pull down to refresh

73 sats \ 8 replies \ @TheCharlatan 3 May \ parent \ on: JPEGS or no JPEGS... Bitcoin dies without Fee Pressure. THAT is the Truth bitcoin
They don't care if they store it in an OP_RETURN, or an unprunable output for which also no amount extra policy can stop them. They will post it either way. Giving them and others the option of doing so in an OP_RETURN, we at least give them the option to post their data in a way that is prunable.
write
preview
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @sudonaka 3 May
You are also setting a cultural policy of encouraging this behavior.
Even if technically beneficial I continue to oppose it on cultural and political grounds. At this time, going forward with this MERGE means bitcoin-core endorsement of the forthcoming "built on bitcoin" shitcoins
reply
1094 sats \ 5 replies \ @TheCharlatan 3 May
I really like the following gmaxwell quote from 2015: "Since Bitcoin is an electronic cash, it isn’t a generic database; the demand for cheap highly-replicated perpetual storage is unbounded, and Bitcoin cannot and will not satisfy that demand for non-ecash (non-Bitcoin) usage, and there is no shame in that." https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com/
Clearly this is a political issue, it's in the name "policy" itself. I don't think attempting to minimize harm is caving to shitcoins. I think they should be held accountable socially, but we also have to face the fact that them anchoring data in the chain is inevitable.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @sudonaka 3 May
Funny that "PR" also refers to "public relations". Since it appears the technical team incompetently solicited feedback from people at my level, the only healthy response to be expected is NACK and the solution should be rewritten at a later date.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Murch 9 May
Between you and me, I think that there were discussions on the mailing list and on the pull request, and other people solicited feedback from a wider audience.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @sudonaka 10 May
And when you received this reaction it should have been shelved. VCs won't stop using witness data for their scam chains, they can't risk being ignored. And spammers won't stop either, they want their "art" to be in blockchain forever, not pruned.
You say "we can't stop spam" well, you can't force them to use op_return, and you can't force me to run your updates.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 10 May
Right, we can’t force them, but we can make OP_RETURN data more attractive than writing to payment outputs.
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 10 May
Isn't the fees that spammers pay... in the long term the great deterrent?
reply on another page
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 3 May
i am as monetary-maximalist as it gets, i am a 'maxi' through and through. "bitcoin is money" is something i totally support.
however... treating another's usage of bitcoin in a way i don't like with hate and animosity is not good for Bitcoin and it's not the solution.
the 'fee pressure' i mentioned in the post is the egalitarian, honest, sustainable way to decide what gets into blocks and the best expression of the free market.
but that also requires aligning consensus and what is 'actually' being mined... with default mempool policy, no?
reply