Sells a difficulty epoch worth of Bitcoin and if they weren't required to file the world would never know as it was slurped up
Whats your favorite vegetable
I could argue that Inscriptions aided decentralization as more people had to learn how to run nodes.. indeed I helped set some people up and provided some early guides on the process which are available in my github repo.
It also solidified taproot which was floundering since activation.
Exactly.
I DONT want to centralize more to miners. Hence, I dont want to incentivize that by making people have to work with miners directly for their transactions. If we cant relay, then we lose censorship resistance.
They are neutral if entities arent controlling and setting rules for who can and cannot use them.
Your attempts to subvert the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is not neutral
What do you want people to pay for
"I shouldnt have to pay as much because I dont like how others are using Bitcoin" - stomps feet
The resource cost increment on the size of the UTXO set is something we needed to solve before inscriptions (and stamps, and muun wallet, etc) and continues to be a key technical challenge.
I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.
Nobodies freedom is being cut by the existence of inscriptions or any other form of data storage within Bitcoin that embeds within
- coinbase
- op_return in general
- multisig outpouts
- tx output amounts
- tx id
- op code ordering
All bytes that are not temporary in ram and intended for recall later are either stored to disk or not before the memory is reclaimed.
While nostr and any other system shares these kinds of attributes, the discussion here is about Bitcoin which has far more permanence than nostr relays
Yes. You are free to use them if you or the other party in the transaction are not censored from them.
Transactions competitively pay for the space they take up in a block. This is true of all transaction types dating back to the Genesis block.
Your argument seems to suggest Transactions should pay for the storage of that block in all nodes, and somehow pay node operators for that storage. Bitcoin users are already inventivized to perform actions to receive Bitcoin for goods and services just as they'd spend. Furthermore, theres no way to identify all node operators that doesnt step into the realm of a central vetted registration.
The virtual byte transition and effective 4:1 discount for signatures of segwit transactions was balanced (albiet poorly) to incentivize use of segwit over p2pkh. As Peter Wuille informs "There is a reason why this discount is justified: in legacy transactions, creating a transaction output is significantly cheaper than spending one. This encourages unspendable dust: outputs that were created at a time when fees were low may become uneconomical to spend (= cost more to spend than they're worth) when fees are high. This is a burden on the entire ecosystem, as full nodes (for now, at least) need to maintain fast access to the set of all unspent outputs."
FEDWIRE and SWIFT are not monetary networks. They are centralized social credit score systems of punishment
8 New Grants
33 Existing Grants
The freedom tech will continue until morale improves 🫡
https://opensats.org/blog/bitcoin-and-nostr-grants-august-2023
Even when morale improves the freedom tech will continue
I prefer and support the usage and advancement of Bitcoin for monetary uses. Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?
When it comes to arbitrary data, there are currently no other tools that provide for censorship resistant permissionless distribution and long term storage at a cost like Bitcoin. I wish there were as it would obviously be more ideal, but hell, we cant even get larger data in op_return to help facilitate referencing even IPFS or other resources
Your analogy to an aggression of private property appears weak as the same can extend to all forms of data copying and transfer where you are not the party sending or receiving or otherwise have no immediate interest.
Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used. I think most would agree that inefficient embedded json for messaging, or storage of the same images over and over, or JPEG screencaps of pages of PDF files is a poor use of space. Likewise, those using it to create several thousand outputs per day that will never move effectively burn those sats and bloat the UTXO set. As a node operator, its the latter issue that is a challenge in the long term and this was problematic before Inscriptions.
gm
Scenario 1. No
The economic nodes would be able to spend the funds intended to deposit or withdraw from the drivechains. Miners rejecting the spend txn would eventually lead to miners that would defect and spend themself, or other miners building on top of valid blocks. So maintaining 51% attack by miners means hoping for no defection and forgoing taking the funds themself and transaction fees (the funds are worth more)
Scenario 2. Also no. Same as above, but miners are in a worse position.
Non upgraded nodes would see the TX as anyonecanspend, and while thered be automation to spend, its really a miner that would either not be upgraded, or one that had support but defected who would win.
All softforks carry a chainsplit risk, and the best way to avoid that is to either A) dont fork (status quo, where we are now), or B) ensure social consensus, then proceed with activation with BIP 8, LOT=true where miners can signal their readiness.
Even after activation, I avoid putting funds at risk in new tx types for a time until im confident enough nodes truly are backing the new softfork rules to protect it.
Ask him about the best drink to wash down a slice of pizza?
And whose going to the Superbowl.
And if he'd consider changing out his green hammer for an Orange one. For reasons.
