I think performance under pressure by individuals is different than how groups react under duress. Think “never let a crisis go to waste” or things like the Patriot Act or bailouts/giveaways post-GFC
Yep! Planning and building under urgency is much riskier
Because you’ve been living on the coasts until now 😁
Heh, yep exactly. That used blockstack's distributed storage protocol on top of their blockchain. But this could probably be done just as well with nostr.
Ideally you could have this be in a form where the author also gets paid. It works for one author per relay but to scale to one relay to many authors, something like delegated 3rd party caveats in macaroons could work. You could also use nostr to not just get the content, but leave the content encrypted and then users could only read it once the relay gets a decryption key from the author after a confirmed payment.
That feeling when you spend hours trying to fix a bug in a hackathon project, get a normal nights sleep after event, find it’s a simple five minute fix after looking at it again once well rested 🤦♂️.
I’m getting old.
At least they told you why you were suspended! I’m still waiting for my response.
Great point. What you’re describing is a change to the protocol, which by definition would not be how it works today. But yes, removing OP_RETURN limits (which I believe is just policy anyway) and the segwit discount would make the market more free. Discriminating against data (a la current segwit discount and OP_RETURN limits does) is would not.
Utxos haven’t been spent yet so they haven’t been signed. You can verify by verifying all of the blocks.
At some point what is concise will become a subjective value. The way we make that objective is by scarce block size and the free market. Costs encourage users to be as concise as possible.
What other conference would you want to be at this week in ATX 
Always a sign of a good conference when you’ve onboarded at least one of your cab drivers to bitcoin.
Right. So it wasn’t Satoshi’s vision to “allow beachballs” therefore beach balls are bad and unfair and should be disallowed by any means necessary so that the “right” passengers don’t have to pay too much.
By the way, do you know why there’s a witness discount?
One reason was to encourage migration to segwit. That was desirable. It came with tradeoffs but probably still worth it.
Second reason is because the witness doesn’t need to be persisted by all nodes. So this is actually better for those that don’t want to persist inscription data on their node.
Limiting data on witnesses makes no sense and would break many use cases of bitcoin including those that are “purely monetary”. I’m not appealing to authority as an opt out. I’m making the point that
(a) this is not as simple as “just get rid of things I don’t like” and
(b) you would need someone to implement the type of limit you describe and if everyone that could says that’s a bad/dangerous idea, that’s a problem.
The difference about the pandemic is that experts that disagreed were silenced so it wasn’t universal agreement.
Lift the cap on OP_RETURN and no more witness discount. If it’s not just about the discount then you’re really just asking to censor data you don’t like.
I think I just failed the Turing test