pull down to refresh

Stopping taproot inscriptions would make it 100x WORSE


Proof? Dogecoin managed to implement ordinals/inscription using p2sh outputs The result? Inscription will be done using dozens to hundreds of outputs/transactions!

If you ban taproot spend inscriptions, they will just use other techniques and still be able to upload arbitrary data in a much dirtier, non-prunable way.
reply
Lol good luck getting consensus on that one, but I doubt it passes, I think the best way to get rid of ordinals is to leave people to keep doing it until they run out of money
reply
hope it works out, the shitcoiner invasion is only going to cause more problems as time goes on.
reply
It's kind of an attempt at censorship. And I don't think it's worth it. Over time, people get bored, or it becomes too expensive and loses its meaning.
reply
If the ordinals/stamps will increase the size of the UTXO set too much, then I would prefer to soft fork my node and keep out (AKA invalid) all txs that will have say more than x outputs.
I mean, today you need at least 3-4GB of ram to run a bitcoin node. If that requirement goes up to say 8-10 GB because of this, that will make running a node very expensive, and that will hurt decentralization. All I care is to keep running a bitcoin node as affordable as possible. IMHO.
reply
On a second thought, this criteria is not good. Technically it should be possible to send a tx with any amount of outputs. And if people started feeling generous and started giving bitcoin to every existing wallet, the UTXO set will explode but that would be part of the protocol. Maybe another technical solution can be implemented to ease RAM requirements because of the UTXO set. Maybe in the future SSD storage will be fast enough to store everything. Only 87 M UTXOs now. Nodes should be able to handle 9 B UTXOs if btc was to be truly global.
reply
Sounds permissionless
reply
This seems like it could backfire. There are already relay networks for miners that offer low-latency, and home nodes activating this would just push large miners to connect to each other directly, putting smaller miners at a disadvantage who might not have access to the same low-latency links.
reply
bit of an over simplification of what the bounty is for.
reply
Interesting effort, but am a bit sceptical this can work. All blocks have inscriptions atm, so you would just cripple the blockchain (at least for a while until miners get on board)
reply