*as if THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL

🔥🔥🔥

It's the other way around. If you want txs that are being mined today to stay out of the mempool, you're making life harder for new and smaller miners, and you're incentivizing profits outside of the open fee market.

https://spiralbtc.substack.com/p/the-mevil-of-relay-policy

Deincentivise mining centralization.

nevent1qqszthhetwy92uktw0tdqte7uazxw7w4l7zjf8saacysqnc7qath62qpz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcecuazs

The block reward will be substantial enough for decades to come, and transaction fees have already passed what the block reward will be in 30 years. There is no logical argument that goes, “we need spam so miners remain profitable.”

https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsplg3rdj456y7hmgh3nwj4u2knmp0z3syu0h3y32nuqhffu9ud3gqfk468l

Spot on analysis 🤙

The OP_RETURN debate looks to be fueled primarily by short term gains vs longevity of the Bitcoin network.

I don't care about miners being profitable. I care about the cost of attacking the Bitcoin network.

If the block reward (fees + subsidy) grows slower than the market cap of btc a hypothetical double spend becomes more profitable.

However I doubt JPEG storage will help much in the long run. The only way I see the security budget working out long term is massive second layer settlement. And "arbitrary" data storage might help with that.

spot on.

Sad the incentives being upside down 🙃

Nodes are not servants to miners and investors.

The mining interpretation here is backward though.

The normal (ie standard) mempool and mining of transactions remains a ruthless free market across operational scales.

However, at LARGE scales (the ones we definitely shouldn’t add supplemental ‘support’ for) the presence of nonstandard shitcoin transactions is currently (ie right now at this moment) adding profitability by allowing miners at this scale to arbitrage the fee market for a short time, claim additional out-of-band fees, and then go right back to the standard pool of transactions and claim the ‘normal’ fees from winning blocks.

The only reason they can do this is because of size.

So there are two competing claims, and the real task is determining which carries the burden.

1) The presence of these transactions is bad full stop and we should filter them by default to discourage their proliferation and potential profitability over time.

2) Filtering them (in the current way at least) has created this mining reality which COULD BE even worse over time than the bloat and waste caused by 1).

We are moving toward having the right conversation at least with all this imo.

Couldn't you have put all this in a cute lil meme?

you are true and nostr:nprofile1qythwue69uhnsvfwxcuzuvfhxqhrzv3j8gmnzvf5qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqqs86r69uyte6hmuguqpdpx86g8gcw8c9mn0mvssgcyut3s7h7wmhjq8ggmwp too.

the question is not really about OP_RETURN, but much more how the shit is nowadays into the BTC blockchain, and how to clean that, and keep the mining enough profitable to live and create new block.

Financial model of miner will adapt (with complain) to this. But they forgot a little that the purpose of that is to keep the blockchain alive for a longest time.

Some miner can consider a big profit is good in short term and sell their activity before blockchain will host full shit.

But some other miner just trust in BTC enough to want it to stay alive the longest time possible.

So, the miners are not the problem whatever you say or think about them, they will adapt.

They just try as brat child to perfect their profit (in good and bad ways) and that's all.

If the vision is enough clear for the longest time to assure them profit on a long time it is also a financial vision they can understand.

Now the problem is unsolved nowadays :

- There is already shit on the blockchain

- Current filter don't work as expected for that

- Devs want to open space in OP_RETURN to allow this shit to stay there, and "hope" it will clean the other trick used that dirt the block

- Miners will just use both (new space and old dirty trick) to be more profitable

- Filters and came back to payment transaction is what most of bitcoiner wants.

- Without that all the BTC blockchain could be blocked by high-fee-shit and everyone could loose a lot (including dev, miners, nodes owners, BTC holder or users...).

So the message is clear :

- No, BTC have not been created to host shit, but for transaction and payment (it was born from the failure of fiat system).

- No, it is not a natural evolution of it. (They are so much shitcoin for that!!!)

- BTC don't need to host anything else, the specific usage of BTC for payment transaction is his strength, his blood, and must stay this way.

- Everyone in the network have his words, his voice, there is not only one BTC guardian here. They are 3 entities : miners, devs, node owners. AND it has been created that way to have consensus about problems.

Miners like fees. Devs like good code. Node owners like BTC.

If BTC become a shit coin all theses 3 entities will loose something.

That's why it is important to share this kind of problem and solutions and the vision.

If miner and devs want more space for shit, they can create another blockchain aside for that. No need to transform BTC into something it was not born for.

It is amazing to imagine the need of shit on a blockchain, when more and more user use it for payment and exchange value. It will cause conflict of use, for sure.

Sometimes short time profit is less interesting than a stable long profit.

And if you don't agree with this you can be free to mine another coin for short high profit.

BTC is a long term view. Other coins are not.

Keep that in mind in all your move.

Meanwhile, my 1TB SSD syncing my node will soon not be enough to store the full timechain :S