The longstanding compromise on transaction sizes, how Taproot and SegWit inadvertantly blew it up, and the nascent NFT protocol emerging in its wake
Great post. Thanks!
While I disagree with your personal opinion on that matter. It's a very well researched and writen piece. GJ!
why do you continue to pretend BSV isn't faithful to satoshi's white paper and genesis block while already catering for all of this functionality? This entire episode demonstrates the ineptitude of core devs. Their actions have unintended consequences for all effects placed upon satoshi's creation.
> Veriblock and Omni added about 10GB to the bitcoin blockchain in 32 million transactions that all bitcoin nodes have to download forever. Thankfully, these transactions are at least prunable so there isn’t a memory cost given they aren’t part of bitcoin’s UTXO set.
If Bitcoin were using the Mimblewimble blockchain design, then each of these 32 million transactions would only leave 100 bytes of need-to-download data once their outputs are spent, adding only 3.2MB instead of 10GB...
very detailed info. thanks a lot.
Great post, indeed, thanks for your work.
Then, if it is now possible to fill up an entire block with only one transaction containing an Inscription, and the average 7 day fees value per day is USD360'000ish something. Does it mean that for an order of magnitude in USD 10-15 billions you can clog the network for 1 year ? (you boost the fees you pay for each transaction to 10x its current avg. value)
Even if it was USD 100 billions, does it mean that Ordinals and Inscriptions are opening a huge attack breach for any person/group/state having an interest in destroying Bitcoin by allowing it to be stuck for a 100 billion USD / year ?
Or am I getting something wrong here ?
"Ordinals NFTs could be limited to especially vintage or valuable NFTs."
How would that limitation occur? It seems the horse has left the barn.
Can’t miners just block this the same way they are blocking it in the existing script?
It’s permissionless but in reality, everyone is running the same mining software and uses the same set of rules. They can just make the rules stricter, either by a soft fork or just by rules on what gets resent?
It’s not that hard, they did it in the past.
I have feedback on your excellent article if interested... @maxfreeman4 on tg
Super interesting stuff!
Do I understand it correctly that the unintended consequence of taproot came about since there are no limits on the size of the revealed paths in the abstract syntax tree?
"Witness data happens to receive a substantial discount compared to data in other parts of a transaction, like inputs, outputs, and even OP_RETURN values"
This statement sounds untrue to me.