Inscriptions continue to be the most efficient use of layer 1 mainnet blockspace for arbitrary data that has the least negative impact on others.
I will continue supporting people who follow #ordinals and want to use #inscriptions for distribution of information in a permissionless way.
I will not be swayed by frauds claiming Bitcoin transactions that are embedding arbitrary data are exploiting the network or a bug needing to be fixed.
I will not support the development or applications etc around tokenized inscriptions.
I also support those looking to migrate to sidechains like Liquid for cheaper fees.
Login to reply
Replies (16)
The blocksize should be reduced to 1kb.
We shall agree to disagree on this point.
Bitcoin blockchain offers better guarantees with less gatekeepers, particularly for delivery.
Nostr relies on users submitting events to servers, which may or may not have peering agreements with other servers. Those servers can, and do, reject events based on their rules. E.g. Gift wrapped messages, and embedded binary data.
as one should until convinced otherwise.
im not here to convince you, but i will stand on the side of technological freedoms and censorahip resistance.
what about “a peer-to-peer electronic cash system“ says arbitrary data store?
It would be interesting to do so, particilularly if still bound by 10 minute blocktimes. Fees would skyrocket, making mainchain only viable for overly expensive transactions of the elitist class
This is how some feel about others monetary transactions too
IMO trustless P2P electronic cash is the original and only valid use case and anything that deviates from that should be rejected. If somebody wants to add non-financial functionality to Bitcoin then they should fork it to do so like so many others have done.
Define `cash`
DON’T YOU DARE WRITE ON MY DOLLAR BILL!
the kind used in “online payments” in the context of “financial institutions”.
here, read this: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
🤝 
yep. i dont have to like what people do with it.
Agreed. Nostr is for nuance.
A thorny debate of late. I would say that those transactions of ordinals and the like are compliant with the rules of the game (even leaving out transactions like Whirpool and the Pynyms). And rushing patches to the base client like Bitcoin Core can be a dangerous thing. For rushing around, the bigblockers wanted a solution already and there was the whole war that ended in 2017