rich1.0npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-06-02 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote: > I'd say we tell people to sacrifice to (provably) unspendable for now > and do a soft-fork later if there is real demand for this stuff in the > future. That seems fair. In general, people are actively bloating the UTXO set with unspendable outputs (that cannot be 100% proven unspendable). Provably unspendable seems like an improvement on long term UTXO health. It is a fair criticism that this inches the incentives, a bit, towards timestamping and other non-currency uses. But those uses (a) cannot be prevented and (b) have already been automated anyway (e.g. the python upload/download tools stored in-chain). I do think the overwhelming majority of users are invested in bitcoin-the-currency (or bitcoin-the-commodity, take your pick), i.e. the value proposition. That's our 98% use case. Given the relative volumes of traffic, timestamping/data storage/messaging is essentially getting a free ride. So IMO it is worth continuing to explore /disincentives/ for use of the blockchain for data storage and messaging, for the rare times where a clear currency-or-data-storage incentive is available. -- Jeff Garzik Senior Software Engineer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/