related posts
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 7 Dec 2023
Don't care. Its not for investment and trading either and people are doing it, should their txs be viewed as an expoit assell?
Most inscriptions are junk and spam GBs, sure, but that doesn't mean there aren't some good use-cases. It doesn't really matter anyways if its all shitcoinery, everyone allowed this, its too late to go back.
None of this affects me in anyway. In fact, if shitcoiners and nft retards are leaving ETH to come to Bitcoin driving up the value, adoption and paying gigantic fees to miners in the process. Seems a win win to me.
Just suck his dick already. The guy is a mongloid who lost his own coins and begged for more donations. He is a mini-Dictator, and his Ocean-piss pool filtering transactions is just madness that should'nt exist in Bitcoin.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @truestacker 7 Dec 2023
deleted by author
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zepasta 7 Dec 2023
🤡
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 7 Dec 2023
There's so many takes I disagree with.
"Costly" and "efficient" are subjective - the person who stores the data can decide whether they need the entire monkey JPEG on the blockchain or just its hash. It's their choice of paying for security. Either way, they need to consume a single unprunable utxo for this operation.
Besides, the blockchain is such a perfect immutable and incorruptible database, it should be of no surprise that people would want to inscribe onto it things they want to be immortalized, like say, ownership deeds to real estate. And per my understanding, if you want this data to be "movable", it cannot be stored in an OP_RETURN, which is why Ordinals "solve" this "problem".
Like I said in another thread, SegWit is Bitcoin's greatest unspoken hipocrisy. After "winning" the block size wars unchanged, Bitcoin then increases it anyway with SegWit "discount" but purists still sit on their high horses complaining that blocks space is being used "not according to design".
But can be used as such. Financial transactions are data, after all. For example, SegWit transactions appear as trivial "anyone-can-spend" to a non-SegWit-aware node because the meat of the verification is buried in a structure it does not understand - to it, it's "just some arbitrary data".
No, it should be viewed as devs being too short-sighted in making changes.
Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned from Cardano and their academic peer-review process for every change.
This one I can agree with. And the consequence is that SegWit should also be reverted.
And to close out, if utxo set size is already a problem, then Bitcoin is a failure. "8 billion utxos for 8 billion people" should be the minimum to aim for, and still run fine on a Raspberry Pi. Bitcoin devs should focus on solving this problem, not some imaginary "spam" or "exploit" attack.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lumor 7 Dec 2023
I'm coming around to Will & Luke's stances somewhat too. OP_RETURN set a precedent of having a configurable max size and being explicitly prunable.
Inscriptions appear to be largely prunable while Stamps are not. It's a mixed bag.
High fee environments force L2 solutions to evolve.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @joyepzion 7 Dec 2023
Bye bye to Inscriptions
reply