pull down to refresh
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.
reply
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.
reply
Even if it is significantly less, it worries me that we are setting this precedent: some valid Bitcoin transactions aren't good.
reply
I agree it would simply be better to give them a better option
reply
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.