pull down to refresh
112 sats \ 11 replies \ @Scoresby 13 Jul \ parent \ on: What Do You Guys See As the Best Metric of Bitcoin Adoption? bitcoin
Yes. If it makes it into blocks, it means people are using Bitcoin (and also bitcoin).
Yeah I think the difference between our thinking here is for me adoption is
BTC adoption, not blockchain adoption. If people want to adopt blockchain they can go do that elsewhere afaic.reply
reply
reply
It wasn't meant to be a trick question. I'm trying to understand where we differ.
for me adoption is BTC adoption, not blockchain adoption.
I understand you to mean by this that blocks full of jpgs are not adoption?
If yes, this extends to "only monetary transactions count as adoption."
I like monetary transactions, but I also think any transaction that makes it into a block ultimately increases adoption of BTC.
Imagine a world where ASCII art became wildly popular in China. This would not be using English as language, but it might increase the adoption of English in China.
Wizard jpgs in Bitcoin blocks are like this, except they are required to actually use bitcoin as money too (pay fees to miners).
reply
I understand you to mean by this that blocks full of jpgs are not adoption?
jpegs on the blockchain aren't BTC-as-MoE adoption, if anything, they are detractors. This is why (from how I understand it) Luke hates the spam.
I like monetary transactions, but I also think any transaction that makes it into a block ultimately increases adoption of BTC.
If blocks are full because of jpegs, the price of a transaction goes up without there being an MoE use-case. Inscribed jpegs are also much larger than regular transactions, so per-tx capacity goes down, and that means fees are bloated. Think of what this bloat does to the profitability of liquidity providers on LN, that may need to close a channel. It deteriorates the ecosystem unneccessarily.
Wizard jpgs in Bitcoin blocks are like this, except they are required to actually use bitcoin as money too (pay fees to miners).
What you're saying is basically the Parable of the Broken Window: graffiti isn't good for the economy just because some punks buy cans of spray paint and someone is employed to remove it. This is all money spent unproductively.
reply
It deteriorates the ecosystem unneccessarily.
A lot hinges on "unnecessarily" here. I don't take Bitcoin adoption as a foregone conclusion. It feels to me like it's a spinning top, wobbling along, sometimes coming close to tipping over. We may need every burst of interest we can get. Perhaps this weird interest in embedding jpgs in txs is helpful in keeping the top spinning. If so, I wouldnt call it unnecessary.
I'd rather have a full block with some monetary txs and some jpgs than a half empty block get mined. Block space is there. Mining anything less than a full block is more of a waste than ming a block full of jpgs.
As far as lightning operators: if a jpg harms them, does my self transfer when I'm playing around harm them? Pay the fees, get the block space. Anything more than this is kid gloves and just lulls us into unrealistic beliefs about market dynamics.
Bitcoin graffiti is good for the economy, although less so if the janitors clean it up. (Sorry for doing contortions with your analogy).