“Your attempts to subvert the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is not neutral”
The old trick of the “censorship” argument was used many times before in the Bitcoin history.
As I said, it is not a neutral issue to self-defend against aggression to property and thus integrity.
“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.”
Why make it more centralizing to miners?
At its worst, those do not change anything in the dynamic behavior of the existing Bitcoin system.
(“knee jerk reaction”: how should I understand that phrase?)
“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.”
And what would be your proposal?
“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”
Not by their existence, but due to their consequences.
That does not change the neutrality of those tools.
“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."”
That could be incentivated with the already working pay for transaction byte size, which can be evidenced observing entities consolidating their UXTOs.
“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.”
Nothing relevant for the argumentation identified.
“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.”
The original Bitcoin design had an original Bitcoin node; which performed the storage and mining activity in one. Due to historical reason the mining activity got separated from the original Bitcoin node and now the Bitcoin system has an unstable and not sustainable status quo in which the nowadays mining operators (probably in proxy with popular big mining pools) will reunite the storage activity on their nodes, making the network centralized and thus taking the control of it.
“Transactions competitively pay for the space they take up in a block.”
Transactions do not pay for “block space”, Transaction Bidders pay to miner-entities for compensation of the marginal lost competitiveness at block propagation due to that marginal transaction.
Even if that were true, those are neutral tools.
“Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used.”
I don’t know, if you support “people’s freedom” or network taking control via centralization through prohibitive cost increment.
The freedom of anybody ends when the freedom of somebody is being cut (and that without consensus or in free will).
“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.”
Can you give an example for at least a form of data storage? You refer to copying and transfer; it comes to my mind Nostr and the relays, and that’s not what I’m referring. Don’t tweak the argument.
“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”
Because at the moment, Bitcoin allows exploiting the loose flexibility of script, which permits storage without compensation payment for storage resource. Furthermore, due to historical reasons the payment for that storage exploits a discount which has not being balanced with any mechanism.
“Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?”
It is not a belief, it is obvious, you are creating an alternative monetary system different than Wire and SWIFT since you state you were a Bitcoin node operator.
And why then are some (including you) trying to create an alternative monetary (and data storage) system/network?
There are already systems, networks and tools doing that. All they are neutral.
Why are we losing life time on this?
Furthermore, inscriptions and in general arbitrary data storage (not accepted in social consensus) is an aggression of private property, and it is in legit right to self-defense against it.
Aggression of my property and my integrity is not a neutral issue.
Since when is inscription a good idea at all? 😂
Why not an inscription which melts outs the uP and circuits; so the drama and the fairytale is over? Could you do that @vicariousdrama?
