There is a fair point here and I agree to the extent of the nature of transactions being unable to stop, & the open market for clearing them. But I still think it isn’t so simple, regarding the bloat in data that has nothing to do with the transactions themselves. #Bitcoin isn’t cloud storage, it’s a censorship resistant *monetary* network.
If someone was able to write, and openly paid for a transaction, that was openly mined, that had a mathematical exploit such that this single transaction took 10 minutes to compute, this would follow all of your same rules/heuristics without violation, but would be a disaster for decentralization and could turn into an ongoing attack that could have a horrible impact on the ability to run a node and potentially permanently damage the ability to sync any new nodes onto the network save fee a few major entities going forward.
Now, I’m NOT saying this hypothetical is that severe or even comparable to the current situation. In the big picture I do not think this incident is a major concern. But I simply want to point out there is a hole in your line of thinking, because we cannot extract the purpose of the network from the context of what is being confirmed. Bitcoin isn’t merely an open market, it is an engineering feat as well. And if we don’t think like engineers we end up sacrificing the system in the name of the philosophy, while failing to acknowledge their interdependence.
TheGuySwann / Guy Swann
npub1h8…6rpev
2023-05-07 18:00:14
in reply to nevent1q…96yw
Author Public Key
npub1h8nk2346qezka5cpm8jjh3yl5j88pf4ly2ptu7s6uu55wcfqy0wq36rpevPublished at
2023-05-07 18:00:14Event JSON
{
"id": "9d6027bb7b33d26208c0cfa5b70f17076b26c23cffacd084752d3c292f2fc131",
"pubkey": "b9e76546ba06456ed301d9e52bc49fa48e70a6bf2282be7a1ae72947612023dc",
"created_at": 1683482414,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2a4c78e4340f25ac1016f0217b4e15c47f3446ba57d882d9ba6ae62e8bbdf242",
""
],
[
"e",
"a2a8af2db453df016941a5a359c49c40a77719beca54d295984aa2804e57fa99"
],
[
"p",
"b9360cd808b24ecbfd03575f3d637b1e62ca9fea415ac67b6c5b11ef15f28d06"
],
[
"p",
"e76450df94f84c1c0b71677a45d75b7918f0b786113c2d038e6ab8841b99f276"
],
[
"t",
"bitcoin"
]
],
"content": "There is a fair point here and I agree to the extent of the nature of transactions being unable to stop, \u0026 the open market for clearing them. But I still think it isn’t so simple, regarding the bloat in data that has nothing to do with the transactions themselves. #Bitcoin isn’t cloud storage, it’s a censorship resistant *monetary* network.\n\nIf someone was able to write, and openly paid for a transaction, that was openly mined, that had a mathematical exploit such that this single transaction took 10 minutes to compute, this would follow all of your same rules/heuristics without violation, but would be a disaster for decentralization and could turn into an ongoing attack that could have a horrible impact on the ability to run a node and potentially permanently damage the ability to sync any new nodes onto the network save fee a few major entities going forward. \n\nNow, I’m NOT saying this hypothetical is that severe or even comparable to the current situation. In the big picture I do not think this incident is a major concern. But I simply want to point out there is a hole in your line of thinking, because we cannot extract the purpose of the network from the context of what is being confirmed. Bitcoin isn’t merely an open market, it is an engineering feat as well. And if we don’t think like engineers we end up sacrificing the system in the name of the philosophy, while failing to acknowledge their interdependence.",
"sig": "285de1e543317c56263097621662538010fa279c5a0b94ed0a5203b5e7137820015d2d031a1223edd8843b7af59762c64806adfbc5e95a9f9e9630174de50421"
}