pull down to refresh
142 sats \ 9 replies \ @sudonaka 9 Dec 2023 \ on: On Ocean Mining Pool, Inscriptions and Luke bitcoin
Profit is the only thing that matters.
There might be an argument that the ordinals clog of the timechain reduces the value of Bitcoin and thus reduces profits of miners.
But there is no damn altruistic/collectivist argument that works. You can take your “fair trade” coffee and shove it!
This is a cold numbers game and if you don’t like it then don’t play.
Simply not true. Bitcoin Core has had spam filters since 2010.
There's potentially lots of whacky/malicious transactions that miners aren't picking for their block templates.
reply
But there is no damn altruistic/collectivist argument that works.
Then why all this worry with Ocean's policy? Most miners just won't mine with them.
reply
deleted by author
reply
They reduce the throughput for useful transactions and make useful transactions more expensive. Also, they make it more burdensome to run a full node, therefore decreasing decentralization and making bitcoin more fragile.
Ordinal shills are in a lose-lose proposition. They harm themselves (by wasting their money) and harm others (the definition of stupid). Ultimately they will lose, but in the meantime they are making things more difficult for bitcoiners.
reply
The whole point of Bitcoin is for the participants to not judge what "useful" is. Bitcoin is not designed to be cheap and it's only as expensive as the demand for it. Anyone can take the initiative to enact their own policy so I won't yell too much at that anymore, but decreasing decentralization via usage is not a good argument imo.
The whole point of consensus is to make sensible limits that prevent the crossing of the threshold into being insufficiently decentralized. The agreement to these limits pre-inscriptions indicate we find the growth rate of the blockchain with those parameters acceptable. In more concrete terms, with 525600 minutes in a year, 52560 10-minute intervals, and 4mb for unpruned blocks we'd be agreeing to an approximate max growth-rate of ~210GB per year. So now let's look at the cost for that.
"...there has been an 87.4 percent $/GB decrease since 2009, from $0.114 to just over $0.014."
With around a penny per gigabyte, 210GB is less than 3 dollars a year to support. For pruned nodes the data requirements drop to ~53GB which is even less. Thus I wouldn't say storage costs make the network non-trivially more fragile. The increased bandwidth that comes with large transactions also contribute to the decentralization, but not to an unreasonable extent for most node-runners.
reply
🎯
reply
deleted by author
reply
It’s the only steel man I could come up with in support of the censorship
It’s not a good argument
reply
You wouldn't understand, as it doesn't affect you.
reply