📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at ...

Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /

npub1kf0…3f58

2023-06-07 15:02:40

in reply to nevent1q…n3s2

📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> I'd say we tell people to sacrifice to (provably) unspendable for now
> and do a soft-fork later if there is real demand for this stuff in the
> future.

That seems fair.

In general, people are actively bloating the UTXO set with unspendable
outputs (that cannot be 100% proven unspendable). Provably
unspendable seems like an improvement on long term UTXO health.

It is a fair criticism that this inches the incentives, a bit, towards
timestamping and other non-currency uses. But those uses (a) cannot
be prevented and (b) have already been automated anyway (e.g. the
python upload/download tools stored in-chain).

I do think the overwhelming majority of users are invested in
bitcoin-the-currency (or bitcoin-the-commodity, take your pick), i.e.
the value proposition. That's our 98% use case. Given the relative
volumes of traffic, timestamping/data storage/messaging is essentially
getting a free ride. So IMO it is worth continuing to explore
/disincentives/ for use of the blockchain for data storage and
messaging, for the rare times where a clear currency-or-data-storage
incentive is available.

--
Jeff Garzik
Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/

Author Public Key

npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:02:40

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "a591b37ffaf675efd78a34461042d1a6ffcfc1c021f9ae3c917ca2246388536b", "pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11", "created_at": 1686150160, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "6bd9512be4afa2a81b307b24d258a963f9abe4599b255899b627408b516854f9", "", "root" ], [ "e", "8da977a6044d14a4a1b3ed887246de1c961dbffffb578430229ba5c107356eac", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I'd say we tell people to sacrifice to (provably) unspendable for now\n\u003e and do a soft-fork later if there is real demand for this stuff in the\n\u003e future.\n\nThat seems fair.\n\nIn general, people are actively bloating the UTXO set with unspendable\noutputs (that cannot be 100% proven unspendable). Provably\nunspendable seems like an improvement on long term UTXO health.\n\nIt is a fair criticism that this inches the incentives, a bit, towards\ntimestamping and other non-currency uses. But those uses (a) cannot\nbe prevented and (b) have already been automated anyway (e.g. the\npython upload/download tools stored in-chain).\n\nI do think the overwhelming majority of users are invested in\nbitcoin-the-currency (or bitcoin-the-commodity, take your pick), i.e.\nthe value proposition. That's our 98% use case. Given the relative\nvolumes of traffic, timestamping/data storage/messaging is essentially\ngetting a free ride. So IMO it is worth continuing to explore\n/disincentives/ for use of the blockchain for data storage and\nmessaging, for the rare times where a clear currency-or-data-storage\nincentive is available.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nSenior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/", "sig": "501ac03422df43ad4b6144180afd21ea6d1294417d82097d59ede5fccf15884f9572fd9221ef22d2f350220641c1c226708327b37f658c9e851806150704e956" }