# Great Consensus Cleanup Revival

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710>\
**Category:** Protocol Design\
**Created:** [March 24, 2024, 5:29pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710 "2024-03-24T17:29:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 48

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AntoineP](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/antoinep/32/483_2.png) [@AntoineP](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/AntoineP)\
**Post date:** [November 5, 2024, 2:54pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710/48 "2024-11-05T14:54:27Z")

</div>

After re-reading through the arguments presented in this thread i’m leaning toward including the invalidity of 64 bytes transactions as part of the consensus cleanup proposal. I appreciate Eric’s push back against some of the advertised benefits (my caching assumptions being incorrect and the bandwidth reduction in absolute terms being modest). Still i think the actual benefits, mostly in terms of reduced complexity for SPV applications, outweigh the cost.

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710)._