Subnostr

The nostr:npub1qtvl2em0llpnnllffhat8zltugwwz97x79gfmxfz4qk52n6zpk3qq87dze team is no more “losing money” in not accepting bribes to include that which they (and other smart individuals like nostr:npub1xtscya34g58tk0z605fvr788k263gsu6cy9x0mhnm87echrgufzsevkk5s, nostr:npub1au23c73cpaq2whtazjf6cdrmvam6nkd4lg928nwmgl78374kn29sq9t53j, nostr:npub1ccsfkkfk46jsjtn80cup0vjn98slkheqd65t36tut822kddvdcxqxjdc57, etc) credibly assert to be #Bitcoin spam than a man would be “losing money” in refusing to pimp out his wife.

Laser 2y ago

I agree that miners are under no obligation to mint ordinals.

I agree that using #Bitcoin as an art gallery constitutes "spam".

I disagree that pool operators should be setting policy on behalf of miners.

I strongly disagree with backwards breaking changes to standard network protocol, like OP_RETURN, because there are valid usecases for that field. Whirlpool, decentralized identity proofs, and others yet concieved.

#Ordinals are going to run out of customers like every shitcoin. We don't need to break #Bitcoin nor compromise decentralization to help them fail.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Gildong.Hong 2y ago

Whirlpool is the one which doesn't support backward compatability, IMO.

Laser 2y ago

What do you mean?

Whirlpool relies on 80 byte OP_RETURN which was standardized by #Bitcoin Core nearly a decade ago.

Even Adam Back says Luke made a mistake by breaking with the standard.

Gildong.Hong 2y ago

I mean 40 B limit has been treated as standard on Core 0.9.0.

What Adam Back says has no meaning.

jb55 2y ago

This is the main point, protocols that rely on non-consensus parameters shouldn’t expect stable relayability over time.