pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 9 replies \ @Murch 16 Jan freebie \ parent \ on: Opinion: Spam can't cause high fees - Thriller post bitcoin
So you are saying that inscriptions are making their creators money, but call them spam nonetheless. I think @Car and @Scoresby wrote this article to elevate the conversation from positions just like yours.
reply
reply
reply
Bitcoin fees respond to demand.
So you are also saying that the economic value to create an inscription is higher than the economic value of using bitcoin as money.
I think this is probably not true in any kind of long run and mostly inscriptions will dwindle in the coming months. If they don't, it means they've found a thing that people want to use bitcoin for.
Maybe bitcoin needs to change then, but again, my point is that calling the situation spam is much akin to calling an enemy a terrorist. It implies that there can be absolutely no merit in the use case without actually making an argument about it.
reply
Bitcoin fees respond to demand.
No matter what the fee rate is, spam tx's can consume 3x the data of a regular transaction for the same cost.
So you are also saying that the economic value to create an inscription is higher than the economic value of using bitcoin as money.
No. I'm saying that:
- spam tx's are cheaper than real tx's. (segwit discount)
- spam tx's have a marketplace. real tx's do not. (spamchain flywheel)
- even if spam makes money, it's still spam. (duh)
It implies that there can be absolutely no merit in the use case without actually making an argument about it.
You cannot verify exogenous data using Bitcoin, so what is the use case? To enable grifters to sell shitcoins/nfts.