Finally someone who understands the game theory behind this.
Very insightful that private minting deals could lead to centralisation.
An you know, there are people who think that the blockchain is growing much faster since inscriptions began. The whole "bloat" argument is severely misunderstood - fees continue to keep inscribers in check.
reply
fees continue to keep inscribers in check.
Precisely.
reply
reply
No, I'm talking about the size of the blockchain. It grows at a constant pace of about 2MB per block. Blocks with a lot of inscriptions can get over 3MB, but a hard cap per consensus is 4MB - you literally can't grow faster, regardless how many monkeys you stuff into a block.
There is no such data structure in the blockchain as "UTXO set". What "UTXO set" is, is a subset of the entire blockchain. It's an artificial construct, effectively a database index, that Bitcoin Core uses as a solution to a particular problem (that some transactions need to be more accessible to the program than others). Other implementations might do it differently (e.g. store UTXOs and STXOs separately).
If this solution is no longer capable of solving the problem, that's where the developers' time should be spent.
reply
solution
is worse than the problem. Spending precious dev resources figuring out ways to filter this spam is not a good use of their time and furthermore, it will create new problems. The spammers will always find a way forward. E.g. They will pay miners directly to validate their bloated transactions. The side effect will be that miners who welcome this extra revenue will become more profitable than others and over time, this will centralize mining even more than it is today. This is a much worse problem than a bit of blockchain bloat.