I haven’t dug into this discussion but it strikes me that if we’re having it then bitcoin core is too centralized and powerful.
If the software were sufficiently decentralized then it wouldn’t matter what 3 devs did, would it? nostr:note153rgcd2zksl2t78mj9ev9jqvy57nl825zhzzp94ptenhhh5pzywqd8ckgv
Thankfully nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk & nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze are helping to address the problems
Run Knots, mine with nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze
We're not enough on our own
I am critical of Ordinals and Luke's ordi-disrespector patch was a step in the right direction.
Yet it has also been interesting to see how this has played out. Fees went up at the time of this year's 2024 halving, only to go down to normal levels some weeks after. Recently we had 4 sats/vb tx fees, quite low.
I am not against the fact that *some* non-tx data can be stored on the blockchain. The important aspect is that the amount of non-tx data per tx is low. If we want to store non-tx data we should do that via other methods than the bitcoin base layer.
One interesting part of this whole matter is the highlighting of the fact that we can't scale bitcoin to 8 billion people via the base layer. Scaling to meet the needs of 8bn humans requires L2-L3's, from Lighting to Liquid, Fedi and other competing free market solutions above the base layer.
Yes, I see it the same way. It never made sense to me why the core devs would implement the witness discount for non-transaction data. Why create any incentive? At least they should be paying full price to store data.
