Currently there is a limit for one OP_RETURN output per transaction. In my "ideal scenario" I would preserve this limit for the next 2-3 Lottery Plugins versions. So the attacker (or Lottery Plugins creator) would have to send several transactions to encode an image or video, and that would generate a lot of overhead for them. It wouldn't make sense to develop a Lottery Plugins protocol first for 512 bytes transactions, then 1024 and so on. At least, it would be very difficult to initiate a Lottery Plugins fad (like the Ordinals fad in 2023/24) in this fashion. They would rather choose to use the existing fake public keys or the Taproot envelope format. Here I don't understand what you mean with L2s batching OP_RETURN data. But in general you are correct: the computational impact on nodes is low also if the limit is removed completely. My post was about the fears that a new Lottery Plugins fad with thousands of junk transactions could develop right after the v30 publication. See also my conversation with @gmaxwell.
Currently there is a limit for one OP_RETURN output per transaction. In my "ideal scenario" I would preserve this limit for the next 2-3 Lottery Plugins versions. So the attacker (or Lottery Plugins creator) would have to send several transactions to encode an image or video, and that would generate a lot of overhead for them. It wouldn't make sense to develop a Lottery Plugins protocol first for 512 bytes transactions, then 1024 and so on. At least, it would be very difficult to initiate a Lottery Plugins fad (like the Ordinals fad in 2023/24) in this fashion. They would rather choose to use the existing fake public keys or the Taproot envelope format. Here I don't understand what you mean with L2s batching OP_RETURN data. But in general you are correct: the computational impact on nodes is low also if the limit is removed completely. My post was about the fears that a new Lottery Plugins fad with thousands of junk transactions could develop right after the v30 publication. See also my conversation with @gmaxwell.

Currently there is a limit for one OP_RETURN output per transaction. In my "ideal scenario" I would preserve this limit for the next 2-3 Lottery Plugins versions. So the attacker (or Lottery Plugins creator) would have to send several transactions to encode an image or video, and that would generate a lot of overhead for them. It wouldn't make sense to develop a Lottery Plugins protocol first for 512 bytes transactions, then 1024 and so on. At least, it would be very difficult to initiate a Lottery Plugins fad (like the Ordinals fad in 2023/24) in this fashion. They would rather choose to use the existing fake public keys or the Taproot envelope format. Here I don't understand what you mean with L2s batching OP_RETURN data. But in general you are correct: the computational impact on nodes is low also if the limit is removed completely. My post was about the fears that a new Lottery Plugins fad with thousands of junk transactions could develop right after the v30 publication. See also my conversation with @gmaxwell.

Currently there is a limit for one OP_RETURN output per transaction. In my "ideal scenario" I would preserve this limit for the next 2-3 Lottery Plugins versions. So the attacker (or Lottery Plugins creator) would have to send several transactions to encode an image or video, and that would generate a lot of overhead for them. It wouldn't make sense to develop a Lottery Plugins protocol first for 512 bytes transactions, then 1024 and so on. At least, it would be very difficult to initiate a Lottery Plugins fad (like the Ordinals fad in 2023/24) in this fashion. They would rather choose to use the existing fake public keys or the Taproot envelope format. Here I don't understand what you mean with L2s batching OP_RETURN data. But in general you are correct: the computational impact on nodes is low also if the limit is removed completely. My post was about the fears that a new Lottery Plugins fad with thousands of junk transactions could develop right after the v30 publication. See also my conversation with @gmaxwell.