There is ONLY one application for global , decentralized and immutable database .. #value
Discussion
Yup .. almost fifteen years now .. is anyone really time stamping on Bitcoin network ! Other than just for academic interest ! ..or may be for the kicks 😜
Are you familiar with OpenTimestamps?
Yes .. I read about it here on nostr . .. it exists..yes .. but the truth is I have never come across anyone who actually used it ..
They probably just don’t have a reason to tell you. 😉
Lol .. sure ... even #nostr publishes monthly users .. and zaps ..and what not ...☺️ . . Stats
if time stamping was a "thing" .. it will sure have some reporting metrics ..
Different use case. There are like 30 companies listed on that website. The biggest one I know if is Zoho. They’ve been using it for years.
https://www.zoho.com/sign/features-and-benefits/blockchain-based-timestamping.html
Satoshi disagrees:
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/535/
Satoshi’s comment was specifically about domain names, though. Hal was just referencing it to discuss a separate idea. DNS on bitcoin doesn’t make sense and I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise.
Regarding arbitrary data, there is actually no way to stop someone from finding a way to embed it, even if you don’t like it. I don’t like NFTs either, but I also know it’s an impossible task and it makes bitcoin weaker, not stronger to try to fight this fact.
Reread Hal's post. It literally starts with "In discussion on the BitDNS thread"
If we didn't have the OP_RETURN wars of 2014 we would have Ethereum on Bitcoin as stated by Vitalik himself. Ethereum is already 15TB since then.
We successfully avoided this until the inscriptions hack. Core relabelled this as a feature and redefined Bitcoin from a P2P monetary system to just a P2P system. This was all prior to v30. There is a way to fix it at the consensus level. If you really hate NFTs, let's work together to this goal.
Yes, he referenced his thoughts from that thread to discuss other scripting methods not related to BitDNS. This is a semantic argument, it doesn’t matter. There has always been a way to embed arbitrary data into transactions, and the incentives to do so are too strong to lock down every aspect of the protocol to prevent further feature development. I don’t care for NFTs in the least, but I know it’s futile to stop it, so the best way is to work around it in the least damaging way possible.
True, he is discussing other uses. I don't think the goal of the proposed consensus change is to stop 100% of all non-monetary data, but rather to minimize it as much as possible to 80 bytes per transaction like the default was prior to v30. Also fixing the inscriptions hack. Both are goals I think we can all agree on.
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale." - Satoshi Nakamoto
I think the same can be said for DApps and NFTs. Ethereum/Solana/etc are the proper place for that experiment. What do you think the longterm odds of survival are for such projects, given the constant onslaught of NFT spam?
I think the worst ones will die under the weight of their own uselessness and will not ultimately impact bitcoin in a serious way. There are a bunch of DeFi layer 2 protocols being built that I would never use, but they aren’t being built to clog bitcoin with spam, just to provide whatever utility they’re intended for outside the base layer. The more we can push off the main chain the better, and a proper fee market is the best defense. OP_RETURN is the better place to store things that would otherwise be much more damaging to the UTXO set. If we can accomplish realistic goals without forking, ultimatums, and threats, it’s better for everyone.
Regardless of each individual project's survival, new projects are launched faster than they die. There are over 32 million cryptocurrencies. If a small fraction of that were built on Bitcoin we would already have increased the blocksize multiple times and would be looking much more like Ethereum. It's a tragedy of the commons.
Bloating the UTXO set is a real problem. Which is why Knots mitigates this. Core rejected the patch and redefined datacarriersize to call the bug a feature. Later redefining Bitcoin itself away from being a monetary system. Increasing the size of OP_RETURN doesn't magically fix this. With the consensus change we can fix both of these problems, plus others. I understand your concers over forking, threats, etc. Both sides are acting irrationally. Still we should find common ground and work together. We all want Bitcoin to live forever. It already solves the most important problem humanity currently faces. We can use other tools for other (far more simple) problems.
