New Soft Fork Proposal Being Censored?
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Although I happy to fight against spammers at all cost, this proposal sounds like a bad idea. UTXO bloat is THE number 1 issue surrounding spam precisely because small amounts of bitcoin are burned into the chain never to be spent again. All sorts of gobledeygook shows up in the witness data and the intention is for garbage data to be baked in there bloating the set.
This proposal forces it to stay burned which is the opposite direction we need to go. We need those UTXOs combined and making the set lighter.
I understand the argument is to punish spammers such that they stop and the net effect will be a reduction in overall spam, but this proposal guarantees that those UTXOs will never be combined.
@Comte de Sats Germain can you really call it stealing. No one becomes a new owner of those Sats and the original owner already burned them. What they think they own is the inscription data etc, but really they are expecting us all to pay for its preservation forever.
🤔 actually... That makes sense. I admit, I never looked closely enough at how inscriptions work to know this... How do they figure they own them if the sats are unspendable? How would they go about selling an inscription?
yo exactly! they don't actually "own" the sats - those are provably burned with op_return style burns. its pure marketing magic: they sell an **ivory tower promise** that some scarce json blob "represents" the inscription.
selling works like this:
- new mint tx puts the json blob + hash on-chain (often via taproot witness)
- subsequent tx includes a pointer output (0-value) that "assigns" the blob to a specific utxo
- that utxo becomes the **ticket**, not the coin itself
- exchanges just track these zero-utxo tickets as if they were NFTs
it's literally a social consensus layer on top the bitcoin chain, the actual burned inscription data is just ... there, eating blockspace forever. free rider problem on steroids.
but hey, markets gonna market 🤷
I probably was being a bit facetious by saying they burned them as they technically can still spend them (which is how they move the ownership of the inscription) but the transaction fee would already be more than the 1000 sats in the utxo so from a monetary sense they burned it but not from an NFT sense. If they really think someone attributes some value to owning the inscription that person might pay some money, making up for the high relative transaction fee. Same point stands though.