A proposal to temporarily reduce arbitrary data and restore Bitcoin as a monetary network.
Bitcoin is a monetary network. RDTS2 proposes a temporary reduction of arbitrary data usage while preserving Bitcoin's primary function as a peer-to-peer monetary system.
RDTS2 carries forward the rules introduced by RDTS1, except for the MASF option, and introduces additional consensus-level restrictions on arbitrary data, an increased dust limit, and a defined mandatory miner-signalling and activation schedule.
These changes are intended to reduce incentives for arbitrary data storage while limiting alternative forms of UTXO-set abuse.
Limit the number of OP_RETURN outputs
to 100 per block.
Any block containing more than 100
OP_RETURN outputs will be deemed invalid.
Increase the dust limit at the consensus level to 4,096 sats.
Should this rule become permanent, the limit will be cut in half at every halving.
Mandatory miner signalling begins one year after the proposal's signalling period begins.
Rules activate one month after mandatory signalling begins.
Bitcoin's scarce block space creates a natural competition between monetary transactions and arbitrary data.
RDTS2 seeks to temporarily restore stronger restrictions around arbitrary data while providing a defined path for evaluation, signalling and activation.
Bitcoin is for money, not spam.
We have had for over a decade a limit on data per OP_RETURN and a limit on OP_RETURN per transaction. Limiting the amount of OP_RETURN outputs per block extends that concept to the block level.
It would also prevent abusive blocks such as:
View example block ↗It increases the consensus dust limit to 4,096 sats.
The rule is intended to make UTXO-based arbitrary data storage more expensive while reducing potential harm to the UTXO set.
Rule #2 is intended to address this trade-off by making fake public-key based storage either significantly more expensive or less harmful to the network.
Not necessarily. In the long run, as Bitcoin adoption and block usage increase, small spends can be better served by Layer 2 systems such as Lightning.
Sub-dust amounts can still be sent and received using mechanisms such as multisig.
If the dust limit is 4,096 sats and a user wants to send 4,000 sats, the parties could commit larger amounts to a multisig output and subsequently redeem the appropriate amounts.
It is more complicated and more involved, but monetary spends under $10 represent a small portion of the network when spam transactions are excluded. Lightning is ultimately better suited for many small payments.
Yes. The exception could reveal information about poorly designed wallets that already reuse addresses, such as some custodial or legacy wallet implementations.
A well-designed wallet can instead increase the amounts of inputs until its change output exceeds the dust limit.
The proposal estimates that more than 99.7% of monetary transactions would not need to reuse an input as a change output. Where the exception is used, the potential privacy leak would concern only a relatively small amount.