{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 01:35:10PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e It is a fair criticism that this inches the incentives, a bit, towards\n\u003e timestamping and other non-currency uses.  But those uses (a) cannot\n\u003e be prevented and (b) have already been automated anyway (e.g. the\n\u003e python upload/download tools stored in-chain).\n\nYeah, and Bitcoin sacrifices are kind of an odd middle ground there.\nIt's been suggested to make provably unspendable OP_RETURN IsStandard()\nonly if the txout value is zero, but considering the sacrifice use-case\nI'm thinking we should allow people to throw away coins in a\nnon-UTXO-bloating way if they choose too.\n\n\u003e I do think the overwhelming majority of users are invested in\n\u003e bitcoin-the-currency (or bitcoin-the-commodity, take your pick), i.e.\n\u003e the value proposition.  That's our 98% use case.  Given the relative\n\u003e volumes of traffic, timestamping/data storage/messaging is essentially\n\u003e getting a free ride.  So IMO it is worth continuing to explore\n\u003e /disincentives/ for use of the blockchain for data storage and\n\u003e messaging, for the rare times where a clear currency-or-data-storage\n\u003e incentive is available.\n\nIndeed, just recognize that those disincentives must be implemented in a\nway that makes doing the less-harmful thing is to your advantage. For\ninstance people keep arguing for OP_RETURN to only be allowed as one\ntxout in a tx, which puts it at a disadvantage relative to just using\nunspendable outputs. Similarly because people can play OP_CHECKMULTISIG\ngames, allow as much data as can be included in that form, 195 bytes.\n\n\nOf course, you can't block everything:\n\n----- Forwarded message from aitahk2l \u003caitahk2l at tormail.org\u003e -----\n\nDate: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 02:40:10 +0100\nFrom: aitahk2l \u003caitahk2l at tormail.org\u003e\nTo: pete at petertodd.org\nSubject: Your timestamper\n\nWe spoke a few months back and I sent you some funds to run your\ntimestamper.\n\nI'm letting you know we're going back to unspendable txout timestamps\nfor our needs. Your service is great, but I think you have written it\nprematurely. Like you said in your recent bitcoin-development post on\nsacrifices if the technology enables a use, people will use it. \nInefficient timestamping is one such use and threatens the blockchain\nwith unlimited bloat, but from what I hear from Gavin he doesn't see \ndecentralization as particularly important.\n\nYou really should turn off your OpenTimestamps servers. They mislead\npeople into a sense of scalability that just isn't there. You'll see \nsome of our efforts at 1MBGavinWuiJCF6thGfEriB2WhDD5nhB2a soon;\nfrankly I think he is the biggest threat Bitcoin faces in the long\nterm and will back us all into a scalability corner with no good\nsolutions.\n\nFeel free to forward this message to others.\n\n\n----- End forwarded message -----\n\nSeems legit - traffic on my timestamper is significantly reduced from\nwhat it was before. Incidentally, I've left the opentimestamps client\ndeliberately broken for months now to see if anyone used it, and other\nthan this guy I've had zero bug reports.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000046da2c6f02bf57f3bdc48a08388e0030fc4490f5fc048516e6\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130602/68f8b3a6/attachment.sig\u003e"}