rich1.0npub1wjr0w3nzmsn3m706j3n0e5wumjajg7san4pvw3arqjgez0ztnerqjrv6nqhttps://nostr.ae/npub1wjr0w3nzmsn3m706j3n0e5wumjajg7san4pvw3arqjgez0ztnerqjrv6nqnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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>