Replying to ihsotas

You can store 4mb max every ten minutes so all you can do is small amounts of storage. That’s my whole point. It is a piss poor network for storage of data illegal or otherwise. This doesn’t require a point by point take down. No one would use bitcoin for any sort of systemic data storage system, at best you get graffiti or attacks on Bitcoin hoping to get the chain to fork or become compliant…this is what we are seeing now with bip-444.

Fake addresses can host images just like op return. Fake addresses bloat the utxo set and are worse for the chain. This behavior cannot be stopped and can create images of unlimited size, so every fear mongering statement you just made should be reason for you to sell your bitcoin. In reality there is no legal threat to bitcoin without significant refactoring of laws. This is why your political messaging should lean to be inclusive as often as possible and why bashing suit coiners is counter productive. We want all allies we just want to be clear that you can’t change bitcoin(for example you can’t roll back the chain because a block contains transactions you don’t like).
Avatar
Jerome Powell 21iQ 40TPW 2mo ago

So because it's not good for the >4MB files you want to store, the hundreds of GB of small files already stored don't matter? Most of this was done after Taproot enabled the inscriptions hack and before v30, let alone BIP-444.

I agree with the UTXO bloat being a problem, which is why I support Knots and BIP-444. Core doesn't fix inscriptions hack, it just offers a new place to store data. None of this non-monetary data is necessary for Bitcoin to be used as a P2P Electronic Cash System. I have no problem with Suitcoiners, only Shitcoiners trying to turn Bitcoin into Bithereum. #Enshitcoinification

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

f7
ihsotas 2mo ago

The fake keys scheme predates inscriptions and ordinals. The reason why those things had a bigger impact is that the memetic power of nfts didn’t exist during the early days of shoving arbitrary data into the chain.

Bitcoin has always been programmable money. The early scripting like op return and op cat were not removed because of philosophical reasons, they were removed because Satoshi fucked up the implementation. Defining Bitcoin as money is not as easy as you make it out to be.

In any case scripts and ordinals are consensus valid. If node operators don’t want to host those transactions they should leave the network. If they have a problem with arbitrary data they should understand that key stuffing is impossible to stop and that data can’t be pruned and so they should leave the network.

What none of them should do is fud Bitcoin by claiming csam in op return is somehow different than csam in other parts of the chain. It’s idiotic.

Avatar
Jerome Powell 21iQ 40TPW 2mo ago

I get what you're saying about embedding data, but see no valid reason to support it as a feature. Prior to v30, 80b of op return data was supported and other methods were tolerated abuse. I'm concerned that now with Core's full support other chains will pile on top of Bitcoin, rather than building their own network. Ethereum chain is 15TB in 11 years. Does BIP-444 not address all of these methods?

Programmable money I'm good with, as long as it isn't enabling arbitrary data on chain.

They're consensus valid now. If BIP-444 or similar is successful, they may not be in the future. The whole "if you don't like it, leave" idea could be equally applicable to developers who want to change things like mempool policy. It seems to me like some want to turn it into BSV or Ethereum. I would prefer they just use those chains if that's what they're into.

What makes Bitcoin unique is not JUST that it was the first successful cryptocurrency, nor that it has finite scarcity, but ALSO that it tries to do one thing rather than everything.

Developers will always want it to do more things. At some point this will become unsustainable, without a clearly defined purpose. It also creates an ever larger attack surface on one of the most disruptive technologies created.