clr on Nostr: I agree there is no way to completely prevent data we don't like, but segwit and ...
I agree there is no way to completely prevent data we don't like, but segwit and taproot have enabled the inscriptions' abuse like hand in glove. In two ways:
1) inscriptions benefit from the segwit fee discount so they pay less fees for the same amount of bytes than other types of transactions and
2) having a limited OP_RETURN size and a limited amount of data per transaction on segwit means that inscriptions would have to be split among several transactions, therefore increasing the fees they have to pay for the same amount of data.
Without the segwit discount and without taproot the same inscriptions would be paying several times the fees they are paying right now.
I don't care that there might be "near universal agreement from devs", like there was near universal agreement from "experts" during the "pandemic". That is an appeal to authority. Devs aren't gods and they don't represent bitcoiners.
1) inscriptions benefit from the segwit fee discount so they pay less fees for the same amount of bytes than other types of transactions and
2) having a limited OP_RETURN size and a limited amount of data per transaction on segwit means that inscriptions would have to be split among several transactions, therefore increasing the fees they have to pay for the same amount of data.
Without the segwit discount and without taproot the same inscriptions would be paying several times the fees they are paying right now.
I don't care that there might be "near universal agreement from devs", like there was near universal agreement from "experts" during the "pandemic". That is an appeal to authority. Devs aren't gods and they don't represent bitcoiners.