Nostr

Chris Monetary Maximalist Eleutheropraxeology

“Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used.”

I don’t know, if you support “people’s freedom” or network taking control via centralization through prohibitive cost increment.

The freedom of anybody ends when the freedom of somebody is being cut (and that without consensus or in free will).

Nice and Kind Vic 2y ago

The resource cost increment on the size of the UTXO set is something we needed to solve before inscriptions (and stamps, and muun wallet, etc) and continues to be a key technical challenge.

I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.

Nobodies freedom is being cut by the existence of inscriptions or any other form of data storage within Bitcoin that embeds within

- coinbase

- op_return in general

- multisig outpouts

- tx output amounts

- tx id

- op code ordering

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chris Monetary Maximalist Eleutheropraxeology 2y ago

“Nobodies freedom is being cut by the existence of inscriptions or any other form of data storage within Bitcoin that embeds within

- coinbase

- op_return in general

- multisig outpouts

- tx output amounts

- tx id

- op code ordering”

Not by their existence, but due to their consequences.

Chris Monetary Maximalist Eleutheropraxeology 2y ago

“The resource cost increment on the size of the UTXO set is something we needed to solve before inscriptions (and stamps, and muun wallet, etc) and continues to be a key technical challenge.”

And what would be your proposal?

Chris Monetary Maximalist Eleutheropraxeology 2y ago

“I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.”

Why make it more centralizing to miners?

At its worst, those do not change anything in the dynamic behavior of the existing Bitcoin system.

(“knee jerk reaction”: how should I understand that phrase?)

Nice and Kind Vic 2y ago

Exactly.

I DONT want to centralize more to miners. Hence, I dont want to incentivize that by making people have to work with miners directly for their transactions. If we cant relay, then we lose censorship resistance.

Chris Monetary Maximalist Eleutheropraxeology 2y ago

You can’t lose what you already lost and that is decentralization of mining activity (via proxy popular big mining pools).

If you would want to keep mining entities decentralized, then you should incentivize regular Bitcoin node decentralization and adoption. But of course, that is not your view for Bitcoin.

Nice and Kind Vic 2y ago

I could argue that Inscriptions aided decentralization as more people had to learn how to run nodes.. indeed I helped set some people up and provided some early guides on the process which are available in my github repo.

It also solidified taproot which was floundering since activation.