🏷️ Categories: bitcoin-dev
quoting naddr1qq…rl3q📝 Summary: The conversation revolves around the issue of inscriptions in the Bitcoin network, which are seen as a spam attack. One person suggests rejecting inscriptions in the mempool as a solution, while another argues that blocking spam could be seen as censorship. Standardization rules are proposed as a way to address the issue, but there are concerns about the impact on regular transactions. The conversation also touches on the problems of initial blockchain download time and UTXO set growth. Overall, there is a debate about how to handle inscriptions and the ethical implications of spam in the Bitcoin network.
👥 Authors: • Léo Haf ( Léo Haf [ARCHIVE] (npub1llv…tyr0) ) • leohaf at orangepill.ovh ( leohaf at orangepill.ovh [ARCHIVE] (npub1slp…xe6g) ) • vjudeu at gazeta.pl ( vjudeu at gazeta.pl [ARCHIVE] (npub1357…ssga) ) • rot13maxi ( rot13maxi [ARCHIVE] (npub12ag…lglz) )
📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-07-25 to 2023-07-30
✉️ Message Count: 6
📚 Total Characters in Messages: 32106
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by leohaf at orangepill.ovh on 25/07/2023: The writer is concerned about a bug in recent software versions that causes inscriptions to take up a large amount of space on the blockchain, impacting the UTXO set. They request options to reject inscriptions in the mempool and raise ethical questions about NFTs and Tokens.
✉️ Message by vjudeu at gazeta.pl on 26/07/2023: The problem of inscriptions in Bitcoin has not been addressed seriously because there is no good solution and it would lead to other serious problems like initial blockchain download time and UTXO set growth. Rejecting inscriptions in the mempool would result in a never-ending chase and the creation of different inscriptions. The Bitcoin community has consistently rejected concepts like NFTs and Tokens, but some unstoppable concepts like soft-forks still exist. Inscription creators have created a non-enforced soft-fork with their rules.
✉️ Message by leohaf at orangepill.ovh on 26/07/2023: Inscriptions are a major spam attack in the Bitcoin network, and not taking action against them could encourage more similar attacks in the future. Adding a standardization option could be a solution.
✉️ Message by vjudeu at gazeta.pl on 27/07/2023: Not taking action against spam could be seen as acceptance. Some argue blocking spam is censorship and could lead to blocking regular transactions.
✉️ Message by Léo Haf on 27/07/2023: Standardization rules were introduced to address issues like the opreturn limit, maxancestorcount, minrelayfee, and dust limit. Bitcoin defenders can detect and standardize spam transactions more easily than creating new types of spam. Default policy can be a weakness or strength, depending on integration into Bitcoin Core. Using a pre-segwit node is not a solution as it cannot initiate new ones. Satoshi discussed spam and some consider Ordinals as spam. Blocking Ordinals is seen as censorship and could lead to blocking regular transactions. The Bitcoin network tolerating spam could be perceived by spammers. The IBD problem and UTXO set growing problem need to be solved. People can still use Taproot to upload data and turn off the witness to become a pre-Segwit node. Blocking certain ways of pushing data may lead to data being pushed into legacy parts.
✉️ Message by rot13maxi on 30/07/2023: Bitcoin defenders can win the cat and mouse game against spam transactions by detecting and standardizing them, making it harder for inscriptions to reach miners. Appeals to Satoshi are not convincing arguments.
Follow Bitcoin Mailing List (npub15g7…08lk) for full threads
⚠️ Heads up! We've now started linking to replaceable long-form events (NIP-23), which allow for dynamic display of thread details like summaries, authors, and more. If you're unable to see this, your client may not support this feature yet.