Nostr Web Client

I think JPEGs on the timechain are stupid.

But the idea that they're going to hurt Bitcoin seems so weak to me. Like the US dollar can withstand people scribbling on it but Bitcoin can't?

In fact, the idea of Bitcoin as a glorious digital monument with some graffiti scribbled on it represents humanity pretty well. That's kind of us in a nutshell. Seems on-brand. Perfectionists trying to keep their little gardens tidy while trolls come in and find ways to mess with them anyway.

NFTs and memecoins already had their peak fad moments. People now know that they're non-scarce gambling toys rather than investments. It's just echoes of that peak now. The only thing that concerned me about the ordinals/runes period was the rapid UTXO bloat, not the blockspace usage, since the latter already has a consensus limit on it.

And if Bitcoin transactions can't outprice JPEGs in the long run, then it's just not that valuable. Bitcoin currently does about 1% of the gross settlement volume of Fedwire. That's peanuts. Imagine if it reaches a point where it does even like 10% of Fedwire. What would you pay to move a full bitcoin globally, permissionlessly, in 10 minutes, in a world where it's no longer a niche thing?

9532356a... 7mo ago 💬 3

But, they do take extra blockspace, which makes running a node more costly. Unfortunately, Taproot increased that consensus limit, allowing more exploitation.

I guess my question... why not still try to limit the graffiti, rather than encourage it? "We can't eliminate every piece of graffiti" seems a pretty lame response to not try.

Will it destroy Bitcoin? Probably not. We've got a very determined community. We'll find a way to run nodes even if the costs to do so go up. But, it would be MUCH better if that cost didn't go up, and more people ran nodes.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Lyn Alden 7mo ago 💬 1

Segwit increased the block size limit, not Taproot.

If it makes people feel better to not relay graffiti, then all the power to them. However, I do think it's largely performative, not going to have a tangible effect on the amount of graffiti that ends up in the system (just like it hasn't for the past 2 years), and thus is kind of a false promise and unproductive use of mental resources.

DRE 7mo ago

It’s not about feeling better or not. There is no incentive for nodes to relay or store spam in their mempool. There’s nothing performative about it. It’s already had a tangible effect, but ok

cyberpunk 7mo ago 💬 1

You can't eliminate the use of reversible steganography to enter data into bitcoin, so any promise of a filter is a lie, study this. the block has a space limit that cannot be exceeded and even if you filled everything with "op_return" the block would be smaller than 1MB vs 4MB of segwit.

El presidente Eloy Musketti 7mo ago

Maybe cloudflare could weigh in?

9532356a... 7mo ago 💬 1

"so any promise of a filter is a lie"

Not unless you're meaning 100% effective filters (which would be kind of disingenuous, right?). Filters obviously work. They are used in real world and tech, extensively.

cyberpunk 7mo ago

No sir, bitcoin has rules, basically these rules are measured in consensus parameters and it asks you to pay a fee, bitcoin is an accounting ledger with data, you can use reversible steganography to enter images with the data chopped into pieces as multiple fake multi-signature outputs, without having to use ordinals or op_return, this protocol exists and is called stamps, if you want to filter stamps you have to prohibit multi-signatures, that the outputs of a transaction are more than 2 and a lot of things, basically playing cat and mouse and affecting legitimate users who use bitcoin for wanting to play at being a central entity that wants to control transactions that it does not like even if they comply with the rules and pay their fees.