“The only way against spam is to disincentivize its most harmful forms.” — LukasHozda
1/ You hate UTXO bloat. Me too. But before you signal for BIP-110, let’s talk about how we fix it — because the method matters as much as the goal.
2/ BIP-110 fights spam by changing consensus rules — the base-layer agreement every node must follow. That sounds powerful, but it means you’re setting a precedent: consensus can now decide which UTXOs are valid and which aren’t.
3/ Here’s the problem: once you establish that Bitcoin’s consensus layer can freeze or restrict UTXOs, you’ve opened a door that’s very hard to close. Today it’s inscriptions. Tomorrow it could be your coins. The principle “no one can make your bitcoin unspendable” is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin.
4/ Think of it like free speech. You can hate what someone says, but the moment you let an authority decide what’s allowed, you’ve given up the principle that protects you too.
5/ So what’s the alternative? Make the clean methods win. OP_RETURN was literally designed for non-financial data. It’s prunable — it does NOT bloat the UTXO set. The real bloat comes from inscriptions stuffing data into Taproot witness fields and fake multisig outputs that nodes must track forever.
6/ Instead of banning the bad methods (which creative devs will route around anyway), make OP_RETURN the cheapest and easiest path. Rational actors follow incentives. If the non-bloating method is the most economical, people will use it naturally.
7/ Node-level filtering? Totally fine. That’s your node, your choice. But consensus-level restrictions are everyone’s choice imposed on everyone — and that’s a very different thing.
8/ TL;DR:
∙ UTXO bloat is a real problem ✅
∙ BIP-110’s goal is valid ✅
∙ But solving it by changing consensus sets a dangerous precedent ❌
∙ Better path: make non-bloating methods (OP_RETURN) the most economical option 💡
∙ Fix incentives, don’t build censorship tools
We can protect Bitcoin’s monetary purpose without sacrificing the property rights that make it worth protecting in the first place. 🤝
Richard
npub1dw…wsqel
2026-02-10 09:46:42 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…cfkg
Author Public Key
npub1dwekunm9w9agazkwcq88ymxmj0j3qgxcu4mwfqnjqvyusa9cuxrs0wsqelPublished at
2026-02-10 09:46:42 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "0f9abc9d1131cc0b787d8ee6091a6456bccb28ba9587bbe297fbdbb290d524d1",
"pubkey": "6bb36e4f65717a8e8acec00e726cdb93e51020d8e576e482720309c874b8e187",
"created_at": 1770716802,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f97da8f46d7e76a9b68e2aed7e17600afb37b24bea2b8b453fad8d23986d5f6f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c2d480fdd6d7e926e31d2c40180add4571f00646e3693949272b61f070b2c7fb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c49d52a573366792b9a6e4851587c28042fb24fa5625c6d67b8c95c8751aca15",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"p",
"314072c16fa9433e1374f62e5b02c8163946ed298a9cde3b1541513c29d19fff",
"",
"mention"
]
],
"content": "“The only way against spam is to disincentivize its most harmful forms.” — LukasHozda\n\n1/ You hate UTXO bloat. Me too. But before you signal for BIP-110, let’s talk about how we fix it — because the method matters as much as the goal.\n\n2/ BIP-110 fights spam by changing consensus rules — the base-layer agreement every node must follow. That sounds powerful, but it means you’re setting a precedent: consensus can now decide which UTXOs are valid and which aren’t.\n\n3/ Here’s the problem: once you establish that Bitcoin’s consensus layer can freeze or restrict UTXOs, you’ve opened a door that’s very hard to close. Today it’s inscriptions. Tomorrow it could be your coins. The principle “no one can make your bitcoin unspendable” is what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin.\n\n4/ Think of it like free speech. You can hate what someone says, but the moment you let an authority decide what’s allowed, you’ve given up the principle that protects you too.\n\n5/ So what’s the alternative? Make the clean methods win. OP_RETURN was literally designed for non-financial data. It’s prunable — it does NOT bloat the UTXO set. The real bloat comes from inscriptions stuffing data into Taproot witness fields and fake multisig outputs that nodes must track forever.\n6/ Instead of banning the bad methods (which creative devs will route around anyway), make OP_RETURN the cheapest and easiest path. Rational actors follow incentives. If the non-bloating method is the most economical, people will use it naturally.\n\n7/ Node-level filtering? Totally fine. That’s your node, your choice. But consensus-level restrictions are everyone’s choice imposed on everyone — and that’s a very different thing.\n\n8/ TL;DR:\n∙ UTXO bloat is a real problem ✅\n∙ BIP-110’s goal is valid ✅\n∙ But solving it by changing consensus sets a dangerous precedent ❌\n∙ Better path: make non-bloating methods (OP_RETURN) the most economical option 💡\n∙ Fix incentives, don’t build censorship tools\n\nWe can protect Bitcoin’s monetary purpose without sacrificing the property rights that make it worth protecting in the first place. 🤝",
"sig": "7e902ddd8c6469e5e03faa2030e219e88246de5c5c18e9af9fe72e28a9b95e205e5c8cfa061e629624c2c1eb1d187438c3af651143d3b069006f25549deb3195"
}