Erik Aronesty [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 is about whether breaking all non-economic use cases is the right move for Bitcoin, given the game-theory of what underpins it.
📝 Original message:>
>
> > no data at all


exactly, which is why a relationship between "cpfp-inclusive outputs" and
"fees" makes sense. it's clear that's a good definition of dust, and not
too hard to get a working pr up for the network-layer. i get that your
node will still route. i get that it would break timestamps, indeed, it
would break all non-economic use cases if we made it a consensus change.

but that's the point of the discussion.

the question is whether breaking all non-economic use cases is the right
move, given the game-theory of what underpins bitcoin

i'm sad (honestly) to say that it might be

it may very well be that bitcoin *cannot* be a "global ledger of all
things" in order to remain useful and decentralized, and instead the
monetary use case must be it's only goal

also, i'm not really advocating for this solution so much as i would like a

- rational conversation about the incentives
- whether this solution would be an effective enough barrier to keep most
non-economic tx off bitcoin

obviously it's easy enough to evade if every non-economic user simply keeps
enough bitcoin around and sends it back to himself

so maybe it's a useless idea? but maybe that's enough of a hassle to stop
people (it certainly breaks ordinals, since it can never be 1 sat)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230509/d7ecc659/attachment-0001.html>;