Hi ZmnSCPxj, Any benefits of my proposal depend on my presumption that using a standard transaction for storing data must be inefficient. Presumably a transaction takes up significantly more on-chain space than the data it carries within its OP_RETURN. Therefore, not requiring a standard transaction for data storage should be more efficient. Facilitating data storage within some specialized, more space-efficient data structure at marginally lower fee per payload-byte should enable reducing the footprint of storing data on-chain.
In case storing data through OP_RETURN embedded within a transaction is optimal in terms of on-chain footprint then my proposal doesn’t seem useful. Zac On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 01:05, ZmnSCPxj <zmnsc...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Good morning Zac, > > > Reducing the footprint of storing data on-chain might better be achieved > by *supporting* it. > > > > Currently storing data is wasteful because it is embedded inside an > OP_RETURN within a transaction structure. As an alternative, by supporting > storing of raw data without creating a transaction, waste can be reduced. > > If the data is not embedded inside a transaction, how would I be able to > pay a miner to include the data on the blockchain? > > I need a transaction in order to pay a miner anyway, so why not just embed > it into the same transaction I am using to pay the miner? > (i.e. the current design) > > > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
