It's not a bug. Dropping the script size limit is an intentional design decision. As BIP 342 says:
"Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed."
You could always put data in the block chain by paying for the block space. The DoS protection was always the block size limit and blockspace market: it's expensive and people stop doing it whenever the hype has jumped the shark.
Could you elaborate how "inscriptions are more onerous for the data hoarders to inscribe and reconstruct in order to access their data"? Serialization and deserialization of data is a standard exercise that gets designed once and then used per a library. Why would they care which function they call on a library?
Could you tell me more about the concern you have when you say "if we let them put data on the Blockchain in its raw form that could be inviting even more problems than it solves"?
Murch /
npub1j5…nsd5c
2025-05-15 21:04:54
in reply to nevent1q…mdev
Author Public Key
npub1j5mp526z5fkz9wkrk6mt5nzu43xndyrwkr8mnqngdqwytgcpc5vqcnsd5cPublished at
2025-05-15 21:04:54Event JSON
{
"id": "040217fb3f9a25fc6bcccef5b822d3982ebb657d71aa454c07f0a75ec7b6e08e",
"pubkey": "95361a2b42a26c22bac3b6b6ba4c5cac4d36906eb0cfb98268681c45a301c518",
"created_at": 1747343094,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5de8fb33a70e5b7bb29ad368001ad29d042f4990d6e35960f40952d221b2d39",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e238c7444b5441f6d8b7a860ba4a640593a1ecf9d2cdfb6edc2e19dc66a3f97c"
],
[
"e",
"d02e5291d072bfe9a0573c18af386a27498180572345de37e10f649ef3a6601f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"22f22e98a035b8ff97d4cc4c5b34e65ccecae258430eeca46b17b1e8aabb8a5e"
],
[
"p",
"95361a2b42a26c22bac3b6b6ba4c5cac4d36906eb0cfb98268681c45a301c518"
],
[
"p",
"4564d670cc2b516c0173a27814abe5d8ca60abc8f883ac82b47b5c980877484b"
]
],
"content": "It's not a bug. Dropping the script size limit is an intentional design decision. As BIP 342 says: \n\"Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed.\"\n\nYou could always put data in the block chain by paying for the block space. The DoS protection was always the block size limit and blockspace market: it's expensive and people stop doing it whenever the hype has jumped the shark.\n\nCould you elaborate how \"inscriptions are more onerous for the data hoarders to inscribe and reconstruct in order to access their data\"? Serialization and deserialization of data is a standard exercise that gets designed once and then used per a library. Why would they care which function they call on a library?\n\nCould you tell me more about the concern you have when you say \"if we let them put data on the Blockchain in its raw form that could be inviting even more problems than it solves\"?\n",
"sig": "2e31af338d1db3e7118ea0bdd49e1f289a47100202778199dbb8b6f44142099ca8110bd1e75f37c122585c9dbed6bfafeb35cea521ed8be3f9684bb7041df4c5"
}