MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABHetKwan91zqm=0y=_84vG7ffveWTPYONZP_hLQx5o40iAnuQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABHetKwan91zqm=0y=_84vG7ffveWTPYONZP_hLQx5o40iAnuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Claus Ehrenberg <aubergemediale@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 18:31:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CANPykMqJ823NcCPxdwHvjOdW2MQPE8oA2JzThFQ2rUa8zHGUvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Dickinson <robert.lee.dickinson@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004298bb05f40b68bd"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits
Precedence: list

--0000000000004298bb05f40b68bd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

The inscriptions are designed to be easy to use, they even specify that
mime types should be used. I'd say, the way the data is stored is anything
but 'obscure'. UIs will be popping up to make this really easy. The main
chain can't be censored, what's in a block is in a block. I'm predicting a
huge success.

So, are we ready to accept that we'll likely see the first pictures with
insults or worse in the Bitcoin chain? I really like the idea, but the risk
is pretty obvious. I think it would be prudent to have at least an opt-out
feature for the data. So that it's possible to use the chain without the
potentially malicious content. That means the content shouldn't live in the
essential data of the main chain. Better would be something like the
extension blocks in Litecoin.

Best Regards
Claus

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:47 PM Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--0000000000004298bb05f40b68bd
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">The inscriptions are designed to be easy to use, they even=
 specify that mime types should be used. I&#39;d say, the way the data is s=
tored is anything but &#39;obscure&#39;. UIs will be popping=C2=A0up to mak=
e this really easy. The main chain can&#39;t be censored, what&#39;s in a b=
lock is in a block. I&#39;m predicting a huge success.<div><br></div><div>S=
o, are we ready to accept that we&#39;ll likely see the first pictures with=
 insults or worse in the Bitcoin chain? I really like the idea, but the ris=
k is pretty obvious. I think it would be prudent=C2=A0to have at least an o=
pt-out feature for the data. So that it&#39;s possible to use the chain wit=
hout the potentially=C2=A0malicious content. That means the content shouldn=
&#39;t live in the essential data of the main chain. Better would be someth=
ing like the extension blocks in Litecoin.</div><div><br></div><div>Best Re=
gards</div><div>Claus</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D=
"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 1:47 PM Robert Dickinson=
 via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I&#39;m curious wh=
at opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core developers regard=
ing storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content as witness data (<=
a href=3D"https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tps://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html</a>). The ordinal scheme is elega=
nt and genius IMHO, but when I think about the future disk use of all unpru=
ned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage is wise to allow for such u=
se cases. Wouldn&#39;t it be better to find a way to impose a size limit si=
milar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?<br><br>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 no=
nsensical to me.<br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000004298bb05f40b68bd--