pull down to refresh
102 sats \ 14 replies \ @Undisciplined 9 Dec \ on: The filter stupidity gets even more stupider bitcoin
Aren’t we always in the situation where some portion of the community gets to decide whether our transaction is going to be counted?
It’s a very large portion, sure, but if that’s an objection on principle don’t you have a problem?
Btw, I’m not pushing back on the merits. I just think your objection might really be slightly different than what was stated.
I'd say that since the whitepaper it's known that 51% of the hashpower can break some of the guarantees of Bitcoin (double spend protection, censorship resistance) and that with enough hashpower, someone could try to enforce new rules on Bitcoin.
The traditional response to this has been: we'll change the mining algorithm or our nodes will reject your blocks. As far as I know, Bitcoiners have never accepted the idea of freezing or confiscating people's coins or arbitrarily saying that some already existing utxos don't count -- and such suggestions (if anyone had the audacity to make them in the past) were met with the understanding that they were an attack.
So, I would say we are not always in the situation where some portion of the community gets to decide whether our transaction is going to be counted. We may be in a position where some portion of the community decides whether new kinds of transactions (eg. Taproot, Segwit) are valid, but we have never accepted a change intentionally seizes other people's coins.
One of my conceptions about the way bitcoin works is that any coin can always be spent with the same set of rules under which it was received. This is as important as the 21 million supply cap. I'd like to believe that these basic principles of Bitcoin are not always up for grabs in the same way that the size of the op_return going forward might be.
Could some portion of the community try to push for a change to the supply cap? Yes. Are we always in a situation where this could happen? I don't believe so.
Perhaps I should have instead written:
It's not fucking very good at that if we accept that some portion of the community should decide whether your transaction counts as "non-monetary."
reply
I'd have to find proper reference, but i think there has been serious discussion at some point about what to do if Satoshi's coins ever move. One of the viable options was to actually invalidate his UTXOs. Maybe this wouldn't fly anymore in the current climate.
reply
reply
also, why would satoshi's coins be any different than anyone else's? They're satoshi's coins, not yours or mine, and therefore, the only person who should decide what to do with them is satoshi.
reply
reply
One of the conversations around this brought up the coins being stolen as the hypothetical scenario.
I still thought it was better to let the hacker have them.
reply
I remember some of those discussions but the arguments never made sense to me.
reply
Wait, but why? That feels even less justified than censoring ordinals
reply
I like your revised statement. The issue, as I see it, is that there’s a push to undermine an important part of the culture that Bitcoin is resting on.
Even if this implementation fails, the cultural shift is itself dangerous.
reply