Perhaps we need to tighten up our language and say more precisely that Bitcoin is a censorship resistant *monetary* network, not a general network, then people won't label storing arbitrary, non-monetary data as censorship IMHO
Discussion
That would have had to been done at genesis but it wasn’t
Maybe it was implied though.
I think the title of the whitepaper did this but people like to ignore it
Then why was the first thing stored in the blockchain is non monetary data
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
Pretty good point, the genesis block is very special and unspendable, but I see what you're saying
Then you might misunderstand that since there could be no previous block hash to include Satoshi did this as proof. It was monetary data in that respect. It was proof the Genesis block was not faked.
Cash --> Cache --> "a place to store valuable things"
Think, supply-cache, weapons-cache, data-cache.
Value is subjective, and ironically, cash leaks value more than anything; it's a very poor incarnation of a cache.
The word cash may have evolved from cache, but evolution generally happens for a reason. They are 2 distinct words. Bitcoin is not a P2P electronic cache system.
This evolution happened because the existing words "currency" & "dollar" weren't inspiring enough confidence in people, so the word "cache"was hijacked to imply "dollar means value."
Pretty shitty reason IMO. I consider satoshi's use of the word in the title a perpetuation of its confusing history.
Yes but money converges to one asset.
Meh. What is non-monetary data? I mean from an information theory perspective.
Sure, some data blobs that can be decoded into TXT or JPEG are obvious.
But if you see a blob of data and have no clue how to interpret it, how can you claim that it's non-monetary? It could be an anchor for a monetary second layer.
We could standardize them and make sure the node can interpret it, otherwise node rejects it as invalid (maybe?)
Just my own selfish thoughts, I'm happy to pay money for more hardware to store money transactions, it's in my own interest for the money use case to grow, but if half my cost is just storing other people's images for free, I'm not interested in that and would want to reject all of it from my node or maybe it gets even worse and I just give up on node running
Good point about individual choice. That's ignored entirely too much in this discussion.
However, censoring all spam from the **timechain** going forward through filters, is not gonna work. Putting some pressure on it through simple OP_RETURN settings may help, or running a massively filtered implementation of the Bitcoin software. But if you want it relatively absent from the timechain completely, we're talking a consensus rules change... and a new exploit might be found again anyway or an old one made worse.
To me the only effective solution that is also ethical and LONGLASTING, is that everyone gets to run their own OP_RETURN policy and filters and such, which they already do (but I can see the argument that this change to Core will sneak a lot stuff in without proper discussion or consideration of the purpose of the network and the reason for running the node, which violates some of the expectations some noderunners have, shame on you guys for not having a good faith discussion about the ethics here),
AND that the discussion converges on a further way to make spam ***COSTLY***, WITHOUT incentivizing slipstream to the point that it becomes the de facto method of bitcoin transaction submission. No one in the mainstream discussion I have seen has yet discussed methods of doing this simple approach in enough detail to understand what the tradeoffs are, where the sweet spot might be, how long the default OP_RETURN could be to allow arbitrary data, how to make OP_RETURN the default way of inputting arbitrary data so that spam costs a full vbyte, or other similar kinds of tweaks that individual users can make and that Core can make as the current de facto Bitcoin implementation.
I don't get one point.
Why completely remove the limit, and not just raise it to 160 and see what will happen ? (as it was down in 2014)
from 80 limit to unlimited... there is a clear difference (it is really an extremist vision).
Surprising and unexpected usage will for sure appear.
Interesting view :
Yeah if I were in charge of this decision for Core, I would double it and just get on with life, and see what happens. And maybe actually discuss things.
Because it's a discrepancy between relay policy and consensus.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5539943.msg65335891#msg65335891
That is a wrong avenue.
There is a movie called "What's a woman?" and because of their agenda some people can't answer that simple question.
It is known what is monetary transaction data like it is known what is IP data for the IP protocol. The creators of The Internet did not allow to put jpegs in the IP field.
“You don’t know”
“Why do you care”
Dismissiveness reminiscent of the American Left
I understand the point you’re trying to make but this has been a bad look
This isn’t about one-off transactions. It becomes quite clear, very quickly, what VC spammers are doing and thus easy enough to filter their transactions. Taking an adversarial stance against this data storage garbage would quickly kill large scale future spammers due to the risk involved. They would fuck off back to solana or wherever
Exactly it's pretty obvious but I guess nostr:npub17u5dneh8qjp43ecfxr6u5e9sjamsmxyuekrg2nlxrrk6nj9rsyrqywt4tp will keep gaslighting us nevertheless.
Thinking deeply and adversarially about complex issues is now gaslighting. Got it.
When you discover that your software doesn't work as you intended, this take is akin to saying that changing the function names will make it all better. When in fact, just changing how you talk about Bitcoin doesn't matter to the people attempting to exploit it, who don't care what narratives you spin about it.
That's the meaning of an adversary.