10 sats \ 17 replies \ @random_ 16 Jan \ parent \ on: Opinion: Spam can't cause high fees - Thriller post bitcoin
You need a concrete definition for spam.
"[Bitcoin] verifies and secures endogenous data. Your use of a blockchain to store exogenous data shows you don’t understand the oracle problem."
Exogenous data (spam) has a price advantage to endogenous data, so of course it isn't being priced out. Let me put it to you this way: every 3 sat/vbyte increase in next block confirmation for a real transaction is a 1 sat/vbyte increase for a spam transaction. Couple that with the fact that the data of the spam tx can be sold and you've got yourself a spamchain flywheel.
Would love to see comparison of the number of stamps (not mentioned in the article) to the number of inscriptions. My guess is there are more inscriptions.
If inscriptions were priced out by being 4× more expensive, why did the feerates go up ~500×?
reply
Re-read that, friend.
reply
reply
reply
reply
reply
Bitcoin fees respond to demand.
So you are also saying that the economic value to create an inscription is higher than the economic value of using bitcoin as money.
I think this is probably not true in any kind of long run and mostly inscriptions will dwindle in the coming months. If they don't, it means they've found a thing that people want to use bitcoin for.
Maybe bitcoin needs to change then, but again, my point is that calling the situation spam is much akin to calling an enemy a terrorist. It implies that there can be absolutely no merit in the use case without actually making an argument about it.
reply
Bitcoin fees respond to demand.
No matter what the fee rate is, spam tx's can consume 3x the data of a regular transaction for the same cost.
So you are also saying that the economic value to create an inscription is higher than the economic value of using bitcoin as money.
No. I'm saying that:
- spam tx's are cheaper than real tx's. (segwit discount)
- spam tx's have a marketplace. real tx's do not. (spamchain flywheel)
- even if spam makes money, it's still spam. (duh)
It implies that there can be absolutely no merit in the use case without actually making an argument about it.
You cannot verify exogenous data using Bitcoin, so what is the use case? To enable grifters to sell shitcoins/nfts.
I'm not sure I agree with the definition of spam as exogenous data.
If a person encodes some arbitrary data as a signature, it seems like that is clearly exogenous data.
But what if someone uses bitcoin script in a novel way, kinda like BitVM? Is the script exogenous data?
I think the only definition of spam that doesn't bring in subjective value judgments is what I said in the article: transactions that aren't willing to pay the fees.
As to whether there are more or less inscriptions/stamps, I still don't think it's relevant. If bitcoin block space is more valuable to idiots who want to put cat videos there than it is to people who want to use the hardest, most freedom-preserving, censorship resistant money ever invented, we aren't doing a very good job.
reply
I think the only definition of spam that doesn't bring in subjective value judgments is what I said in the article: transactions that aren't willing to pay the fees.
Yea... that's not subjective at all.
/s
But what if someone uses bitcoin script in a novel way, kinda like BitVM? Is the script exogenous data?
Depends on the locking script. Probably.
reply
I think we may be going in circles, but I do think that the economic truth of being able to pay transaction fees or not is about as objective as we are going to get.
If bitcoin fees were paid in fiat, I would agree with you, but they are paid in bitcoin and so, yes, I think the ability to pay them is an objective measure of whether something is spam or not.
reply
reply
I think in this case, willingness and ability end up in the same place.
Bitcoin fees are paid from the inputs, so either you have enough or you don't.
If it's not economically worth it to you to make the transaction (and pay the fees) it's the same as not having enough to pay the fees.
As far as the fiat to bitcoin to shitcoin to fiat cycle, no one can mint bitcoin, so shitcoins (including fiat) valued in bitcoin will continue to decrease. As long as they have to buy bitcoin at some point in the cycle (which they do in order to pay fees) they will run out of money unless there is a real economic use for what they are doing.
reply