pull down to refresh
I only define things so that we exclude the non-blockchain things. Because if we include them, we can't rely on the blockchain anymore and can store all that outside of it as well. And it's true, if all you have is the blockchain you still can use it for monetary purposes because it validates itself without relying on the outside world. But not for anything else. You can duplicate NFTs, no sweat, but you can't duplicate sats.
Like I said, I can't (and shouldn't be able to) stop people from sending non-standard txs. But promoting their usage is encouraging spam and raising fees for no real (=useful) reason. Bitcoin is a monetary system, not an image store. While you still can do it, I will consider this spam and you, my enemy. Bitcoin is for enemies after all. That's all that I mean and I think I explained sufficiently why it is spam and why it doesn't belong in blockchain. Feel free to use IPFS or any other storage and MySQL/Postgres to track ownership of these useless images that will be forgotten in a couple of years. But don't pollute the most important global database that will last for centuries. Unless you're a bad actor that wants to slower the Bitcoin adoption which you might be.
reply
You can duplicate NFTs, no sweat, but you can't duplicate sats.
I can't duplicate sats but it doesn't mean that sats have any value in outside world.
While you still can do it, I will consider this spam and you, my enemy.
Equally you may begin considering multisigs as excessive way to transfer sats with negative external value (because of increased storage size) and declare multisigs as spam. This is sad to see how deeply confused you are and not about freedom and free-market at all.
Bitcoin blockchain is for any data, but the only way to put data there is to spend sats. If people see any value in timestamping (which they do with either Inscriptions or STAMPS) it is fine as long as they pay.
reply
Value is subjective, verification is objective. I can objectively and mathematically verify that a sat is genuine and not duplicated (probabilistically, of course), doesn't apply to NFTs at all. A multisig is a technical way to decentralize control, it has a clear purpose of improving security or enabling better scalability (Lightning). Spamming the chain with arbitrary data no one cares about has no use case. No one said that Bitcoin should store arbitrary data, even Satoshi was against that.
Like I said, I can't prevent that and I'm not gonna endorse it. On the opposite, I will discourage such usage and condemn this behavior if I encounter it. If anyone's confused here, that's you and other shitcoiners who want to pile up more trash on Bitcoin to extract value for themselves. Ultimately, all participating people will go broke, that's exactly what they deserve. Too bad this garbage will be preserved for ages but it'd be a good memorial to people stupidity and greed.
reply
Okay. There are several multisigs possible now in Bitcoin. One of them allows to use only one threshold key. So other methods seem to be inferior and excessive from that point.
But in fact what I am talking about is that Bitcoin is the clock, time-stamping mechanism for data and there is no point in looking at data as useless as long as somebody paid for them. They are useful for somebody.
Somebody may look at your transaction as useless and generally don't like you for example because you transact from addresses with too many bitcoins. Your point is only slightly different that that.
reply
All multisig methods serve the same purpose, some are more effective, some less. Of course, it's better to use more effective methods. Doesn't mean it can be equated to storing arbitrary trash that has nothing to do with tx validation and exists for the whole different purpose.
My transaction is only useless until my sats reach another person, maybe in a few years. But then this tx will be essential to validate the whole path to the coinbase. That's the only reason to store all transactions, to be able to validate them when someone pays you. No such purpose in storing the NFT garbage. Every time you pay (or open a channel) the other side absolutely wants to know the whole history of your inputs. Nobody but a few deluded people is interested in some payload that doesn't have anything to do with tx validation, and you gotta pretend you "own" something by tracing the sat history manually.
If your "non-fungible" sat becomes fungible the moment you stop believing in its non-fungibility, it wasn't in the first place. You're playing a stupid game and you will win very stupid prizes.
reply
Again you brought external definition for "trash".
STAMPs store data as pubkeys. Do you want to have a method for censoring transactions after introspection into multisigs and warning user that their multisig is not according to imaginary community codex of good multisigs? Because all your statements virtually lead to such conclusions. You just cant live with peace about any data put on blockchain and don't believe in market forces apparently.
reply
I said so many times in this thread that I can't and shouldn't be able to censor this garbage, why do you put words in my mouth that I not only never said, but actually said the opposite? I will discourage Bitcoin misuse and call those who promote such misuse enemies of Bitcoin. You don't like it? Then don't do it. Otherwise accept the label, many people think the same and will shame you into irrelevance.
No technical methods needed for that as they sure will bring much more harm than good, see BSV. Those who use ineffective multisigs can be educated, software can be improved to prefer more effective schemes because the goal is to store as little data as possible in the blocks while still achieving the ultimate goal of p2p digital money. Not monkeys or house ownership on chain that can't be enforced without external oracles anyway. Feel free to pollute the most valuable database on the planet, and I'll be free to tell everyone about your fiat time preference. Hope you're happy.
reply
0011 0011 0011 0011or something else.