<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1wjr0w3nzmsn3m706j3n0e5wumjajg7san4pvw3arqjgez0ztnerqjrv6nq

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8fphhge3dcfcal8afgehu68wdewey0gwe6sk8g73sfyv3839eu3spzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqdzduty

Publishing to

nostr.wine

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-08 01:18:46 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-01-27
🗒️ Summary of this message: The writer questions the wisdom of allowing unlimited storage for NFT content as witness data and suggests imposing a size limit for such inscriptions. They propose linking a sat to a deed for proof of ownership but storing the property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical.
📝 Original message:I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core
developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content
as witness data (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html). The ordinal
scheme is elegant and genius IMHO, but when I think about the future disk
use of all unpruned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage is wise to
allow for such use cases. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to impose a
size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?
I think it would be useful to link a sat to a deed or other legal construct
for proof of ownership in the real world, so that real property can be
transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the property
itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230127/a6a99a6c/attachment.html>