Wouldn’t deleting OP_RETURN CAP unintentionally give users an incentive to choose the cheapest or most cost-deferred method?

Why is that happening? The limit does not make OP_RETURN more expensive, and if there is a limit it will make OP_RETURN cheaper, and the cost per byte of data is the same regardless of the limit. The increased limit is that OP_Return is more useful in situations where you want to add 80 bytes or more of data to the output. This is great for everyone as an output data substitute adds that data to the UTXO set.

Instead of treating all vectors equally, shouldn’t a policy try to manipulate the demand for any data for the “most harmful” output, like Op_return?

That’s what this policy actually does. It incentivizes people who store more than 80 bytes of data in the output. Otherwise, you’re using bare multisigs or multiple Taproot outputs to use good Op_return across your network.

When unlocking UTXO, I would like to include random (actually random ) data.

I want to secure my spending with classic signatures.

At first I thought about using it p2wpkhbut from what I understand, a witness must contain exactly two elements (signature and public key). If there are more, the transaction is invalid.

1. Would I fix it?

After that I considered using the classic p2pkhwhere is it? scriptsig You can add data first before the signature and public key (for example, a simple 20-byte push). This should preserve security as only top-level stack elements are checked after the script is executed. Therefore, additional data does not cause any problems.

2. Would you like to fix it?

However, this is fine from a consensus and security perspective, but we also found that policy rules prevent such transactions from being relayed across the network, as multiple elements remain in the stack.

3. Would you like to fix it?

It’s very important to include additional data when using your funds, but I don’t know how to do this. Any ideas? Maybe we’ll use other transaction types to achieve this?

Any help is greatly appreciated. Please answer just one of the above questions.

I created a transaction with Bitcoin Testnet. You are trying to consolidate multiple UTXOs into different addresses. I sent 0.00007460 to a specific address, 0.00080540 as the price and used the remaining balance as a change

https://blockstream.info/testnet/tx/512946cf36ef64ac36c587d14bd5a5833a5beac48792f9fef6ccb4a6a126ada2? expand

The transaction went through, but I didn’t see any updates to Blockcypher (the site I normally use) in the link above. I know the details of that transaction, but if I expand the details I don’t know what that part on the left is. You can see TX:Unspent to spend the amount sent to the right side of the TX: Unspent. On the left is a number of “witnesses.” The transaction has 3637 confirmations. So why is it viewed as an output that can only be seen 0.00002900? Once the miners have confirmed that BTC is available, did you think it’s because I’ll consolidate a large number of 204 transactions from one particular address that I’ve accumulated for a long time?

Bitcoin’s upward price trajectory has slightly cooled, with the asset now trading just below the $119,000 mark, reflecting a 3% decline over the past week.

The dip follows a sustained upward trend that has seen significant interest from both institutional and retail participants in recent months. The current pause in momentum may suggest a temporary rebalancing, with market participants potentially reassessing their positions.

As price movement stabilizes, on-chain analysts have begun to highlight deeper structural shifts within Bitcoin’s blockchain activity. According to CryptoQuant contributor Avocado onchain, one key trend gaining attention is the continued decline in Bitcoin’s Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) count.

While at first glance this might seem related to falling transaction volumes, the underlying cause points to a more strategic restructuring by institutional participants.

Related Reading

Institutional Consolidation Reshaping On-Chain Structure

Avocado explained that since December 2024, Bitcoin’s UTXO count has steadily decreased, a development he attributes to growing over-the-counter (OTC) activity and consolidation efforts by large holders.

These entities, primarily whales and institutional investors, are reportedly merging multiple UTXOs into fewer addresses, a process that increases on-chain efficiency and reflects a preference for long-term custody.

“The post-ETF approval environment has driven more assets into secure wallets, moving funds off exchanges into institutional-grade custody,” he wrote.

This structural shift suggests that long-term holders are preparing for extended exposure rather than immediate market participation.

Instead of dispersing funds for frequent trades, these institutions are consolidating their Bitcoin holdings into larger ones, indicating reduced near-term liquidity but possibly greater long-term market stability. The impact is visible in the on-chain footprint, where the number of active UTXOs has not kept pace with prior bull cycles.

Bitcoin Muted Retail Activity and Future Market Signals

While institutional activity appears to be solidifying, retail investor behavior remains subdued. Avocado noted that, unlike previous cycles where retail-driven volume increases contributed to UTXO growth, the current rally lacks that widespread grassroots engagement.

The number of newly created UTXOs has remained relatively flat, reinforcing the view that retail participation is yet to catch up. Looking ahead, the analyst suggests that any renewed wave of short-term speculation, often sparked by sharp price movements, could reignite retail interest.

This would be reflected in increased UTXO creation, exchange activity, and possibly greater volatility. Until then, the market appears to be led primarily by long-term strategic accumulation.

Related Reading

Despite the current slowdown in price, underlying metrics remain constructive. Exchange inflows are moderate, long-term holders continue to accumulate, and institutional capital flows persist.

These factors suggest that the market is still in a consolidative phase, rather than signaling a reversal. Should retail participation return and on-chain activity broaden, Bitcoin could see renewed upside supported by both foundational demand and speculative inflows.

Featured image created with DALL-E, Chart from TradingView

Bitcoin is trading less than 2.5% below its all-time high near $112,000, signaling growing momentum and the potential start of a new impulsive phase in price discovery. After weeks of steady gains and strong consolidation above the $100K level, BTC appears ready to break higher and extend its macro uptrend. The market is watching closely, as a clean move above $112K could trigger a wave of bullish continuation and renewed institutional interest.

Related Reading

On-chain insights from CryptoQuant add important context to this moment. Specifically, the analysis of UTXOs—Unspent Transaction Outputs—provides a deeper understanding of the state of unrealized profits across the network. UTXOs are the core technical structure that ensures a single bitcoin can only be spent once. But beyond that, they offer critical insight into the profitability of held coins.

Currently, the market is nearing the 99% threshold, meaning 99% of all BTC holdings are in profit. This level historically aligns with periods of market euphoria and strong uptrend, but can also signal potential overheating if sustained too long. As Bitcoin inches toward new highs, this metric reinforces the strength of the rally while reminding investors that such high profitability often comes with increased volatility.

Bitcoin Thrives In Volatile Times As Market Nears 99% Profit Threshold

Bitcoin is showing remarkable strength as it flirts with new highs this week, trading just below $112,000. While global markets react to rising U.S. Treasury yields and persistent inflation, Bitcoin appears to be thriving in the chaos, solidifying its role as both a risk asset and a macro hedge. As traditional markets face pressure, BTC continues to lead with resilience, even as geopolitical and policy-related uncertainty clouds investor sentiment.

Top analyst Darkfost shared fresh insights on Bitcoin’s on-chain condition, focusing on the utility of UTXOs (Unspent Transaction Outputs). UTXOs are the technical mechanism that ensures a single BTC can only be spent once on the blockchain. But beyond that, they serve as a powerful tool for assessing unrealized profits across all held BTC.

One key metric derived from UTXOs is the percentage of BTC supply in profit. Currently, Bitcoin is approaching the critical 99% threshold, meaning nearly all coins are in unrealized gain territory. Historically, this level is associated with periods of market euphoria and sustained uptrends, but it also comes with a warning: elevated unrealized profits often precede spikes in profit-taking.

While BTC’s structure remains bullish, macro uncertainty—especially around the Trump administration’s policy direction—keeps risk-on conviction muted. As Darkfost notes, “We’re not fully euphoric yet, but we’re entering a zone where late buyers should be cautious.”

If the 99% profit signal drops, it may trigger a wave of selling as gains shrink and weaker hands capitulate. For now, though, Bitcoin remains strong, and the uptrend is intact. The market is watching closely because in times like these, BTC tends to move first.

Related Reading

BTC Holds Steady Near Highs As Momentum Builds

Bitcoin is currently trading at $109,679 on the 4-hour chart, consolidating just below its all-time high after reclaiming short-term support. The price recently bounced off the 100 SMA ($105,586) and is now hovering above the 34 EMA ($108,280), signaling continued bullish momentum. All key moving averages are aligned to the upside, reflecting a strong and healthy trend.

Volume has remained relatively stable during the pullback and recovery, suggesting no major distribution phase is underway. The 50 SMA ($107,679) also acted as dynamic support during the recent dip, reinforcing the strength of the $107K–$108K zone.

The $103,600 level, previously a major resistance, continues to serve as solid structural support. As long as BTC remains above this zone, the broader uptrend remains intact. Short-term resistance now sits near the $110,200–$112,000 range. A breakout above this level would likely trigger the next leg higher, potentially toward the $120,000 mark.

Related Reading

With Bitcoin holding above key EMAs and moving averages on the 4-hour timeframe, bulls remain in control. If price continues to build above $108K, the likelihood of retesting and surpassing all-time highs grows significantly in the coming sessions.

Featured image from Dall-E, chart from TradingView

Hello LND Developers and Community,

Despite being fully synchronized after Bitcoin core node (v29.0.0, RPI5 fresh IBD, txindex = 1), we are facing a very unusual and important issue that on-chain funds related to past LND channel closures are inaccessible. However, both the ListUnSpent software and the external wallet software (Sparrow) are unable to view this UTXO, and importantly, the address holding the fund cannot be derived from my LND root key using standard methods.

System and history:

LND: v0.18.5-beta (upgraded from v0.5.2-beta). Only one wallet.db has been identified that is used throughout.

Bitcoin Core: V29.0.0 (RPI5), fully synced, IBD, TXINDEX = 1 report synced: true. Datadir/MNT/HDD/BITCOIN.

Channel History: Opened in March 2019 (LND V0.5.2, Funding TX: 7060 … 9D71), later closed the power by peers.

Sweep Transaction: April 1, 2024 (block 837257), TX 4C0407B1188E0BA39313B1D9C87C49F6C81D99AA2839026C8AF8C989CE102244 used the channel output and sent 0.01495 BTC to P2WPHH. BC1QT728QPLPUH6D98EVKL4A990ZDHWPWVUR6QG8QZ.

On-Chain Verification: Explorers confirm that this UTXO (4C04 …:0) is present and does not exist in BC1QT7 … G8QZ.

Core Issues and Conflicts:

After full IBD, make sure the txindex is synced on the Bitcoin Core node.

getrawtransaction 4c04... true Success: Node knows the history of funding transactions.

scantxoutset start '("addr(bc1qt7...)")' Returns UTXO successfully. This directly confirms that the node’s chainstate (UTXO set) database is correct and contains the previous output of BC1QT7 … G8QZ.

{
  "success": true, ...
  "unspents": ( { "txid": "4c04...", "vout": 0, ... "address": "bc1qt7...", "amount": 0.01495437 ... } ),
  "total_amount": 0.01495437
}

listunspent ... '("bc1qt7...")' (use -rpcwallet="" or any other loaded wallet) Returns (): Despite the UTXO present in the chain state, wallet-specific RPC calls cannot list it.

Sparrow Wallet (a fresh install connected to this node) shows a balance of 0. Import the confirmed LND root XPRV and configure BIP84 (M/84’/0’/0”, native Segwit P2WPKH), Sparrow completes the scan, but shows 0 balance and uses utxos.

Parallel Wallet Derived Failure:

Verified root XPRV (extracted from the correct Wallet.db via Chantools Showrootkey), using extensive checks using the offline tool (bip39-Standalone.html) (m/84’/0’/0’/0’/* and m/84’/0’/0’/0’/1/*). BC1QT728QPLPUH6D98EVKL4A990ZDHWPWVUR6QG8QZAfter checking millions of addresses.

Current Status and Emergency Questions:

I have an on-chain fund in bc1qt7…g8qz (per scantxoutset) the nodes fundamentally know, but they are not accessible via standard wallet RPC (listunspent) and external wallet (sparrow). To consolidate this is that you cannot derive this particular address from the LND root key using the standard BIP84 path.

Seek expert help:

Why can’t external wallets like Sparrow and external wallets like Sparrow not display UTXO when ScantxOutset on the same node confirm its presence in the UTXO set? Is this a known core bug, an issue with how Wallets queries addresses other than owners, or is it something else?

Given the derivation failure, is it possible for LND (especially after major version jump) to wipe out funds from the Aezeed root key to addresses that cannot be derived via the standard BIP84 path? Is a bug or a particular state likely to lead to using different derivation schemes, or can you use important keys that are unrelated to the main wallet in the sweep output?

Advanced methods or tools (LND debug commands, using specific Chantools, alternative wallet software known to handle edge cases) are:

a) Force Sparrow/LND to recognize UTXO based on node chain state confirmation?

b) Does it help clearly track the derived paths (even non-standard) used to generate bc1qt7…g8qz from wallet.db/xprv?

This situation seems very unusual. The insights and guidance are highly appreciated.

thank you.

To my knowledge, when a new node joins a network, it downloads over 500 GB blockchain data used to verify the integrity of the blockchain.

Blockchains are difficult to rewrite but easy to check, so start by checking the headers from genesis blocks to chip blocks, regardless of whether the downloaded blockchain is corrupted or not.

Then repeat the body of the block from Genesis block to Chip block that takes days or weeks to build UTXO (the current balance of each address).

For all blocks in iteration:

• If it is the output (destination) of a transaction, add the address to the UTXO set.
• If it is the input (source) of a transaction, remove the address from the UTXO set.

So can we say that the blockchain itself is stateless? This is because it only stores transaction history, as additional operations allow only new blocks.

From that stateless data, all nodes can construct a UTXO set, where all nodes hold their state in internal memory (the same way as the way Mempool was saved). correct?

If correct, it may be that all nodes have different utxo.

Please clarify my understanding.

To unlock, the lock script requires three numbers with a total of 15 and a maximum of less than 8. So, after replicating this script in Python, replicating the top 3, removing them to see if they are 15, then checking if each is less than 8.

ex2a_txout_scriptPubKey = (OP_3DUP,OP_8,OP_LESSTHAN,OP_VERIFY,OP_8,OP_LESSTHAN,OP_VERIFY,OP_8,OP_LESSTHAN,OP_VERIFY,OP_ADD,OP_ADD,OP_15,OP_EQUALVERIFY)

Send with this function response = send_from_P2PKH_transaction(amount_to_send, txid_to_spend, utxo_index, ex2a_txout_scriptPubKey)

def send_from_P2PKH_transaction(amount_to_send, txid_to_spend, utxo_index, txout_scriptPubKey):
    # Step 1: Create the txin
    txin = CMutableTxIn(COutPoint(lx(txid_to_spend), utxo_index)) #now we have txin

    # Step 2: Create the txout
    txout = CMutableTxOut(amount_to_send * COIN, CScript(txout_scriptPubKey))

    # Step 3: Create the transaction
    tx = CMutableTransaction((txin), (txout))

    # Step 4: Create the txin_scriptPubKey (from the address holding the UTXO)
    txin_scriptPubKey = my_address.to_scriptPubKey()

    # Step 5: Create the signature
    sig = create_OP_CHECKSIG_signature(tx, txin_scriptPubKey, my_private_key)

    # Step 6: Set the txin's scriptSig value (signature + public_key)
    txin.scriptSig = CScript((sig, my_public_key))

    # Verify the transaction
    VerifyScript(txin.scriptSig, txin_scriptPubKey, tx, 0, (SCRIPT_VERIFY_P2SH,))

    # Broadcast the transaction
    return broadcast_transaction(tx)

It works with classic P2PKH, but with txout_scriptpubkey the response is

`400 Bad Request sendrawtransaction RPC error -26: scriptpubkey`

Any help is appreciated, I don’t know where I went wrong in the script. I first used 8, but I had to use OP_8, but it still doesn’t work. Edit: I won’t accept that either "(OP_5, OP_EQUAL)". You cannot accept anything other than P2PKH.