“Unlimited storage” isn’t really accurate. It’s witness data in a taproot 
transaction, so the block size limit still applies. Anyone who runs an unpruned 
bitcoin node should be capacity-planning their disk space assuming that in the 
future blocks will be more full - as demand for blockspace increases, people 
will make better use of the space that we already have and average block weight 
will trend upwards. If you’re thinking about how much disk you will need when 
we have consistently full blocks, ordinal inscriptions don’t change that number.

- rijndael

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 7:44 AM, Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev 
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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?
> 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.
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to