"Garbage dumbp"
Please, don't write off useful applications for proof-of-publication so quickly.
I don't mean to; there are definitely interesting things that can be done. I just question whether it's necessary to do them on the Bitcoin blockchain. A truly symbiotic application seems like it could work perfectly well using a separate merged mined chain, and atomic cross chain trading. (And if the application is competing with Bitcoin, then all the more reason to keep it the hell off the Bitcoin blockchain, if possible.)
What is or isn't a "Bitcoin application" is open to debate. I certainly think decentralized finance has the potential to be valuable, and it will be quite concretely based on Bitcoin as a medium of exchange in actual applications. More to the point, if I wish to, say, use a multisignature protected wallet, I'm creating transactions that take up significantly more blockchain space than those that don't. Of course, I pay for that space in fees, driving up costs for all Bitcoin users... So am I wrong for doing that?
Obviously pretty much nobody would object to that example. Yet consensus seems to be that using the blockchain for completely arbitrary data dumps is a bad idea. So yes the line is blurry, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is safely ignored.
My worry is if we don't stick to a strict market-based allocation of proof-of-publication security we're going to see an acceptance in this community of rationing it based on perceived value. Frankly, this is much like net neutrality debates - I believe in applying freedom of choice and non-judgemental market principles rather than having a small group of devs and pool operators decide what is or isn't the valid use of the Bitcoin blockchain.
This implies a rejection of any defined purpose for the blockchain: "it exists for whatever the highest bidders want to use it for". For example, crowded out users that just want to transfer bitcoins back and forth would IMHO be rightly upset by this kind of transformation.
Also, it increasingly looks like the scalability stuff I'm working on can be done transparently in a backwards compatible manner - actually implementing that stuff may prove to be less of a disruption than forcing all Bitcoin software to use new address types.
I hope so! Better fundamental scalability is certainly the ideal solution. Since I like to keep up-to-date on these topics, what is your current favoured way to go here? Just the name of the proposal is fine, I can search through the chat logs/forums to get the details. Thanks.