I disagree with the different reply that the solely purpose is to keep away from additional drama. There may be definitely a social side to it, and several other contributors have acknowledged this as one purpose they’re in favour of casting off the restrict totally. However i believe there’s a stronger, goal, purpose for dropping the restrict totally.
TL;DR: this restrict is already being disregarded by massive miners. If massive miners are going to mine some transactions, these must be accessible to all miners. Together with the smaller miners that solely hear about transactions by plugging themselves to the general public p2p community.
I feel the case is even stronger for a default restrict barely larger than 144 bytes, however nonetheless not ~100KB (lifting it totally). One thing like 1kB. I metal manned the case for such a smaller restrict right here:
[…]
Such design solely must retailer a small quantity of information there. Nonetheless we have to take into account ahead compatibility in altering the restrict, as tailoring it to the very particular occasion of Citrea will not be an excellent match for future usecases. We could not discover the publication of a future design till it’s actively getting used, at which level its builders would possibly understandably be reluctant to return and make the change. One other chance is that builders of a future software would possibly simply not be considering participating with our unfavourable externality considerations after the very fact, however would have simply used
OP_RETURNoutputs within the first place if there have been an accessible choice.This can be a legitimate argument for leaving some wiggle room for ahead compatibility with yet-unknown usecases. Nonetheless if we expect on the margin it isn’t a convincing for going all the best way to the utmost customary transaction dimension. Actually it is sensible to go for example as much as 1 KB. However what’s the rationale for going from 1 KB to 99 KB?
[…]
As was defined in reply to my metal man, and several other different instances within the thread, the reason being that this restrict is already being bypassed by (massive) miners. Coverage limits actually solely are a gentleman settlement. If some massive miners are going to interrupt this settlement and mine transactions outdoors of coverage limits, these must be tailored to make the transactions accessible to all miners.
The reason being apparent when there’s ongoing financial demand for the non-standard transactions: proscribing smaller miners that simply plug on the general public p2p community from accessing the charges for these transactions disproportionally benefits massive miners. However relay coverage is admittedly sluggish to alter. It must be designed in anticipation. Transactions containing massive or a number of OP_RETURN outputs are already getting mined. What if unexpectedly they begin being actively used and pay a non-substantial quantity of charges? It’s definitely not unprecedented that silly use circumstances of Bitcoin get traction! Plus this eventuality is now extra seemingly than it was a couple of months in the past, as a ridiculous worry mongering marketing campaign that happened on social media set the proper situations to bootstrap yet one more meme use of Bitcoin’s block house.
I feel the “sub-sat summer time” debacle (mentioned in this reply) is an efficient illustration of a failure from Bitcoin Core to set relay coverage in anticipation. In hindsight, it was predictable that after a 100x BTC worth improve, Bitcoin customers wish to begin utilizing transactions paying a feerate smaller than 1sat/vb. It was proposed earlier than however didn’t achieve sufficient curiosity amongst common contributors. Finally, customers and miners collectively compelled they approach by way of and about 40% of Bitcoin’s block house received utilized by transactions that don’t respect Bitcoin Core’s relay coverage. Thankfully, because of the demand being for low feerate transactions, the charges related to out-of-policy transactions was minimal. The final profitable meme use of Bitcoin’s block house generated lots of of thousands and thousands of {dollars} of transaction charges. It’s important that Bitcoin Core not be caught off-guard on this case.
Making choices typically incur tradeoffs. The upside of dropping the restrict totally is that Bitcoin Core’s relay coverage matches miners’ coverage. The draw back of dropping it’s that it will cease appearing as a gentle deterrent in opposition to utilizing the block chain to retailer arbitrary knowledge. As defined in my different reply to you, it has already stopped serving as a gentle deterrent for knowledge storage. Subsequently, dropping this restrict totally advantages the Bitcoin community long run greater than protecting it.
