Does elevated OP_RETURN demand bias mempool-based charge estimation for abnormal funds (e.g., totally different elasticity/arrival patterns vs financial txs)?
No, OP_RETURN transactions usually are not handled specifically (constructive or unfavourable) 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: area in a block. Price estimation must account for all demand of block area equally.
May sustained OP_RETURN demand crowd out smaller financial funds and cut back their on-chain viability, even when whole charges rise?
Definitely, and now we have seen comparable conduct happen earlier than with inscriptions. It is all simply provide and demand. The provision of block area is proscribed, so when the demand will increase, whether or not that is funds, OP_RETURNs, inscriptions, or one thing else, the value of that block area will enhance as effectively. Finally, it comes right down to whoever is prepared to pay the next value. Perhaps these making funds are prepared to pay greater than these making OP_RETURNs. Perhaps vice versa.
Nevertheless, it must be famous that fee transactions are sometimes smaller, and there are a variety of coin choice methods which may optimize for creating smaller transactions. On condition that, it’s possible that transactions which are merely funds can pay smaller absolute charges than transactions containing OP_RETURNs, even when the feerate is increased.
Is there evaluation or simulation exhibiting that increased OP_RETURN utilization doesn’t degrade settlement reliability or result in extra unstable charge dynamics that damage adoption?
Previous conduct on the community has proven that even when there’s important demand for block area that adoption has nonetheless elevated. Simply have a look at what number of extra individuals are into utilizing Bitcoin since issues like inscriptions have occurred. Generally, adoption has tended to go up regardless of what’s taking place on chain.
We additionally know from earlier situations 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 isn’t any cause to imagine to growing the OP_RETURN restrict would lead to elevated transaction quantity. The first methodology of knowledge insertion within the blockchain over the previous a number of years has been through inscriptions. That methodology of knowledge insertion is cheaper, and permits for extra knowledge, than OP_RETURNs. Rising the OP_RETURN restrict does not change that, so these trying to insert giant quantities of knowledge are unlikely to modify to OP_RETURN. There’s a very small set of customers for which bigger OP_RETURNs are fascinating, however they’d not have excessive (or actually any considerable quantity of) transaction quantity.
