[BIP Proposal] Reduced Data Temporary Softfork

The discussion raised by Greg Maxwell Dathon about the OP_RETURN data in Bitcoin transactions and its capacity for storing hazardous content brings to light several critical points. The ongoing development to increase the storage capacity within Bitcoin Core 30 to 100kB is noted, which potentially allows for the storage of such content in a more contiguous format. This change has sparked a debate on the interpretation and implications of embedded data within the Bitcoin blockchain.

Firstly, it's important to underline that Bitcoin inherently does not provide a mechanism to view embedded data as files, such as images or videos. Any attempt to interpret the embedded data requires external third-party tools, making the distinction between contiguous and non-contiguous data largely irrelevant from a technical standpoint. This point is humorously illustrated through a provided link (https://x.com/rot13maxi/status/1963318690759192622), emphasizing that regardless of how the data is stored, accessing it necessitates file carving techniques.

Moreover, the purpose of the OP_RETURN feature is highlighted as a protective measure for the UTXO set, rather than an endorsement for storing arbitrary files on the blockchain. This clarification is crucial, as it refutes any notion of Bitcoin’s design facilitating the embedding of harmful or illegal content. It underscores the impossibility of preventing people from writing arbitrary bytes onto the blockchain but frames the OP_RETURN function as a form of damage control rather than an open invitation.

Finally, the discussion about the legal implications of storing data in a contiguous format reveals a deeper concern about liability and enforcement. The argument that presenting data contiguity as a limiting factor would hold legal significance is dismissed, with the suggestion that such a stance might inadvertently lead to increased accountability for those who attempt to self-police this aspect of the blockchain. In essence, the nature of the data, its interpretation, and how it is technically handled by Bitcoin nodes versus its perception and treatment under the law are brought into question, indicating a complex interplay between technology, intent, and regulatory considerations.