wasn’t this point ultimately proven wrong once the inscribers ended up burning all their bitcoin? and a catch and mouse game with spammers was ultimately a waste of time ? We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxoset, shouldn’t we encourage people to use that instead of retarded stuff like witness data ? Since you can’t stop people from doing consensus compatible retarded things? At least that was my recollection… it’s been awhile.
Replies (3)
Let's start with the premise that this is a cat and mouse game. I don't think it is, but sure let's have it.
- Whose time are we wasting exactly? Like, be as specific as you can.
Next: We have a clean way for adding data to bitcoin without bloating the utxo set.
- Block size is only one dimension. What about bandwidth?
If you fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you end up with the conclusion that we must let them put the data in op return because it's better than the data being shoved into the witness data (bandwidth + CPU time).
If you don't fall for the Fallacy of Composition and Division, then you have to go back a step, and proceed forward with your logic.
so extend the logic one further, why accommodate citrea instead of letting them burn their bitcoin?
we don’t push changes for utopian intervention, this isn’t ETH.
yes there will be some modicum of p2tr bloat, no it will not be worse than opening the floodgates of preferential changes.
nevent1qqs8ehftzjtu9wkuhn374lnujhjwxkcum4p8jqpkf7playrp2hgr3mgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgzpyqtm
They burned their Bitcoin but their shit remained stored on users nodes for all eternity and they have to be downloaded by anyone doing an IBD one by one. This is all result from lenient treatment of arbitrary data and not fixing the filters when node runners sounded the alarm.
