Replying to Avatar Corey San Diego

Doesnt that require two transactions if you want the funds back?

Couldn't you just put the hash in witness data to save funds and make it part of any txn?
Avatar
El presidente Eloy Musketti 1mo ago

This method counts probably as pure monetary use and not 'spam' 🫣

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Alexander Hoff ❍ 1mo ago

well but it‘s still unusable funds and „worthless“ tx in a monetary sense. how is this any different than putting a hash into op_return?

Avatar
El presidente Eloy Musketti 1mo ago

Op_return is for child molesters only 😶‍🌫️

https://cdn.nostrcheck.me/7d5c1495202c32dd85a4092f4caf539794241a0134fa25875366fc6c5823b913.webp

Avatar
Alexander Hoff ❍ 1mo ago

for fucks sake 🙄

Avatar
vinney...axkl 1mo ago

let's be clear here that i didn't say this and don't agree

Avatar
Alexander Hoff ❍ 1mo ago

i know. i am just tired of the point.

Avatar
vinney...axkl 1mo ago

why is it worthless and how is it unusable?

it pays fees to miners. this is identical to their main service: collecting fees to order things.

the person making the timestamp has the private key and can recover some of their funds (again, less the miner fee, as is proper).

Avatar
Alexander Hoff ❍ 1mo ago

ah sorry i thought the „hash“ adress is an arbitrary burner adress but i see now it‘s deterministic? that‘s pretty cool!

i built a consumer friendly tool for the same purpose using op_return: proofseal.org

Avatar
El presidente Eloy Musketti 1mo ago

It's not worthless. It costs two txs and creates tiny utxos. Hence my note about pure monetary use.

Avatar
Alexander Hoff ❍ 1mo ago

yeah i agree this is probably the closest version to "monetary use" for including hashes on-chain. earlier i did not yet understand that the derived address is actually spendable.