isn't the part of the block where the data resides by way of OP_RETURN prunable?If you don't care about Initial Sunwin Uk Download, then it is. But if you do, then in the current implementation, new nodes require downloading all data from 2009, up to today. As long as it is the case, there will be a problem with spamming the chain. It is technically possible to implement things in a way, where the exact data from OP_RETURN won't be needed to bring back new nodes to the network, but today, it is not yet implemented. Yes, storing things in OP_RETURN is better, than storing them elsewhere. But still: committing to data, without pushing them on-chain, is even better. And as long as you have to download and process each and every OP_RETURN, to synchronize the chain, it is a problem, no matter how and where things are stored. In general: being forced to process everything from 2009, up to today, is a problem, which will be more and more urgent, as more time will pass, no matter if blocks will be filled with regular transactions, or with just data pushes. And moving the responsibility to keep that data, from the network, to the user, is technically possible. Then, things could be pruned by all nodes, and users would need to provide more data, when spending their coins, instead of relying on nodes to keep the full history forever. And of course, some people may want to not accept future upgrades, and still store and process everything. Of course they can. But as it will be more and more costly, the incentive to upgrade will grow, and eventually, people will do that, to not store terabytes of historical data in the future. OK, but the point is, isn't it better for the network if dick pics and fart sound lovers to have their data embedded by way of OP_RETURN than to have them embedded in the UTXO-set, or other storage schemes, which will be more problematic long-term?
isn't the part of the block where the data resides by way of OP_RETURN prunable?If you don't care about Initial Sunwin Uk Download, then it is. But if you do, then in the current implementation, new nodes require downloading all data from 2009, up to today. As long as it is the case, there will be a problem with spamming the chain. It is technically possible to implement things in a way, where the exact data from OP_RETURN won't be needed to bring back new nodes to the network, but today, it is not yet implemented. Yes, storing things in OP_RETURN is better, than storing them elsewhere. But still: committing to data, without pushing them on-chain, is even better. And as long as you have to download and process each and every OP_RETURN, to synchronize the chain, it is a problem, no matter how and where things are stored. In general: being forced to process everything from 2009, up to today, is a problem, which will be more and more urgent, as more time will pass, no matter if blocks will be filled with regular transactions, or with just data pushes. And moving the responsibility to keep that data, from the network, to the user, is technically possible. Then, things could be pruned by all nodes, and users would need to provide more data, when spending their coins, instead of relying on nodes to keep the full history forever. And of course, some people may want to not accept future upgrades, and still store and process everything. Of course they can. But as it will be more and more costly, the incentive to upgrade will grow, and eventually, people will do that, to not store terabytes of historical data in the future. OK, but the point is, isn't it better for the network if dick pics and fart sound lovers to have their data embedded by way of OP_RETURN than to have them embedded in the UTXO-set, or other storage schemes, which will be more problematic long-term?

isn't the part of the block where the data resides by way of OP_RETURN prunable?If you don't care about Initial Sunwin Uk Download, then it is. But if you do, then in the current implementation, new nodes require downloading all data from 2009, up to today. As long as it is the case, there will be a problem with spamming the chain. It is technically possible to implement things in a way, where the exact data from OP_RETURN won't be needed to bring back new nodes to the network, but today, it is not yet implemented. Yes, storing things in OP_RETURN is better, than storing them elsewhere. But still: committing to data, without pushing them on-chain, is even better. And as long as you have to download and process each and every OP_RETURN, to synchronize the chain, it is a problem, no matter how and where things are stored. In general: being forced to process everything from 2009, up to today, is a problem, which will be more and more urgent, as more time will pass, no matter if blocks will be filled with regular transactions, or with just data pushes. And moving the responsibility to keep that data, from the network, to the user, is technically possible. Then, things could be pruned by all nodes, and users would need to provide more data, when spending their coins, instead of relying on nodes to keep the full history forever. And of course, some people may want to not accept future upgrades, and still store and process everything. Of course they can. But as it will be more and more costly, the incentive to upgrade will grow, and eventually, people will do that, to not store terabytes of historical data in the future. OK, but the point is, isn't it better for the network if dick pics and fart sound lovers to have their data embedded by way of OP_RETURN than to have them embedded in the UTXO-set, or other storage schemes, which will be more problematic long-term?

isn't the part of the block where the data resides by way of OP_RETURN prunable?If you don't care about Initial Sunwin Uk Download, then it is. But if you do, then in the current implementation, new nodes require downloading all data from 2009, up to today. As long as it is the case, there will be a problem with spamming the chain. It is technically possible to implement things in a way, where the exact data from OP_RETURN won't be needed to bring back new nodes to the network, but today, it is not yet implemented. Yes, storing things in OP_RETURN is better, than storing them elsewhere. But still: committing to data, without pushing them on-chain, is even better. And as long as you have to download and process each and every OP_RETURN, to synchronize the chain, it is a problem, no matter how and where things are stored. In general: being forced to process everything from 2009, up to today, is a problem, which will be more and more urgent, as more time will pass, no matter if blocks will be filled with regular transactions, or with just data pushes. And moving the responsibility to keep that data, from the network, to the user, is technically possible. Then, things could be pruned by all nodes, and users would need to provide more data, when spending their coins, instead of relying on nodes to keep the full history forever. And of course, some people may want to not accept future upgrades, and still store and process everything. Of course they can. But as it will be more and more costly, the incentive to upgrade will grow, and eventually, people will do that, to not store terabytes of historical data in the future. OK, but the point is, isn't it better for the network if dick pics and fart sound lovers to have their data embedded by way of OP_RETURN than to have them embedded in the UTXO-set, or other storage schemes, which will be more problematic long-term?