I prefer and support the usage and advancement of Bitcoin for monetary uses. Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?
When it comes to arbitrary data, there are currently no other tools that provide for censorship resistant permissionless distribution and long term storage at a cost like Bitcoin. I wish there were as it would obviously be more ideal, but hell, we cant even get larger data in op_return to help facilitate referencing even IPFS or other resources
Your analogy to an aggression of private property appears weak as the same can extend to all forms of data copying and transfer where you are not the party sending or receiving or otherwise have no immediate interest.
Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used. I think most would agree that inefficient embedded json for messaging, or storage of the same images over and over, or JPEG screencaps of pages of PDF files is a poor use of space. Likewise, those using it to create several thousand outputs per day that will never move effectively burn those sats and bloat the UTXO set. As a node operator, its the latter issue that is a challenge in the long term and this was problematic before Inscriptions.
Login to reply
Replies (6)
“Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?”
It is not a belief, it is obvious, you are creating an alternative monetary system different than Wire and SWIFT since you state you were a Bitcoin node operator.
FEDWIRE and SWIFT are not monetary networks. They are centralized social credit score systems of punishment
“Your analogy to an aggression of private property appears weak as the same can extend to all forms of data copying and transfer where you are not the party sending or receiving or otherwise have no immediate interest.”
Can you give an example for at least a form of data storage? You refer to copying and transfer; it comes to my mind Nostr and the relays, and that’s not what I’m referring. Don’t tweak the argument.
“Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used.”
I don’t know, if you support “people’s freedom” or network taking control via centralization through prohibitive cost increment.
The freedom of anybody ends when the freedom of somebody is being cut (and that without consensus or in free will).
All bytes that are not temporary in ram and intended for recall later are either stored to disk or not before the memory is reclaimed.
While nostr and any other system shares these kinds of attributes, the discussion here is about Bitcoin which has far more permanence than nostr relays
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