JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 months ago
To pile on another analogy: You draw some art on a dollar bill. The dollar is worth a dollar on the SQL Fed database. Regardless of any artistic value subjectively added, that dollar is now considered destroyed. That graffiti ruins the monetary use of that money. You are (by your own admission) not bequeathing that Bitcoin for the data that you are adding to it. You think the bitcoin as a monetary unit would help your heirs. That data is the graffiti that we all must store forever.

Replies (2)

The dollar in your analogy is no longer fungible. Bitcoin remains fungible regardless of arbitrary data. Additionally, it costs nothing to graffiti a dollar. It costs *something* to “graffiti” bitcoin. The bitcoin is not destroyed in any way. It is still Bitcoin. Poor analogy.
JackTheMimic's avatar
JackTheMimic 2 months ago
1. Bitcoin is not fungible. It is literally a non-fungible token. 2. Any matter added to another object does cost something inherently because you have to put the material on there and material is not free. 3. Glass node argues the opposite. This is precisely why KYC is a bad thing. My analogy is apt, it feels like you're being disingenuous, unless you truly didn't know these three things.