PANews reported on October 27th that, according to The Block, a debate among Bitcoin developers over blockchain data capacity has spawned the controversial proposal BIP-444. This proposal, introduced after the Bitcoin Core v30 update removed the upper limit on the amount of data that can be added via OP_RETURN, has only been adopted by approximately 6.3% of nodes. BIP-444 proposes limiting OP_RETURN outputs to 83 bytes and most other scriptPubKeys to 34 bytes, effectively blocking outputs containing large scripts or data blocks. The proposal also limits the size of individual data pushes, invalidates currently unused or undefined script versions to prevent circumvention of the limits, limits the size of embedded Merkle trees in Taproot outputs, and prohibits OP_IF in Tapscripts, effectively eliminating the ordinal inscription method. These changes will be implemented via a temporary soft fork, expected to last a year, to allow developers to explore alternative data storage solutions. Critics argue that this violates Bitcoin's permissionless nature and constitutes censorship. Jameson Lopp of Casa noted that the proposal lacks clear definition of the issues at stake and raises questions about the legal liability of node operators. The proposal has not yet been submitted to the bitcoin development mailing list for feedback, but it has sparked heated discussion on social media.PANews reported on October 27th that, according to The Block, a debate among Bitcoin developers over blockchain data capacity has spawned the controversial proposal BIP-444. This proposal, introduced after the Bitcoin Core v30 update removed the upper limit on the amount of data that can be added via OP_RETURN, has only been adopted by approximately 6.3% of nodes. BIP-444 proposes limiting OP_RETURN outputs to 83 bytes and most other scriptPubKeys to 34 bytes, effectively blocking outputs containing large scripts or data blocks. The proposal also limits the size of individual data pushes, invalidates currently unused or undefined script versions to prevent circumvention of the limits, limits the size of embedded Merkle trees in Taproot outputs, and prohibits OP_IF in Tapscripts, effectively eliminating the ordinal inscription method. These changes will be implemented via a temporary soft fork, expected to last a year, to allow developers to explore alternative data storage solutions. Critics argue that this violates Bitcoin's permissionless nature and constitutes censorship. Jameson Lopp of Casa noted that the proposal lacks clear definition of the issues at stake and raises questions about the legal liability of node operators. The proposal has not yet been submitted to the bitcoin development mailing list for feedback, but it has sparked heated discussion on social media.
Proposal to curb Bitcoin spam with a temporary soft fork sparks debate among developers
PANews reported on October 27th that, according to The Block, a debate among Bitcoin developers over blockchain data capacity has spawned the controversial proposal BIP-444. This proposal, introduced after the Bitcoin Core v30 update removed the upper limit on the amount of data that can be added via OP_RETURN, has only been adopted by approximately 6.3% of nodes. BIP-444 proposes limiting OP_RETURN outputs to 83 bytes and most other scriptPubKeys to 34 bytes, effectively blocking outputs containing large scripts or data blocks. The proposal also limits the size of individual data pushes, invalidates currently unused or undefined script versions to prevent circumvention of the limits, limits the size of embedded Merkle trees in Taproot outputs, and prohibits OP_IF in Tapscripts, effectively eliminating the ordinal inscription method. These changes will be implemented via a temporary soft fork, expected to last a year, to allow developers to explore alternative data storage solutions. Critics argue that this violates Bitcoin's permissionless nature and constitutes censorship. Jameson Lopp of Casa noted that the proposal lacks clear definition of the issues at stake and raises questions about the legal liability of node operators. The proposal has not yet been submitted to the bitcoin development mailing list for feedback, but it has sparked heated discussion on social media.
Piyasa Fırsatı
Blockstreet Fiyatı(BLOCK)
$0.016406
$0.016406$0.016406
USD
Blockstreet (BLOCK) Canlı Fiyat Grafiği
Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen service@support.mexc.com ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.
Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz
The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For
The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush. Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs. Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
Wyoming-based crypto bank Custodia files rehearing petition against Fed
The post Wyoming-based crypto bank Custodia files rehearing petition against Fed appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A Wyoming-based crypto bank has filed another
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 22:06
US economy adds 64,000 jobs in November but unemployment rate climbs to 4.6%
The post US economy adds 64,000 jobs in November but unemployment rate climbs to 4.6% appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The economy moved in two directions at
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/16 22:18