OP_Return辯論：BTC的腳本語言升級

最近幾週，一場OP_Return的辯論在比特幣行業爆發，現在已經入侵了該行業中的大多數對話空間。

A debate over OP_RETURN and mempool policy has been flaring up in the Bitcoin industry in recent weeks and has by now invaded most conversation spaces within the industry. The topic is rich and complex, and many people have strong opinions on the matter.

最近幾週，關於比特幣行業的OP_Return和Mempool政策的辯論一直在爆發，現在已經入侵了該行業中的大多數對話空間。這個話題是豐富而復雜的，許多人對此事有強烈的看法。

For those who missed it, OP_RETURN is an opcode in Bitcoin's scripting language used to store meta data or arbitrary data that is not relevant for bitcoin transaction validation, as such can be pruned by node runners without much issue, enabling more efficient management of spam while also giving developers a controlled environment to anchor data on chain.

對於那些錯過了它的人，OP_Return是比特幣的腳本語言中的OPCODE，用於存儲與比特幣交易驗證無關的元數據或任意數據，因此可以由節點跑步者毫無疑問地修剪，從而使垃圾郵件更有效地管理垃圾郵件，同時還可以使開發人員在鏈中錨定一個受控的環境。

Taking a harm reduction approach to the problem of spam, the OP_RETURN controversy was recently triggered by a pull request submitted by Peter Todd to the Bitcoin Core repository. The pull request removed the 80-byte mempool policy limit on OP_RETURN payloads, which in practice limited the size of arbitrary data that could be placed in the script to about 80 bytes. By removing this limit, the maximum size of an OP_RETURN payload is limited only by the consensus block size cap of 1MB of non-SegWit data.

對垃圾郵件問題的危害減少方法，OP_Return爭議最近是由Peter Todd提交給比特幣核心存儲庫的拉力請求引發的。拉動請求刪除了OP_Return有效載荷的80字節MEMPOOL策略限制，實際上，該載荷限制了可以將腳本中放置的任意數據的大小限制為約80字節。通過刪除此限制，OP_Return有效載荷的最大大小僅受1MB非隔離數據的共識塊大小上限的限制。

Proponents of the update, such as Todd, argue that the limit is no longer effective at stopping spam and, on the contrary, is leading to more harmful behaviors such as stuffing data in UTXOs, which harm node runners.

更新的支持者（例如托德）認為，極限不再有效地停止垃圾郵件，相反，限制會導致更有害的行為，例如在UTXOS中填充數據，這會傷害節點跑步者。

The proposal also removed the datacarrier flag, a configuration option that allowed node runners to choose which transactions to filter from their local mempool based on how much arbitrary data the OP_RETURN carried.

該提案還刪除了DataCarrier標誌，這是一種配置選項，允許節點跑步者根據OP_Return攜帶多少任意數據選擇哪些交易來過濾其本地Mempool。

The opposition, led by Luke Dashjr, not only wants to keep the OP_RETURN limit in place and retain the datacarrier size but proposes further mempool policy restrictions on arbitrary data and “non-monetary” transactions on Bitcoin.

反對派由盧克·達什（Luke Dashjr）領導，不僅希望將OP_Return限制保持在適當的位置並保留DataCarrier的大小，而且還提出了對任意數據和比特幣“非貨幣”交易的進一步限制。

Both camps generally agree that arbitrary data on Bitcoin is a bad thing for the network. They also agree that filters cannot possibly filter all kinds of spam. What they disagree on is how effective these kinds of filters are in mitigating spam. They also disagree on the consequences of imposing or removing these filters from the network, their impact on the costs of running a node, and their impact on mining centralization.

兩個營地通常都同意，對比特幣的任意數據對網絡來說是一件壞事。他們還同意過濾器不可能過濾所有類型的垃圾郵件。他們不同意的是這些過濾器在緩解垃圾郵件中的有效性。他們還不同意將這些過濾器從網絡中施加或刪除這些過濾器的後果，對運行節點成本的影響以及對採礦集中化的影響。

Of course, not all proponents of the OP_RETURN changes agree with all of the arguments in favor of the pull request, and not all opponents agree with all of the arguments against it. This is just a general (and probably incomplete) overview of the various arguments out there.

當然，並非所有的支持者的支持者都與所有有利於拉的請求的論點一致，並且並非所有對手都同意反對它的所有論點。這只是其中各種參數的一般概述（可能是不完整的）。

In Support Of Removing the OP_RETURN Size Limit

支持刪除OP_RET_RETTRUNT尺寸限制

Spearheaded by Peter Todd, though supported by many Bitcoin Core contributors, the removal of the OP_RETURN limit represents a harm reduction approach to the problem of spam and arbitrary data on Bitcoin.

彼得·托德（Peter Todd）的率領雖然得到了許多比特幣核心貢獻者的支持，但OP_Return限制的去除代表了對垃圾郵件問題的危害減少方法和對比特幣的任意數據。

Todd argues that the current OP_RETURN limit, initially placed over a decade ago to give spammers a safe and controlled space for arbitrary data, no longer serves its purpose as companies and enthusiasts have developed direct-to-miner private mempools, such as MARA's Slipstream, that bypass mempool policy.

托德（Todd）認為，目前的OP_Return限制最初是在十年前放置的，以使垃圾郵件發送者為任意數據提供一個安全，受控的空間，因為公司和發燒友已經開發了直接到米納的私人孟買（例如Mara's Slipstream）的目的，例如繞過Mara的Slipstream，繞過了繞過Mempool政策。

The OP_RETURN limit was put in place after Satoshi Nakamoto left, to protect the network from similar spam but during a very different era, when blocks were rarely full, much less boasting a high-fee environment. There were also few to no tools for pruning, and the software was very inefficient. Many optimisations have been implemented in the last decade, and their cumulative effects influence this debate.

在薩托·納卡本（Satoshi Nakamoto）離開後，將OP_Return限制置於適當的位置，以保護網絡免受類似的垃圾郵件的侵害，但是在一個截然不同的時代，塊很少滿足，更不用說擁有高費的環境了。修剪的工具也很少，也沒有工具，該軟件效率很低。在過去的十年中，已經實施了許多優化，它們的累積影響影響了這一辯論。

The OP_RETURN limit was thus more effective when it was first created and more difficult to bypass. Today, NFT and arbitrary data enthusiasts with ambitious projects, pressured out of the OP_RETURN space by the current mempool limit, have resorted to stuffing arbitrary data into the UTXO set instead. Unlike OP_RETURN or SegWit spaces, which can be reasonably pruned off nodes, the UTXO set is generally held in RAM, the most expensive form of memory. The UTXO set needs to be processed by nodes, to verify the supply of coins and be able to validate the integrity of new transactions, a fundamental piece of running a node, without which home nodes lose much of their value proposition. UTXO data stuffing as a result imposes significant costs on node runners by increasing initial block download, overall sync time, and hardware requirements that ultimately harm the decentralisation of the Bitcoin network.

因此，當它首次創建時，OP_Return限制更加有效，並且更難繞過。如今，NFT和任意數據愛好者擁有雄心勃勃的項目，而當前的MEMPOOL限制向OP_Return空間施加了壓力，已求助於將任意數據塞入UTXO集中。與op_return或segwit空間可以合理地從節點上修剪，UTXO集通常以RAM保存，這是最昂貴的內存形式。 UTXO集需要由節點處理，以驗證硬幣的供應，並能夠驗證新事務的完整性，這是運行節點的基本段落，而沒有該節點會失去其大部分價值主張。因此，UTXO數據填充通過增加初始塊下載，整體同步時間和硬件要求，從而損害了比特幣網絡的分散化，從而對節點跑步者施加了巨大的成本。

Finally, supporters argue that miners are “rational economic actors,” an economics term meaning that to stay alive in a very competitive market, miners need to optimise for profits wherever possible. Thus, if mining consensus-valid non-standard transactions gives them an edge, they will take it.

最後，支持者認為礦工是“理性的經濟行為者”，這是一個經濟學術語，這意味著要在競爭激烈的市場中保持生命，礦工需要盡可能優化利潤。因此，如果採礦共識 - 瓦利德非標準交易使它們具有優勢，他們將接受它。

Back in 2023, Luke Dashjr proposed a change that sought to apply datacarrier mempool policy to SegWit and Taproot arbitrary data, such as Inscriptions, further restricting the options for spammers. Peter Todd opposed the PR, explaining that “The transactions targeted by this pull request are a very significant source of fee revenue for miners. It is very unlikely that miners will give up that source

早在2023年，盧克·達什（Luke Dashjr）提出了一個更改，試圖將DataCarrier Mempool策略應用於Segwit和Taproot任意數據，例如銘文，進一步限制了垃圾郵件發送者的選項。彼得·托德（Peter Todd）反對PR，解釋說：“此拉請求目標的交易是礦工的重要收入來源。礦工不太可能放棄該來源