pull down to refresh
I appreciate your response
Likewise, and please enjoy the sort of creative forum posting I think of as my art (please pay me)... here goes
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
yeah... you've used this word "bought". what is the purchaser of a NFT buying?
are they buying Art? if so... that's not bitcoin, because bitcoin is peer2peer cash (says so in white paper)
we can give the benefit of the doubt... it's probably not just a scheme to enable Justin Bieber to dodge taxes but also enable the shuffling of wealth between jurisdictions.
okay, great, it's settled... they feel that it is "art"! still... just because I thought it was a date, didn't make it one.
Who told them it was art? Was it some huckster who'd hired an artist? Or perhaps the artist told them the bitcoin in that "wallet" they had to make on one of what?? 3 or 4 different sites were most prolific for buying all those ads, driving all that traffic to the websites, displaying hundreds of parametrically generated jpgs & providing a super convenient custodial wallets that a user could send real bitcoin to, and then generate UTXO dust & minting fees for this super legitimate form of art.
Well, who told them? It wasn't you, I don't think. Probably not either of your parents.
For the sake of the discussion, let's imagine it was the Artist themselves who told them it was art. They not only actually made the NFT themselves (not using a proprietary website) and then created that "Art" in their custodial wallet, that they also crafted artistically. They then coordinated the manic countdown and telegram group pressure and sudden release of these ARTs so that their customers could use custodial web-wallets to provide outpoints for the UTXOs generated by these NFT wallets... oh sorry, Art wallets.
Okay, so we're imaging at least for a moment that they did... all of this... to sell their art.
Are you also telling me that from now on, you want every artist using this specific medium to feel comfortable expecting you to carry storage costs from here to the end of time, just because they told somebody you would?
Certainly seems a lot like an externality.
As far as I can tell, a user of bitcoin who bought bitcoin in 2011 can still use bitcoin in the same ways they did when they first started using it (plus in a bunch of new ways).
the robot offered these examples..
I'll respond backwards (going up from the bottom)
the robot offered these examples..
These are mostly policy examples. You can still make a bare multisig or a large OP_RETURN and if you find a miner willing to mine it, their block will be valid. In my statement I referred to what can be included in a valid block. I've always been a bit doubtful of policy and how it's used in bitcoin.
I'm sorry that you spent so much time with your argument about NFTs -- you make a compelling case, and it is well-written...and I agree with you -- but as far as I'm concerned, I'm only talking about sats.
When I said
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
I'm not talking about buying NFTs or any shit like that. I'm referring to buying bitcoins. And I was referring to someone who bought bitcoin and held the private keys to their own utxo -- hence the term "utxo-holder".
(Now it is also the case that this may apply to the inscription, ordinal, whatever people. I don't know how prevalent key-holding is amongst them, but every one of those transactions is a utxo, which (mostly) means it has sats -- I don't care about their meta protocol thingie, but I do care about their ability to transact with their sats).
Once the softfork expires, UTXOs of all heights are once again unrestricted." (#1431372)
I'm aware of the temporary nature of the RTDS as well as the carve out to grandfather-in pre-existing utxos with locking scripts that violate BIP 110. However, none of that is really relevant as far as I'm concerned.
If I buy bitcoin today, my expectation is that I will be able to hold it and transfer it to anyone I like at any point in the future. If a soft fork is enacted next year that includes a rule that says we can no longer send to addresses on the OFAC sanction list, I would consider that a major change to how I expected to be able to use bitcoin when I bought my coins. It doesn't need to freeze my coins to be bad. It's enough that it removes an option that was available to me when I first bought bitcoin.
The same is true for the hypothetical case where I expected to be able to use a multisig and for some (unfathomable) reason we soft fork in rules that make it impossible to construct multisigs (highly unlikely, yes, but BIP 110 breaks some miniscript forms and it is not impossible that BIP 110 should it be enacted limits complicated scripts).
I'm concerned that BIP 110 targets "spam" now, but sets up the pattern for targeting any sufficiently complicated bitcoin transaction that the fad dislikes this year. I do not believe that the people who are leading the promotion of this BIP are taking this concern seriously, and it leads me to doubt that they will be content with the current proposal (not even if it is made permanent). Luke and Dathon have both acknowledged that further forks to prevent spam may be required.
tl;dr - I really could care less about the pretend toys that sit outside bitcoin like ordinals or citrea, but if those people hold utxos and want to do things with those utxos that follow block validation rules, I think we should be very, very careful about trying to prevent them from doing so.
But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
Had to make a second response ... this is specifically addressed in the BIP, "UTXOs that were created before the activation height are exempt from the new rules. Once the softfork expires, UTXOs of all heights are once again unrestricted."
https://m.stacker.news/129848
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#specification
I appreciate your response here, and I agree with many of your points.
I, too, am running an old version of Core. Nor do I have any particular attachment to that project.
I've read the BIP, although I'll certainly admit that I am capable of misunderstanding things. The BIP's statements that "spam is best fought with policy/filters, not consensus" are given the lie by the very fact that RDTS is temporary. Additionally, if one listens to Luke or Dathon or Mechanic, it seems that continual forking is very much in line with the BIP 110 vision.
I think Bitcoin is quite a bit different than a telephone network. And we should be very careful about calling previously valid transaction types "exploits." It may even be the case that with Bitcoin once a transaction type is valid and widely-used, we're stuck with it.
I use bitcoin because it is the best chance I have to resist state control of my money. It achieves this by making it very hard for the state to prevent me from getting my utxos in a confirmed block.
BIP 110 claims to improve this censorship resistance of bitcoin by maintaining low burdens on node runners. But in doing so, it seems to me to sacrifice the confidence a utxo-holder has that they will be able to use Bitcoin the way they thought they could when they first bought in.
As far as I can tell, a user of bitcoin who bought bitcoin in 2011 can still use bitcoin in the same ways they did when they first started using it (plus in a bunch of new ways). And so on and so on until BIP 110. Now, there is a proposal to say all these people who used Bitcoin in a way that we don't like lose their guarantees. This seems like a very dangerous path to me.
Like I said at the top, I agree with many of your points, especially that we should be thinking about how we pay for bitcoin development. But I am entirely unconvinced by BIP 110.