📅 Original date posted:2023-02-04 🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on ...

Kostas Karasavvas [ARCHIVE] /

npub1tqa…3e9m

2023-06-07 23:19:20

in reply to nevent1q…pxvt

📅 Original date posted:2023-02-04
🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on storing unlimited amounts of NFT content as witness data using the ordinal scheme, with concerns about future disk use and suggestions for imposing size limits or charging premiums.
📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> pá 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odesílatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal:
>
>> I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core
>> developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content
>> as witness data (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html). The
>> ordinal scheme is elegant and genius IMHO, but when I think about the
>> future disk use of all unpruned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage
>> is wise to allow for such use cases. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to
>> impose a size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?
>>
>>
Personally, I was always considering future disk use at full capacity
anyway (and planning accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that
would happen. The latter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so
I don't see it as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I
would be more conservative if we were talking about introducing it!).

> I think it would be useful to link a sat to a deed or other legal
>> construct for proof of ownership in the real world, so that real property
>> can be transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the
>> property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me.
>>
>
> Low tech solution: miners charge a premium for storing images in the block
> chain. Say 2x, 5x, 10x.
>
> This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial network, while
> increasing the security budget.
>

How would you enforce this technically? I only see it feasible if miners
agree by social contract.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230204/864a905e/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1tqac06nxg94veg9atxfktrfdwpl2a4snw2xdrt52ek5893jnnkkqey3e9m

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 23:19:20

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "15a482e11222d0e2cca3ad615acf8a1a2f4ad594b560bac7b205f10957a1d278", "pubkey": "583b87ea66416acca0bd5993658d2d707eaed613728cd1ae8acda872c6539dac", "created_at": 1686179960, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "34d6db3ddc3108e56564b6dcf8c8c3859e42db2015a3d0f2385689a789ea7ebf", "", "root" ], [ "e", "cb0524393edaf3d9deb2fceaf8e1faa5af540f3060dcc5a9455323cba1a1fb49", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2023-02-04\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Discussion on storing unlimited amounts of NFT content as witness data using the ordinal scheme, with concerns about future disk use and suggestions for imposing size limits or charging premiums.\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e pá 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odesílatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e napsal:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core\n\u003e\u003e developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content\n\u003e\u003e as witness data (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html). The\n\u003e\u003e ordinal scheme is elegant and genius IMHO, but when I think about the\n\u003e\u003e future disk use of all unpruned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage\n\u003e\u003e is wise to allow for such use cases. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to\n\u003e\u003e impose a size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\nPersonally, I was always considering future disk use at full capacity\nanyway (and planning accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that\nwould happen. The latter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so\nI don't see it as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I\nwould be more conservative if we were talking about introducing it!).\n\n\n\n\u003e I think it would be useful to link a sat to a deed or other legal\n\u003e\u003e construct for proof of ownership in the real world, so that real property\n\u003e\u003e can be transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the\n\u003e\u003e property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Low tech solution: miners charge a premium for storing images in the block\n\u003e chain. Say 2x, 5x, 10x.\n\u003e\n\u003e This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial network, while\n\u003e increasing the security budget.\n\u003e\n\nHow would you enforce this technically? I only see it feasible if miners\nagree by social contract.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230204/864a905e/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "35b4c7aff5215ff2f2da1b6b3a95f302d824feff0d8afd6509e11be8070a542e76553aa04a1fbff03c7a58bb30855a0c863db9bed726e9f0561089be9cfd144d" }