Hi Bitcoin Developers, > 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.
I completely agree with this. > If we ban "useless data" then it would be easy for would-be data storers to instead embed their data inside "useful" data such as dummy signatures or public keys. > There's a reasonable argument that this sort of data is toxic to the network, since even though "the market is willing to bear" the price of scares blockspace, if people were storing NFTs and other crap on the chain, then the Bitcoin fee market would become entangled with random pump&dump markets, undermining legitimate use cases and potentially preventing new technology like LN from gaining a strong foothold. Initially I considered ordinals and the use of witness for inscriptions useless and harmful. However I have changed my opinion after looking at different things and reading several comments. I do not consider such things 'useless' or 'crap' and it won't affect bitcoin fee market negatively. There is no threat to LN as well. I consider every bitcoin transaction a legit use case and would like to share an example and different perspective of how such inscriptions might be used at different places: During the festival of Diwali, it is a common tradition among many Indian families to buy gold coins with the image of the goddess Laxmi, the goddess of wealth and prosperity. The coins are often bought as a symbol of good luck and prosperity for the upcoming year. They may also be given as gifts to family and friends or used as a form of investment. The coins can be purchased from a variety of sources, including jewelry stores and online retailers. If people start buying bitcoin during Diwali, and sellers use the witness to include the image of Laxmi in the inputs used, it would be an innovative way of combining traditional customs with modern technology. Since some users consider bitcoin as digital gold, I won't be surprised if this really happens in future and won't consider it bad as the transactions are paying for block space used. /dev/fd0 floppy disc guy Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, January 27th, 2023 at 6:28 PM, rot13maxi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello, > > “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 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
