# OP\_RETURN limits: Pros and Cons

**URL:** <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-return-limits-pros-and-cons/1645>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Tags:** mempool, bitcoin-core\
**Created:** [May 1, 2025, 9:21am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-return-limits-pros-and-cons/1645 "2025-05-01T09:21:48Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![1440000bytes](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/1440000bytes/32/301_2.png) [@1440000bytes](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/1440000bytes)\
**Post date:** [May 1, 2025, 9:35am UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-return-limits-pros-and-cons/1645/3 "2025-05-01T09:35:53Z")

</div>

A solution proposed by Warren Togami:

> Now I propose adding an additional expectation of fee for each output where the value is “small”. For example a shitcoin in 2011 added 1,000 penalty bytes to the fee expected by MempoolAccept for each output that was too small. I always thought that was a good idea that would benefit Bitcoin because it would make any UTXO set expansion extra costly. I first proposed this for Bitcoin ~2014 because I was very angry about SatoshiDice spam. I still think charging for too-small outputs would have been better than the dust limit.

Link: [https://x.com/wtogami/status/1917289539703280006](https://x.com/wtogami/status/1917289539703280006)

---

_[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/op-return-limits-pros-and-cons/1645)._