summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/98/b3cd4bb019b31780109401be85b12b9ef0f330
blob: 2bdfbc45bed9ae7044ac56f104e803e42295850e (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Return-Path: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11193C0032
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2E782163
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:44 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CC2E782163
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl header.i=@gazeta.pl
 header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2013 header.b=TRdZ4DF3
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id mvsgz261VXUJ
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 599 seconds by postgrey-1.37 at util1.osuosl.org;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:42 UTC
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org CA18282157
Received: from smtpa39.poczta.onet.pl (smtpa39.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.39])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA18282157
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pmq6v.m5r2.onet (pmq6v.m5r2.onet [10.174.33.77])
 by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4R9jCv1J5gzlgNw8;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:30:35 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013;
 t=1690349435; bh=g9U/WvJrum/I/NA0GKez3F9Mjg3Xn6T0y0uLXebL7jE=;
 h=From:To:Date:Subject:From;
 b=TRdZ4DF3rorH9Tq9W3l671QCu8yIwFPnD0azMluFTOBtC/+ic/CgNy667POdCuXm/
 1eUuC9mrQODGXXECPNxXLVUfim228GAyyJDmphmyh0qNDayRUzWIgFRDgfgzd0sgeb
 8OSCBhkVgA1itOnj/QuzRmtnHcasruteXUmnXsXQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: from [5.173.233.114] by pmq6v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id ;
 Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:30:35 +0200
From: vjudeu@gazeta.pl
X-Priority: 3
To: "leohaf@orangepill.ovh" <leohaf@orangepill.ovh>,
 "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:30:32 +0200
Message-Id: <95672223-c6bb7b8fd5ea766bdfd2c54a3fe80859@pmq6v.m5r2.onet>
X-Mailer: onet.poczta
X-Onet-PMQ: <vjudeu@gazeta.pl>;5.173.233.114;PL;2
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:38:10 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions".
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 05:40:45 -0000

> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed mo=
re seriously

Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is preserved. If t=
omorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state of the network would be "j=
ust do nothing", and every solution would be backward-compatible with that =
approach. Burn old coins, and people will call it "Tether", redistribute th=
em, and people will call it "BSV". Leave everything untouched, and the netw=
ork will split into N parts, and then you pick the strongest chain to decid=
e, what should be done.

> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options ex=
cept for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr.

Because the real solution should address some different problem, that was a=
lways there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the problem of forever-=
growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-growing UTXO set. Som=
e changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just that, but this code=
 is not yet completed.

> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempo=
ol of a node.

Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will block one inscript=
ions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are present even on cha=
ins, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That means, if you try to k=
ill them, then they will be replaced by N regular indistinguishable transac=
tions, and then you will go back to those more serious problems under the h=
ood: IBD time, and UTXO size.

> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the=
 Bitcoin community has consistently rejected.

The community also rejected things like sidechains, and they are still pres=
ent, just in a more centralized form. There are some unstoppable concepts, =
for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What inscription creat=
ors did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They believe their rules are follo=
wed to the letter, but this is not the case, as you can create a valid Bitc=
oin transaction, that will be some invalid Ordinals transaction (because th=
eir additional rules are not enforced by miners and nodes).