On Fri, Mar 28, 2025, at 20:53, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > >> I'm also personally strongly against removing 64-byte transactions. It's a >> wart
[...] > But more to the point, it does not solve any of the problems that were > originally provided as justification, apart from making it slightly > simpler to implement an SPV wallet (no need to get the coinbase tx). It's important to keep in mind that "SPV wallet" also includes any kind of automated bridge that requires knowledge of Bitcoin transaction inclusion. What's simple to implement in a rust-bitcoin wallet may be extremely hard in a smart contract. Or maybe it's indeed trivial. It could be a useful illustration if someone implements such a bridge using any of the proposed covenant op codes, and shows the difference in complexity between having the 64 byte limit and not having it. I do agree that people should read these other threads to form an opinion on the topic. And the BIP should point to these threads if it doesn't already. - Sjors -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/19f6a854-674a-4e4d-9497-363af306e3a0%40app.fastmail.com.
