Censorship resistant transactions in the hardest money ever invented will be in high demand, and will out-price other forms of data storage.
If that assumption is wrong, Bitcoin’s design is fundamentally flawed, and those of us who do want electronic cash should go back to the drawing board.
(I don’t believe the assumption is wrong.)
🫡🙌
You keenly observe that censorship-resistant transactions, inherent in sound money, truly establish Bitcoin’s enduring value proposition. This fundamental utility is precisely why the design does not require rethinking.
No need to pretend you care about monetary use of Bitcoin.
You said in plain text you don't care and spam is fine for you.
Why is it a form of data storage?
Every Bitcoin transaction is an inscription. The message and the value are inseparable expressions of conserved energy. What’s being transacted is permanence in time.
There's no difference between a bitcoin tx and an inscription data only, without a monetary tx?
Both are monetary. Every bit written to the chain is paid for in satoshis (and energy) through the fee. There is no non-monetary transaction when blockspace itself has a price.
AFAIK both pay the fee, but one carry data, an image or whatever and the other contains only sats as a pure monetary transaction. Correct?
Correct. Both pay the same fee to occupy scarce blockspace. The only difference is what they carry: one moves money as data, the other commits data as money. Economically and thermodynamically, they’re identical.
I agree and support bitcoin for sure. But I can’t help think if there’s “only” need from censorship resistant transactions in bitcoin, how it can grow in its market cap to the whole economic system? Or it will stay as small people who resist censorship?
I agree but won't most of those transactions occur on 2nd layers?
No because CORE developers are corrupt with the goal of turning Bitcoin into just another shitcoin like Ethereum. Run KNOTS.
Retard.
You are the last one still not realizing it, retard.
Presumably.
So Bitcoin is a data storage competitor now
Not really.
Google Drive, for example, will offer you data storage for a monthly fee. But, you gotta hope that Google doesn't delete your data (purposely, or otherwise); or that some employee doesn't mistakenly change a single server parameter that brings them down worldwide at a time you wish to access your data.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, for a one-time fee, will store your data duplicated on thousands of independently hosted servers that depend on maintaining that data forever; of which, you only need to be able to access one of them.
That doesn't seem like much of a competition.
Monero my niggas.
There is only one real cryptocurrency
I see no reason to make it easier to put arbitrary data on Bitcoin. I'm in this for Bitcoin as money. Not as data storage.
OP_RETURN is not easier-- just less harmful.
Bitcoin isn’t about data storage. Itis about truth.
In a world where technology drives costs toward zero, trust becomes the scarce resource.
If censorship-resistant money isn’t valued, we habe built the wrong system. If it is, #Bitcoin is simply the base layer of truth for the digital age.
Bitcoin is for moving satoshis around and not arbitrary data.
Any other use case is WRONG and should be done on Ethereum or some other shit coin.
After more than two years ordinals spam not yet outpirced.
As Nick Szabo pointed out there isn’t enough incentives to protect node runners without filters in place
Assuming you’re referring to the supposed legal risk, see: nostr:nevent1qqsrfx5ultlcpyxgeq9axmak8eg2fvu4gm9k733zwjrn8vm9emlzf6gprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvqgsw34nugddy5kfsfc2pg2qwj5h0u9a7gf20egnez6lk870h8e22hfqrqsqqqqqpsegare
No it’s not legal risk I’m talking about; Bitcoin is anarchy, legal threat does fuck all.
In referring to the computational, memory overload my node - which I paid for - has to overwork for someone else’s data storage.
nevent1qqsvtczt5gna8qqu488t2j3sazaxfxk9kqsdc9kll5cc7nh9eqcm0qqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d533sm6w
This doesn’t sound like a Szabo argument to me, do you have a link?
In any case, if it’s this kind of bandwidth consumption you’re worried about, you are free to use filters, or better yet run your node in blocksonly mode. (Bitcoin Core allows you to configure both, fwiw.)
I definitely use filters in my node, and I’m riled up on the fact that they are
a) changing the filter standardness
b) plan to deprecate one of the filters I use.
My trust in core developers has broken.
You don't have to upgrade at all if you don't want to of course.
(But fyi nothing has been deprecated.)
I think you are missing the obvious, this episode highlights that Bitcoin development is centralized which is a problem. We need multiple options to prevent this.
Bitcoin Core is free and open source software. Anyone is free to fork it, adjust it however they see fit, and run that instead. Or create a new implementation from scratch.
If you think there should be more competition, no one is stopping that.
True but they do attack people who choose that route
Who does that?
Ignoring social attacks, there was Portland Hodl’s IBD request attack against Comcast knots nodes
Who is Portland Hodl? (I don’t see him listed as a contributor to any recent Bitcoin Core release…)
He’s an active core contributor. He’s on the mailing list. Mainly working DoS issues AFAIK
I see.
Well exactly because Bitcoin Core is a free and open source project, anyone can contribute to it. I don't think you should hold the entire project accountable for the actions of any one individual.
Nor does it change the nature of the free and open source model; anyone can still fork the code.
Of course any project that operates on the open internet can be attacked in all kinds of ways, including Bitcoin Core itself. Being a FOSS project doesn't prevent that.
(To be clear I have no opinion on whatever it is Portland Hold may or may not have done because I know nothing about this.)
It will out-price eventually, but why burden node runners with 100 kb op_return data in the meantime?
We won't let the blockchain become a spam / CSAM cesspool while the world is still learning that Bitcoin is the best money ever devised.
Bitcoin is for money, not "arbitrary data". Let the blockchain be what it's intended for since the beginning.
By the way. Notz is not open source as I know...
Only For those looking to reach me personally for all things related # bitcoin , 𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐫
You know how Bitcoin has succeeded up to this point?
With laser focus.
Doing one thing perfectly is far greater than doing 5 things OK.
The attack vector are people like this. Mining centralization (also node runners) has allowed Shitcoin VC to co-opt core delevopers for fiat gain.
https://video.nostr.build/1a92706271cfa3effcf98b018f5998c86998ff24d29b2f4a8108fa692fc1194c.mp4
This guy conveniently forgot to mention the software his mates are asking (paying?) him to promote.
That software is Bitcoin Core V30 which by default, allows CSAM and other horrors to (now) easily be stored and distributed on the hardest "money ever invented"s blockchain. Your blockchain.
He's grasping at straws to convince you not to notice, or care.
Core V30 is an attack on Bitcoin. People supporting it are not friends of Bitcoin.
Your assumption is absurd, but it doesn't mean that Bitcoin's design is fundamentally flawed.
https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqszxx4ahchxmn8u64kvsh2wm3mh3l4nhnncess2z26jhmljcdwfkkq8s37gc
The only thing approximating an argument in this video is: "There exists a lot of demand for data storage." (Yeah no shit.)
You've not at all seriously tried to answer why this demand would flow to Bitcoin specifically instead of cheaper alternatives, whether these are centralized services, more decentralized systems (like Nostr!) or even other blockchains.
Because it's another attack vector for actors who want to make bitcoin bloated and worthless? (can't run a full node because of storage costs, high fees, real transactions being crowded out, etc)
