Core V.30, which will be announced this month, has been proposed illegal content like child pornwhich can cause problems.

How does BIP-447 work with Bitcoin?

The text of BIP-447 details its operation in three key points.

First he points Relaxes the registration of transactions through a soft fork it would increase the cost of script completes (programs that perform actions) without expanding the capacity of the block.

If specified, soft fork cause them op_return inscription takes 4 times more That’s today.

This situation exerts economic pressure on what the authors understand as an “abuse of blockchain” to maintain the efficiency of standard transactions.

As detailed, new nodes assign greater weight to transactions with OP_Returns larger than 32 bytes, but respect the virtual weight limit of up to 4 megabytes established by Segwit, which ancient nodes are also aware of.

it will ensure the block Valid for everyone and maintains consensus of the network.

Second, BIP-447 follows a deployment model known as “UASF” (Soft User Activation). Impose these rules independent of developer groups They haven’t solved the problem.

In such a way, this UASF gives nodes the ability to make individual decisions Apart from customer policy.

Third, integrate segidata pudable storage optionsa method inspired by ideas such as segwit (separate validation data and separate space) allows nodes to store only the important parts of a transaction and discard the rest, alleviating the load.

This integration provides the node operator Economic protection by reducing hardware costs and legal protection By avoiding storing problematic content.

What are the points to improve BIP-447 with Bitcoin?

Among the aspects that the proposals promise to improve are:

• Reduces load on light nodes and allows transactions to be confirmed without saving the entire UTXO state (non-spent transaction output). This makes it easier to access.

• Reduces bandwidth consumption by sending supplementary data when necessary, Traffic optimization.

• Facilitates gradual scalability that allows the network to adapt to nodes of different capabilities without sacrificing security. Furthermore, by reducing the operating costs of less powerful nodes, Encourages more participants to operate themstrengthening decentralization.

op_return output exceeds 32 bytes to discourage excessive use of space in Bitcoin files they will face four timeslike Segwit, which eliminates weight discounts where 1 MB of space can contain up to 4 MB.

In contrast, a 32-byte secdata commitment does not incur this additional penalty. Its design avoids the weight gain applied to large data and allows nodes to manage them. without punishing space busy.

That scheme creates economic pressure on users leave a heavy inscription Or move to a print format like segdata.

You can see it in the hypothetical example contributed by the author of the proposal.

According to your documentation, The economic impact of BIP-447 is significant. “1 MB inscriptions reduce 4 to 1 (75% fewer) per block, and 100 kb inscriptions 40 to 10 (75% fewer)”.

These changes, according to the text, will make the inscriptions too expensive to continue using them indiscriminately.

The authors of the proposal show how the cost of a Bitcoin transaction varies dramatically depending on its type, at a price of 20 atsis (sat/vb) per virtual byte.

For example, a simple operation costs about 2,800 Satosh (about $2.80 for $124,000 BTC) and Multifirma 2-DE-3 (Multisig) rises to about 3,200 satoshes ($3.20).

However, for a 1 MB registration, the price is I shoot up to 20,000,000 Satosh (about $20,000)4 times the current 5,000,000 pieces of coal ($5,000).