Ok last one. This is fucking insane — some Bitcoiners going so hard against inscriptions that they’re publicly suggesting devs and builders could (but really they’re saying *should*) face prosecution. I’m speaking up more because this annoying noise is turning into straight up harmful behavior to Bitcoin development and freedom tech.
Inscriptions aren’t the enemy. These people (hand in hand with favorable govt attacks and prosecution they’d support) are. The fuck are we doing here?
People really need clicks in this mini bear
Inscriptions are definitely making Bitcoin more expensive to use and less decentralized. Two things can be wrong here at the same time.
That doesn't make any sense 😂
What doesn't make sense about it?
"Inscriptions making Bitcoin more expensive to use and less decentralized."
That doesn't make sense. More free market usage == more decentralization 👍
Also there's no concept of expensivity in Bitcoin. Is 1€ fee expensive, how about 100€? No, as long as there will be open feemarket in Bitcoin, expenses will always be just spot on.
Yeah maybe, but then there’s spook behavior and not spook behavior.
I’m taking notes
I don't actually see Matthew actually advocating for anything. If anything, I think this Zack is reading into it.
If Matthew were advocating prosecution, I would be against that.
Pointing out that stupid behavior can have bad consequences is not the same thing as advocating for said consequences.
I don’t take kindly to someone suggesting things like that, which goes against FINCIN guidance on money transmission, etc. he’s indirectly suggesting criminal activity…which is not true.
Bc no, that’s not how this works. He’s being cheeky imo and suggesting they are potential criminals. He’s grasping for straws to bring attention to a non-issue imo.
Again, moral panic to work the mob up
If that was the intention, it appears to have worked.
I personally don't think that was the intention of the tweet, but I can't know that for sure.
Either way, I think this Zack just read into it.
And I think Inscriptions are bad for Bitcoin, so I think Zack is wrong there also. But that's a separate issue, I think.
One of the biggest threats was always the three letter agencies seeing bitcoin as a threat (Bitcoin is in a peer to peer way by private citizens, etc). That can always override legislation, and actually create legislation.
So when I see things that tip toe around that…like I said doesn’t sit well with me. Because that is not and should not be illegal, and to suggest otherwise I think is harmful to Bitcoin.
I totally agree with you that noderunning shouldn't ever be illegal.
From my side, pointing out that the government might not like something is not the same as advocating for the government to step in.
If anything, there's absolutely a point there that inscriptions and other forms of spam make it easier to store arbitrary data (including images) on the chain. I don't want images on chain. Period. I don't care what the images depict. Making it easier to put images on the chain is something I don't like.
So I don't think the side that says they don't like images on the chain and they don't like developers enabling it (or preventing fixes to the problem) are the bad guys here.
Bitcoin is neutral. It’s either a valid transaction or it’s not. Pay the fee get included in the block. Run knots if you prefer
That’s my 2 sats
I can understand this opinion. I disagree with it, but I understand it. Bitcoin was never intended for arbitrary data storage like this, but these transactions are, in fact, valid.
I don't understand the opinion that these transactions are equally good as monetary transactions, or that the right course of action to respond to these transactions is to actively make them easier to perform. That's not neutral.
There was arbitrary data embedded in blocks since the beginning.
Aside from that, there’s consensus code and there’s no consensus code. Any transaction that falls within the parameters of consensus code is valid. End of discussion.
That doesn't mean that the purpose of Bitcoin was to be an arbitrary data storage medium. And just because something is valid does not mean it was intended, nor that it is good (for the health of the network).
Censorship is not good for Bitcoin either.
Whatever you and I think about a valid transaction is completely irrelevant.
It's not censorship if it's not mandated. Optionality is not censorship. Individuals choosing not to relay or mine certain transactions isn't censorship.
You show me one UTXO moving from one public address to another? All good, I don't care where it's from or where it's going. Show me a monkey JPEG on chain? I'm not relaying or mining that.
I’ve never participated in the inscriptions thing and have no intention of participating because it makes no sense to me.
I’m not participating in censorship and personal harassment either.
The jump from could to should is just one tweet away.
that's nuts
That Matthew… I’ve seen a couple of things he posted lately… it’s insane.
Definitely don't go after the devs; that'd be like going after manufacturers of spray paint to address vandalism.
Now, tye USERS of them might be another story, but I'm not much one for using the state's courts.
