There is an xcancel thread I have been reading, it's a long one and I don't know why some of these issues haven't been better discussed (at least to the best of my knowledge.)
Doesn't it relate intimately to the conversations around "data"... and Knots and "spam mitigation???"
The conversation is between @Murch and Chris Guida (who's not on Stacker News?). I have tried to post the xcancel links here... it's not easy but I will do my best with links and screenshots as there are some fundamental questions... I wish I had answered.
- First of all, there is a fundamental disagreement as to whether or not Bitcoin transactions of a "monetary" purpose can outbid those of a speculative or "arbitrary-data" origin.
Chris says that arbitrary data has significantly more demand... than payment data for you know actual Bitcoin [monetary] transactions.
Chris makes the comment that demand for arbitrary data (relative to monetary) may be 1000x... and the only thing holding back the arbitrary data floodgates is filtering (and/or "hostility").
Murch says that's not true as Bitcoin payments can (and will) be 'more efficient'... while also alluding to the reality of limited blockspace and the need for higher value transactions...
The conversation then goes on to suggest that... the demand for "arbitrary data" (Jpegs on chain + memecoin 'tickers') is so great as to be 1000x that of Bitcoin [monetary]...
To which I say
If that's true we are DONE...
Bitcoin is supposed to support, magnify, and ultimately align with economic incentives. If the 'economic incentives' are for those relating to "arbitrary data" and its storage and "sale" in a very speculative fashion...
How the hell are filters supposed to work??? Aren't people supposed to WANT Bitcoin and WANT to transact with it? How do you "filter" out something with 1000x greater demand that people want to USE?
Wouldn't the JPEG people simply spool up their own nodes with which to transact/speculate AND/OR relay???
(Isn't this basically "information-warfare" on-chain?)
- Then the conversation shifts to the nature and reasons for the bloat of the UTXO set. How did the UTXO set get bloated and why???
Chris and Murch discuss BRC20s and Runes transactions (over 50% of transactions today) and how that resulted in more UTXOs.
@Murch says that BRC20 "inscription" tokens can and will in many cases be swept up and consolidated. This is something I (tried to?) address in an earlier post #1211686
This is an example of such a consolidation... right?
From their conversation:
My understanding is that the reason for the 'gazillion outputs' in the BRC20 token "transactions"... was because the spammers were "pretending" that the more outputs, the more "tokens" they could generate in a single transaction.
The thousands of outputs didn't themselves carry any data... they just represented more "tokens" (which is of course completely arbitrary) so the more OUTPUTS the more TOKENS.
But why... exactly would a token system need to be designed this way??? Why not have more tokens with fewer outputs? 2 to 1? 5 to 1? 10 to 1... isn't ALL OF THIS completely arbitrary???
I read this whole thread (LONG conversation between Murch and Chris) 3 times before it dawned on me how arbitrary all these data-storage-token-speculation-schemes are. Who decides "which sat" is special? And how can filters keep degens from coming up with their own...
"json-based client-side validation colored coin scheme"? π€¦
- The conversation then briefly turns to the economics of consolidating the "dust" from BRC20s... where the AI bot says that such dust never gets consolidated because it's "irrational to ever spend them."
In an imperfect world... don't we want these low fee-rate consolidations???
- Finally... the conversation turns to what to do about "UTXO bloat" in the future?
Chris writes (and makes an interesting point):
So what DOES keep the degens from creating a new "opreturn-rc20" token meta-protocol in the future?
Isn't op_return (with 80 bytes + plus the inscription "hack") enough space to create an almost endless number of
- token protocols
- memecoins
- plus other speculative schemes?
- What makes a "Rune" special when it could be called a "Loon" or "Dune" or "Moon" or "SafeMoon"...
The fastest degen to create the greatest number of outputs and consolidate/NOT consolidate them...
Wins the prize???
Which Sat is first? Which is 'last?' Which tokens get 'named' first depending on 'which' exact output?
After all, what prevents a GOVERNMENT from attacking Bitcoin by spending a relatively modest amount of money, taking Bitcoin and "dividing it up" into millions of UTXOs for which only THEY have the keys?
- Without arbitrary data?
- Without op_return?
- Or using the Witness 'exploit'?
If the goal were to 'harm the chain' it's not the 'arbitrary data' doing the harm... UTXOs could be doubled/tripled in number without being filtered by Knots OR Core or without any arbitrary data added.
Within the most conservative relay policy, without changing consensus...
What is the answer to such an attack???
(These "transactions" don't increase the UTXO set beyond op_return... so they aren't an "attack"...
Or are they?! π)