I received no prior response from you, so I suspect the issue is on your end-- since if you sent one I would normally have been directly copied. In any case, your message makes no sense. If an output is provably unspendable then it is unspendable. No amount of "clever steganography" can change that. If you're imagining that perhaps they are *presumed* to be unspendable but actually *are* spendable, then sure that would be an issue but with any change to consensus relevant code great care must be taken to not introduce errors. Actually *making* a consensus change would only increase the potential for mistakes. These costs are just another reason why this hysteria over a non-issue is misplaced. But in any case it is better that (any) implementations that care about stamps put in the effort to define their exclusions in ways that are safe than to burden everyone with a consensus change that doesn't care about it. On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 1:49 AM Jonathan Voss wrote: > This is my third attempt to respond to this. Idk what is going wrong here. > > The problem with dropping Bitcoin Stamps UTXOs from the UTXO set without a > consensus change is that a clever use of steganography could cause one of > those otherwise unspendable outputs to be spendable, thus causing a fork > between those nodes that adopted the Stamp pruning method and those that > did not once one of those steganographic Stamps is spent. Though this is > unlikely, it is still technically possible, and I would not put it past the > denizens of the Internet to stir up trouble just for its own sake. > > On Friday, December 12, 2025 at 6:49:41 PM UTC-5 Greg Maxwell wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 9:26 PM Jonathan Voss wrote: >> >>> Since the Bitcoin Stamps outputs are already unspendable, it makes >>> perfect sense to mark and drop them from the UTXO set. >> >> >> There is no consensus change involved in not storing a provably >> unspendable output, it's just an implementation detail with no >> interoperability implications and doesn't need a BIP. Bitcoin core has >> long done so for several types of unspendable outputs, e.g. outputs over >> 10kb and ones starting with OP_RETURN. >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/4e947f47-b43d-4ec3-ac6a-aa66ea0cfb79n%40googlegroups.com > > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSEX0dcg73qnrj5uP64Xaw%3Dukj7fhzng_1gT3BntjocNQ%40mail.gmail.com.