buck on Nostr: I think it’s intellectually consistent to say segwit and taproot were mistakes. I ...
I think it’s intellectually consistent to say segwit and taproot were mistakes. I don’t agree but I respect the position.
There’s near universal agreement from devs that there’s no way to prevent data we don’t like w/o prevention “useful” use cases, which is another way of saying that actually the protocol needs to be value neutral in terms of content of data. The way that we filter for usefulness is the market, block size limits, and limited supply of currency all of which are reasons why bitcoin is probably a better platform to have experiments like NFTs than alternatives. The reason is if they have no value then as fees go up but people are less willing to pay them their use will go down. The same could be true for more complex spending transactions of any kind. If my business doesn’t want to pay the fees for a more complex locking script that might provide more security at the cost of block space, then we’ll opt for simple multisig.
There’s near universal agreement from devs that there’s no way to prevent data we don’t like w/o prevention “useful” use cases, which is another way of saying that actually the protocol needs to be value neutral in terms of content of data. The way that we filter for usefulness is the market, block size limits, and limited supply of currency all of which are reasons why bitcoin is probably a better platform to have experiments like NFTs than alternatives. The reason is if they have no value then as fees go up but people are less willing to pay them their use will go down. The same could be true for more complex spending transactions of any kind. If my business doesn’t want to pay the fees for a more complex locking script that might provide more security at the cost of block space, then we’ll opt for simple multisig.