Difference between revisions of "OP RETURN"
(Add Omni Layer, note Open Assets prefix) |
(The recommendation for BIPs is outdated. No such BIPs exist and the practice has been discouraged on the mailing list.) |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | OP_RETURN is a [[script]] opcode used to mark a transaction output as invalid | + | '''OP_RETURN''' is a [[script]] opcode used to mark a transaction output as invalid. Since any outputs with OP_RETURN are provably unspendable, OP_RETURN outputs can be used to [[Proof of burn|burn]] bitcoins. |
| − | + | == Is storing data in the blockchain acceptable? == | |
| + | Many members of the Bitcoin community believe that use of OP_RETURN is irresponsible in part because Bitcoin was intended to provide a record for financial transactions, not a record for arbitrary data. Additionally, it is trivially obvious that the demand for external, massively-replicated data store is essentially infinite. Despite this, OP_RETURN has the advantage of not creating bogus UTXO entries, compared to some other ways of storing data in the blockchain. | ||
| − | + | From [https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain Bitcoin Core release 0.9.0]: | |
| − | + | <blockquote> | |
| + | This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain. The OP_RETURN change creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes – some of which were already deployed – that were storing arbitrary data such as images as forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating bitcoin's UTXO database. | ||
| − | + | Storing arbitrary data in the blockchain is still a bad idea; it is less costly and far more efficient to store non-currency data elsewhere. | |
| − | + | </blockquote> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | == OP_RETURN | + | == OP_RETURN applications == |
| − | + | OP_RETURN can be used for digital asset proof-of-ownership, and has at times been used to convey additional information needed to send transactions (see [[stealth address]]). | |
| − | { | + | |
| − | + | {{DISPLAYTITLE:OP_RETURN}} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 15:30, 20 September 2018
OP_RETURN is a script opcode used to mark a transaction output as invalid. Since any outputs with OP_RETURN are provably unspendable, OP_RETURN outputs can be used to burn bitcoins.
Is storing data in the blockchain acceptable?
Many members of the Bitcoin community believe that use of OP_RETURN is irresponsible in part because Bitcoin was intended to provide a record for financial transactions, not a record for arbitrary data. Additionally, it is trivially obvious that the demand for external, massively-replicated data store is essentially infinite. Despite this, OP_RETURN has the advantage of not creating bogus UTXO entries, compared to some other ways of storing data in the blockchain.
From Bitcoin Core release 0.9.0:
This change is not an endorsement of storing data in the blockchain. The OP_RETURN change creates a provably-prunable output, to avoid data storage schemes – some of which were already deployed – that were storing arbitrary data such as images as forever-unspendable TX outputs, bloating bitcoin's UTXO database.
Storing arbitrary data in the blockchain is still a bad idea; it is less costly and far more efficient to store non-currency data elsewhere.
OP_RETURN applications
OP_RETURN can be used for digital asset proof-of-ownership, and has at times been used to convey additional information needed to send transactions (see stealth address).
