Thread

Replies (8)

At minute 35 Peter is talking about inscriptions and all unwanted arbitrary data, arguing that talking about it everywhere only made it worse and attracted more bad actors, I would argue otherwise, it was a great way to educate the planet what bitcoin is best at and why it should stay this way, meaning a monetary network. Talking why this sort of activity for short term profits, by exploiting other speculators, may actually discourage many, who didn't understand how bloated utxo is impacting the node runners in the long run. Peer to peer electronic cash system has not been designed to store images and this activity should be discouraged imho to allow other projects to anchor to the main chain without artificially raised cost. Bad actors and speculators worked out schemes to bribe the miners to accept pretty much any sort of shit but it does not happen every time the block is produced. We will see more projects like ARK, LN, bitvm, bitvmx, citrea that will need to validate using the main chain, do they need to compete with images pumped by fiat pumpers? It is arguable if it creates a potential attack vector now, when larger op_return allows easily for storing raw images that might cause a legal issues in the future (stored in witness data won't) But the whole discussion is absolutely necessary to move on forward building a resilient network that can resist attacks from a cartel of central banks, sooner or later it will be a big issue when entire markercap flips gold. I think it's pretty obvious they are unrolling CBDCs everywhere first and then will go after bitcoin... I had seen the slides of recent BoE conference, in a presentation on their UK version of a digital pound, they also discussed already implemented by certain banks measures of co2 per transaction. Not much time is left.... Yes, they will go after mining companies first, mining pools, miners though have now a choice to use a different software to construct the blocks like Stratumv2, datum and can change jurisdictions. Bitcoin treasury companies are also an attack vector, most are in the US. Luke is right that every filter that stopped unwanted transaction that is not a monetary transaction in practise works so if enough people decide we want the monetary network to build on, it will be a thing. Unfortunately many bitcoiners don't think long term and simply do not care what will happen with the network decades ahead, for as long as it's pumping in dollar terms. Maybe we need a decent crash to 69k for people to think differenly? Since blocks are restricted in size for a good reason, witness data prevented bloating utxo set, non monetary transaction bloated the utxo very quickly, no questions asked, so why would we encourage this? BTW the example of citrea picked up in many discussions is nuanced, but they don't need 100 Kilobytes, citrea would be happy with 150-250 bytes for it to work as desired.
↩ replying to 2140.wtf #blockworkgallery
>larger op_return allows easily for storing raw images that might cause a legal issues in the future (stored in witness data won't) this distinction is asinine. if you have the means to download a transaction, you have the means to assemble it into a jpeg with a bash one-liner. the difficulty increase between OP_RETURN and witness data is trivial. you've either never tried to do it yourself before or you're pretending to be stupid.