# 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:** 75

<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:** [February 27, 2025, 4:48pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/great-consensus-cleanup-revival/710/75 "2025-02-27T16:48:39Z")

</div>

> [@Chris\_Stewart\_5](#):
>
> As of block `00000000000000000001194ae6be942619bf61aa70822b9643d01c1a441bf2b7`, there are no non-standard, non-zero-value outputs that could be satisfied exclusively by a 64-byte transaction.

Did you check all utxos one by one? In any case this statement is always true because you can just pad the scriptsig (even if that might be nonstandard).

> [@Chris\_Stewart\_5](#):
>
> As of block `00000000000000000001194ae6be942619bf61aa70822b9643d01c1a441bf2b7`, there are no UTXOs in the blockchain with `redeemScripts` of 0–3 bytes.

Nice, did you bruteforce all possible valid script serializations from 0 to 3 bytes and checked no corresponding P2SH exist in the utxo set? (But also it’s not necessary to make the point it wouldn’t freeze anyone’s coins, for the same reason.)

> [@Chris\_Stewart\_5](#):
>
> but I have not seen it documented anywhere.

I’m pretty sure it was discussed around Greg’s segwit ephemeral anchors (renamed ephemeral dust along the road), as alluded to by garlonicon.

---

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