Aymeric Vitte [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-09 🗒️ Summary of this message: The discussion ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-05-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: The discussion on raising the limit on OP_RETURN continues, but there are concerns about controlling the value of stored information and avoiding freeriders. Decentralization may be a solution.
📝 Original message:Le 08/05/2023 à 23:43, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> There was a recent thread discussing raising the limit on
> OP_RETURN https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
Indeed we already discussed all of this, and the conclusion was: there
are no reasons to impose limits, because people will find some deviant
(or not) workarounds (like Stamps), and fees will regulate this
And how to control the value of what is stored? If I store e=mc2, the
way I like since as many said it's super easy to find plenty of ways to
store in bitcoin, this one is short and supposed to have more value than
bitcoin, no?
Personnally I think of course that you should store a reference to
something and not the something, so a few hashes and/or signatures which
you cannot do with OP_RETURN today (80B Moth, not 80kB)
I don't see very well what can be done against the freeriders, except
avoiding that they impact the whole network (a bit à la bittorrent),
maybe the issue is more about decentralization rather than trying to
impose limitations, so the decentralized miners can't have the whole
image of the whole txs and hold low fees txs, which is not the case at
all today, but it seems a bit utopic right now
Or maybe when the ordinal meme stuff/BRC20 will be proven to have
finally zero value the market will self regulate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230509/a1edd728/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: The discussion on raising the limit on OP_RETURN continues, but there are concerns about controlling the value of stored information and avoiding freeriders. Decentralization may be a solution.
📝 Original message:Le 08/05/2023 à 23:43, Christopher Allen via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> There was a recent thread discussing raising the limit on
> OP_RETURN https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27043
Indeed we already discussed all of this, and the conclusion was: there
are no reasons to impose limits, because people will find some deviant
(or not) workarounds (like Stamps), and fees will regulate this
And how to control the value of what is stored? If I store e=mc2, the
way I like since as many said it's super easy to find plenty of ways to
store in bitcoin, this one is short and supposed to have more value than
bitcoin, no?
Personnally I think of course that you should store a reference to
something and not the something, so a few hashes and/or signatures which
you cannot do with OP_RETURN today (80B Moth, not 80kB)
I don't see very well what can be done against the freeriders, except
avoiding that they impact the whole network (a bit à la bittorrent),
maybe the issue is more about decentralization rather than trying to
impose limitations, so the decentralized miners can't have the whole
image of the whole txs and hold low fees txs, which is not the case at
all today, but it seems a bit utopic right now
Or maybe when the ordinal meme stuff/BRC20 will be proven to have
finally zero value the market will self regulate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230509/a1edd728/attachment.html>;