Does elevated OP_RETURN demand bias mempool-based charge estimation for bizarre funds (e.g., totally different elasticity/arrival patterns vs financial txs)?
No, OP_RETURN transactions usually are not handled specifically (optimistic or adverse) on the subject of charges. All transactions are handled equally, with the one distinguishing issue being how a lot they’re prepared to pay to in charges. No matter whether or not the transaction has OP_RETURNs, inscriptions, or funds, all transactions are competing for a similar useful resource: house in a block. Charge estimation must account for all demand of block house equally.
May sustained OP_RETURN demand crowd out smaller financial funds and scale back their on-chain viability, even when complete charges rise?
Definitely, and now we have seen related conduct happen earlier than with inscriptions. It is all simply provide and demand. The provision of block house is proscribed, so when the demand will increase, whether or not that is funds, OP_RETURNs, inscriptions, or one thing else, the worth of that block house will enhance as nicely. Finally, it comes right down to whoever is prepared to pay the next worth. Possibly these making funds are prepared to pay greater than these making OP_RETURNs. Possibly vice versa.
Nonetheless, it ought to be famous that fee transactions are sometimes smaller, and there are a variety of coin choice methods which may optimize for creating smaller transactions. Provided that, it’s possible that transactions which might be merely funds can pay smaller absolute charges than transactions containing OP_RETURNs, even when the feerate is increased.
Is there evaluation or simulation displaying that increased OP_RETURN utilization doesn’t degrade settlement reliability or result in extra unstable charge dynamics that harm adoption?
Previous conduct on the community has proven that even when there may be vital demand for block house that adoption has nonetheless elevated. Simply take a look at what number of extra persons are into utilizing Bitcoin since issues like inscriptions have occurred. Typically, adoption has tended to go up regardless of what’s taking place on chain.
We additionally know from earlier cases of excessive transaction quantity that it may be onerous to foretell how a lot to pay in charges to get right into a block. That is probably true no matter whether or not that quantity is from OP_RETURNs, inscriptions, funds, or one thing else. This will impact “settlement reliability” if what you imply by that’s guessing how lengthy it takes a transaction to be mined.
However there is not any motive to imagine to growing the OP_RETURN restrict would end in elevated transaction quantity. The first technique of information insertion within the blockchain over the previous a number of years has been by way of inscriptions. That technique of information insertion is cheaper, and permits for extra information, than OP_RETURNs. Rising the OP_RETURN restrict does not change that, so these seeking to insert massive quantities of information are unlikely to modify to OP_RETURN. There’s a very small set of customers for which bigger OP_RETURNs are fascinating, however they might not have excessive (or actually any considerable quantity of) transaction quantity.
