I see I will try to find out more by talking directly with the developer. But I still see a potential, in the event that nodes with low capacity could no longer maintain the reference implementation, Floresta could extend their life span at no extra cost to the node operator.

Twitter Analytics are so broken right now, my dashboard claims 10M views during July yet I know for a fact I had a single tweet last week with 9.5M views.

What about the IBD phase? I think, that’s the pruning which is being taking about; a full-node which have a limited latest blocks in its ROM. Therefore, not useful for IBD.

Without having investigated in deep on the Utreexo topic, that would also mean an increment of the block size.

Another aspects about insertion of arbitrary bitstreams, is the possibility of regular Bitcoin node operators persecution for having bitstreams in their ROMs which could be interpreted as not tolerable by coercive authorities. This would have also the same effect of reducing the number of regular Bitcoin nodes spread around the world.

I see a lot of people defending the inscriptions by saying that it’s not so bad. The question I ask is why? Why is it so difficult for them to admit that there is a problem on Bitcoin?

Dude.

Computers are faster than ever

Meanwhile, SSD storage price dropped 50% just few months ago, as it does every 2 years lately...

1TB is enough to run full node for fow more years and costs 50$,full pc capable to run the node is maybe 150-200 USD?

When you consider the USD is losing value and PCs get cheaper dispite that, I'm nto afraid for the next 10 years.

Also as we've seen, most blocks lately are barely above 1 MB, usually 'up to' 2MB only. At this rate, the storage needs are not gonna grow as quick as you might fear...

“Artificially increasing fees is theft and larceny” is a ridiculous equivalency with all due respect.

They just paid fees for something stupid, and fees have to grow on the base network anyway. It was very inconvenient, but that’s all it was. No one is guaranteed any fee price at any level of the system. It’s an open, permissionless market.

Yes I used “ordinals” but meant inscriptions. People use them interchangeably so often on the bird app that it got stuck.

And yes I’m perfectly aware of the cost to nodes, it’s not as if this wasn’t hotly debated for half a decade during the blocksize war. It increases the UTXO set arbitrarily (which can be mostly mitigated by something like UTREEXO), and the storage costs of the chain.

I explore it all and the level of the risk I think it implies in my episode “pooping in the park.” (And a few others right around it) As well as supposed solutions and why they are either far too risky or ineffective. I don’t have time to go into an entire thread on this though if we are starting at “do you know it makes non-mining nodes cost more?” This just isn’t that important, imo.

And they have different fee estimates

These are different instances no?

Yes..the fees are affected there

Possibly. Every node has a different mempool. How does yours compare.

One of my nodes runs ordisrespector. The others do the inverse, disconnecting nodes that are ordisrespector.

Ordisrespector distorts fee estimates on the local node, and doesnt do anything meaningful to prevent inscriptions nor the bloat to UTXO set caused by transactions in general.

Im not opposed to smaller blocks (1MB, even 512KB would be fine) to help cap but I dont yet know a way to truly reduce UTXO quantity by encouraging consolidation