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. 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. 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

Replies (5)

“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.
“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?)
Exactly. I DONT want to centralize more to miners. Hence, I dont want to incentivize that by making people have to work with miners directly for their transactions. If we cant relay, then we lose censorship resistance.
RealJohnDoe's avatar
RealJohnDoe 2 years ago
Bitcoin IS! very low #Bitcoin transaction fees. Bitcoin IS! light, tight, robust #fullnodes that almost anyone can run and manage if they want to. If it's not, it's not Bitcoin. It's some wannabe Bitcoin piece of shit..🧡👑🗽