MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABHetKwan91zqm=0y=_84vG7ffveWTPYONZP_hLQx5o40iAnuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKaEYhJ_8tph3v9n139Ta+3sBaL-TmeOBNr-cCtti9dbdYuhCQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJ_8tph3v9n139Ta+3sBaL-TmeOBNr-cCtti9dbdYuhCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 16:25:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CABE6yHvRihAbP3NYOiAiXmRFQu-28Rnz6QBn17bHxBwM-V4wdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000416e6705f3e0945f"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Ordinal Inscription Size Limits
Precedence: list

--000000000000416e6705f3e0945f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
>
> p=C3=A1 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odes=C3=ADlatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-=
dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal:
>
>> I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core
>> developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) conten=
t
>> 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 stor=
age
>> 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?
>>
>>
Personally, I was always considering future disk use at full capacity
anyway (and planning accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that
would happen. The latter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so
I don't see it as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I
would be more conservative if we were talking about introducing it!).


> 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 propert=
y
>> can be transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the
>> property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me.
>>
>
> Low tech solution: miners charge a premium for storing images in the bloc=
k
> chain.  Say 2x, 5x, 10x.
>
> This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial network, while
> increasing the security budget.
>

How would you enforce this technically?  I only see it feasible if miners
agree by social contract.

--000000000000416e6705f3e0945f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvi=
n Carvalho via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D=
"gmail_attr">p=C3=A1 27. 1. 2023 v=C2=A013:47 odes=C3=ADlatel Robert Dickin=
son via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; napsa=
l:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"l=
tr">I&#39;m curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by =
core developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) cont=
ent as witness data (<a href=3D"https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html=
" target=3D"_blank">https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html</a>). The o=
rdinal 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 wi=
se to allow for such use cases. Wouldn&#39;t it be better to find a way to =
impose a size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?<br><br></di=
v></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personally, I w=
as always considering future disk use at full capacity anyway (and planning=
 accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that would happen. The la=
tter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so I don&#39;t see it =
as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I would be more conse=
rvative if we were talking about introducing it!). <br></div><div><br></div=
><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px=
 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div di=
r=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddin=
g-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">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.<br>=
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Low tech solution: miners charge a p=
remium for storing images in the block chain.=C2=A0 Say 2x, 5x, 10x.</div><=
div><br></div><div>This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial networ=
k, while increasing the security budget.</div></div></div></blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>How would you enforce this technically?=C2=A0 I only see it=
 feasible if miners agree by social contract.<br></div></div><div dir=3D"lt=
r" class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></d=
iv><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000416e6705f3e0945f--