pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @oomahq 3 Jan \ parent \ on: WTF happened in February 2023? An Analysis of the Ordinals Phenomenon bitcoin
Like I said several times in other threads, if inscriptions are a problem for Bitcoin, then Bitcoin deserves to fail. If this is untenable, then how is a node going to handle "8 billion UTXOs for 8 billion people"
8 billion people are never going to fit in L1. Regardless of that inscriptions are not a problem because they can be unstandardized like many other kind of malicious transactions, but in order to not be a problem this has to be done at some point.
This is nonsense. The blockchain grows at a constant maximum pace determined by block frequency times max block size. It only grows slightly faster due to ordinals because they use more SegWit space, but there is a hard cap still. Whether these are financial transactions or inscriptions, if blocks are full, blocks are full.
The growth is bounded, but all things being equal if storage requirements grow faster than necessary (as it's happening since last February) there will be less archival nodes run by independent actors.
It's not yours or my place to say what transactions are valuable and which aren't. Bitcoin is a free market and inscribers are paying their due.
It's pretty objective. Spam spends $3-20 UTXOs and burns them all as miner fees. Regular transactions of the same size that try to conserve sats cannot compete in equal terms, but neither larger ones. E.g. A $50 transaction is not viable when spam is spending $5-10 and paying it all on fees.
write
preview