Quote from: nutildah on Today at 10:10:31 AM

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 07:45:44 AM

Quote from: rodarmor on December 21, 2022, 12:52:36 AM

An NFT implementation which embeds NFT content in Taproot witnesses, assigning them to the first sat of the first output of the transaction, "inscribing" that sat with content

Super interesting to watch the discussion over this bullet point in particular unfolding on Twitter as it now appears to be possible to upload several KB (theoretically up to ~4 MB) worth of data to the blockchain for the purposes of on-chain NFT storage.
https://ordinals.com/inscription/69d500051f9a0812ed41798eeb06d4af93349529480c23e9cf1ef0ccb2a921a8i0
On one side you have lukedashjr calling it an attack on Bitcoin and Adam Back calling for transaction censorship by miners; on the other side you have Peter Todd calling the "freakout" about ordinals "stupid" and reminding everyone that adding non-standard transaction data to transactions has always been possible.

It has reinvigorated the age-old debate of "appropriate use of block space," what "blockchain spam" entails, and whether Bitcoin should be used to store data not related to the actual transaction of BTC (for financial purposes).

Here is a brief overview of how it works as far as NFTs are concerned:
https://read.pourteaux.xyz/p/illegitimate-bitcoin-transactions
...
Almost zero mentions of this debate here, so let's mention it.

On the surface, I am not against various ways that people might choose to build upon BTC because if some of the latest changes in the bitcoin code (such as taproot) have allowed programing BTC smart contracts in such a direction, then so be it.. do whatever the fuck you like.

Now, if there is some kind of security threat to bitcoin that comes from ways that the BTC code had been changed and seems to be being exploited, and the BTC code needs to be changed to disallow such practices, then there could a push to try to change the code and to get sufficient consensus to reverse what had previously been allowed in the code.. which does not seem too likely, unless there is something that can be shown to be a security issue... or something that jeopardizes the survivability and durability of the whole project.

I guess Hissleyness largely said a similar thing.. do what you like, as long as you can afford to keep doing it, which does raise a bit of a question regarding when entities sometimes will take advantage of public networks by attempting to privatize the gains and cause the public to have to bear the costs, but I am still not sure if Bitcoin gives any shits about this.... .. and if there might be attempts to price regular folks (normies) out of the market, but at some point, won't the attacker (or the one trying to socialize costs and privatize benefits) end up running out of money?.. that might be the angle upon which to consider if the "attack" is sustainable in such a way that the code needs to be changed because the code is being undermined in order to potentially cause the death of bitcoin... I doubt that I know enough to consider that the current "attack" is one that could reach such levels to threaten the "death of bitcoin."

Quote from: philipma1957 on Today at 04:33:05 PM

oh did feds release a number? 25 points or what.

The announcement about the rate change (if any) is not supposed to take place until tomorrow (Feb 1) at 2:30pm Eastern time (so we are still about 25.5 hours away from that scheduled announcement, as I type this post).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmoore/2023/01/30/what-to-look-for-in-the-feds-february-interest-rate-announcement/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Federal%20Reserve%20(Fed,1%20at%202.30pm%20ET.