On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > pá 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odesílatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal: > >> I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core >> developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content >> as witness data (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html). The >> ordinal scheme is elegant and genius IMHO, but when I think about the >> future disk use of all unpruned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage >> is wise to allow for such use cases. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to >> impose a size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions? >> >> Personally, I was always considering future disk use at full capacity anyway (and planning accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that would happen. The latter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so I don't see it as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I would be more conservative if we were talking about introducing it!). > I think it would be useful to link a sat to a deed or other legal >> construct for proof of ownership in the real world, so that real property >> can be transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the >> property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me. >> > > Low tech solution: miners charge a premium for storing images in the block > chain. Say 2x, 5x, 10x. > > This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial network, while > increasing the security budget. > How would you enforce this technically? I only see it feasible if miners agree by social contract.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
