pull down to refresh
I also agree that is unhelpful. That's why I'm building a bridge on that side too. Bitcoin Abzu. It is not as active as I would like but I did meet with Casey and Erin this week and I do think we have a good plan that I'm executing on.
My Carbonado efforts, along with Lord and Sword are also part of that.
See: https://x.com/cryptoquick/status/2070824495636791736?s=20
What concerns me is that there seems to be very little concern for this. I often am dismissed when I say that picking one group to change the rules on is bad. At some point Bitcoin needs to become agnostic to what is inside a transaction. If it is valid it should be valid forever.
That contradicts a lot of changes Satoshi made. SegWit also marks things that were previously valid as invalid. All soft forks technically do in some way. But generally I do agree at a high level we should keep in line with the private property promise:
1/ coin inflation schedule is set in stone;
2/ if you can cryptographically validate a transfer, bitcoin will let you do it, i.e. you can always spend your own money;
3/ if you "locked" a utxo with a certain ruleset in the past, that ruleset will still be active and let you spend in future, i.e. you can't be locked out of your own money.
- Art Waxwing
I have kind of a grug brained approach to this: restricting what was 'anyone can spend' into can only be spent some ways feels not the same as: here are ~50% of transactions in any given day. Let's stop them from transacting.
Sure, fair. Wait, you're saying that half the transactions on the network on non-monetary? You might be right but that's also a little depressing to consider.
Even if it is significantly less, it worries me that we are setting this precedent: some valid Bitcoin transactions aren't good.
I agree it would simply be better to give them a better option
That is your opinion. What will you do when a group of bitcoin users decide that your utxos are bloat and causing harm?
Anyone who competes with me for blockspace causes me harm. Anyone who makes a transaction of any kind adds bytes to my node's drive.
You think this is clear cut. I think there will come a time when people say it is clear cut that certain monetary transactions are harmful.
How do you not see where this leads?
I think these are strawman arguments. Do I have the meaning of that right? Sometimes I say something and it means something else, forgive me if I'm doing that here.
But my point is that there have been multiple good faith attempts to tackle the issue of UTXO bloat. This is a problem that I see there is consensus on.
Consensus for BIP110 is building.
While I can agree that Bitcoin is better with the rules activated by BIP 110, I strongly disagree with the idea of labelling a large group of bitcoin users (ordinals, inscriptions fans) as "bad."
What stops this from happening arbitrarily to any group?