BIP draft: Reduced Data Temporary Softfork

[dathonohm]

Mailing list thread at https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8

---

Editor note: please post conceptual feedback and meta-commentary on the mailing list thread, and focus here on:

• expert technical review of the specification
• specific, concrete, helpful proposals for the other sections

Please refrain from personal or heated commentary, trolling, pedantry, and repeating yourself. As this PR now has many comments, please only comment if you are adding new valuable information to the discussion.

[rot13maxi]

I suggest you add an FAQ item for “why block 987424“. If the intent is to have it be a year out, the height might actually move during discussion, and right now its just a magic number in the document.

[dathonohm]

@rot13maxi see the deployment section

[portlandhodl]

There is opportunity to also discuss the effect on DoS blocks and the scope of legacy script as a DoS vector.

[GregTonoski]

Also I am raising objection to the fragment of the proposal. I think that the presumption of existence of "legacy protocols" is false. There isn't any BIP of such a protocol. Also, I haven't seen any implementation of a hypothetical undocumented one. Last, but not least - arbitrary data storage doesn't belong to Bitcoin and the "OP_RETURN" bug that is exploited by abusers must be fixed.

[ekzyis]

Will or can this softfork affect lightning or currently planned upgrades of it?

_{btw, fwiw, there's also some discussion at https://stacker.news/items/1265553 (sorry for the shameless plug, I work at SN)}

[Rob1Ham]

According to BIP-2:

Once the champion has asked the Bitcoin community as to whether an idea has any chance of acceptance, a draft BIP should be presented to the Bitcoin development mailing list.

When will this be posted to the mailing list as its own thread so it can get greater attention & review?

[jonatack]

When will this be posted to the mailing list as its own thread so it can get greater attention & review?

I reached out yesterday to suggest this and apparently the post is currently in the ML queue for acceptance/publication.

[benthecarman]

why no limit on witness or tx size?

[thewrlck]

I don't think it's a good idea to outright prevent content or actions that are not 100% certain spam

[jonatack]

When will this be posted to the mailing list as its own thread so it can get greater attention & review?

Hi all, a mailing list post by has been published by the BIP author at https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/nOZim6FbuF8.

Post conceptual feedback and meta-commentary there, and focus here on:

• expert technical review of the specification
• specific, concrete, helpful proposals for the other sections

Please refrain from personal or heated commentary in both venues. I've attempted some minor moderation here above.

[dathonohm]

Hi all - I have pushed another significant update to the BIP. The Motivation, Deployment, Tradeoffs, Backwards Compatibility, and Alternatives sections have all been expanded and updated.

I believe this addresses all feedback up to the moment. Please let me know if I missed anything.

As always, thanks for your feedback and support.

[dathonohm]

Hi all -

I have pushed another minor update. All feedback is now addressed, to the best of my knowledge.

Please let me know what is the next step to get a number assigned, and for the BIP to be merged.

Thanks again for your feedback and support!