{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I'd say we tell people to sacrifice to (provably) unspendable for now\n\u003e and do a soft-fork later if there is real demand for this stuff in the\n\u003e future.\n\nThat seems fair.\n\nIn general, people are actively bloating the UTXO set with unspendable\noutputs (that cannot be 100% proven unspendable).  Provably\nunspendable seems like an improvement on long term UTXO health.\n\nIt is a fair criticism that this inches the incentives, a bit, towards\ntimestamping and other non-currency uses.  But those uses (a) cannot\nbe prevented and (b) have already been automated anyway (e.g. the\npython upload/download tools stored in-chain).\n\nI do think the overwhelming majority of users are invested in\nbitcoin-the-currency (or bitcoin-the-commodity, take your pick), i.e.\nthe value proposition.  That's our 98% use case.  Given the relative\nvolumes of traffic, timestamping/data storage/messaging is essentially\ngetting a free ride.  So IMO it is worth continuing to explore\n/disincentives/ for use of the blockchain for data storage and\nmessaging, for the rare times where a clear currency-or-data-storage\nincentive is available.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nSenior Software Engineer and open source evangelist\nBitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/"}