<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1wjr0w3nzmsn3m706j3n0e5wumjajg7san4pvw3arqjgez0ztnerqjrv6nq

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8fphhge3dcfcal8afgehu68wdewey0gwe6sk8g73sfyv3839eu3spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0ztmhtu

Publishing to

relay.primal.net

nos.lol

relay.damus.io

Last Notes

2023-06-07 23:18:47 UTC

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2023-01-29
🗒️ Summary of this message: A Bitcoin developer emphasizes the need for capacity planning for unpruned nodes as block space demand increases and average block weight trends upwards.
📝 Original message:On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 7:58 AM alicexbt <alicexbt at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bitcoin Developers,
>
> > Anyone who runs an unpruned bitcoin node should be capacity-planning their disk space assuming that in the future blocks will be more full - as demand for blockspace increases, people will make better use of the space that we already have and average block weight will trend upwards. If you’re thinking about how much disk you will need when we have consistently full blocks, ordinal inscriptions don’t change that number.
>
> I completely agree with this.
I fully agree with this too. It was a sloppy remark on my part--
thanks for claifying. Underlying my remark was a bit of disgust from
knowing that in the future, a (perhaps large) X number of GB of what
should have been financial data will actually turn out to be something
else entirely. Time/space on the Bitcoin blockchain is a shared
limited resource and should be treated accordingly. We can say "no
worries...the price and demand will sort everything out," but
hopefully we all want Bitcoin to be the best financial tool it can be.
“If the ax is not sharp and he does not make it sharp, then he must
use more strength. Wisdom helps one to do well.”

2023-06-07 23:18:46 UTC

- 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>