Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:49:43 +0000
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: vjudeu@gazeta.pl,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <ZPdqNxf2BsESnpIa@petertodd.org>
References: <98009035-ac19029087479e992d1f7eccdc9eb0ab@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jhtI8hEbNQtDMqYB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <98009035-ac19029087479e992d1f7eccdc9eb0ab@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
Cc: GamedevAlice <gamedevalice256@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions"
Precedence: list


--jhtI8hEbNQtDMqYB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 03, 2023 at 06:01:02PM +0200, vjudeu via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Given the current concerns with blockchain size increases due to inscri=
ptions, and now that the lightning network is starting to gain more tractio=
n, perhaps people are now more willing to consider a smaller blocksize in f=
avor of pushing more activity to lightning?
> =A0
> People will not agree to shrink the maximum block size. However, if you w=
ant to kill inscriptions, there is another approach, that could be used to =
force them into second layers: it is called cut-through, and was described =
in this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D281848.0
> =A0
> Then, if you have "Alice -> Bob -> ... -> Zack" transaction chain, and fo=
r example some inscriptions were created in "Alice -> Bob" transaction, the=
n cut-through could remove those inscriptions, while leaving the payment un=
affected, because the proper amount of coins will be received by Zack, as i=
t should be.

You are incorrect: cut-through transactions will not meaningfully affect
inscriptions. While it is true that with fancy cryptography we can prove the
Alice -> ... -> Zack chain, that does not change the fact that Alice -> Bob=
 ->
Zack was mined in the blockchain, and those transactions exist. Anyone runn=
ing
a full archival node will still have those transactions, and can provide th=
em
(and all their inscription data) to anyone who needs it.

This is not unlike how in Bitcoin right now many people run pruned nodes th=
at
do not have any archival inscription data. Them running those nodes does not
prevent others from running full archival nodes that do make that data
available.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--jhtI8hEbNQtDMqYB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=xgmi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jhtI8hEbNQtDMqYB--