What the hell is a "pay-to-use" blockchain? Are there any blockchains, where the users have to pay an upfront fee, in order to gain access and use the blockchain?
How the replace the transaction fees in the blockchain? This guy is totally incompetent in regards to crypto, but he has opinions about it.
What a joke.
firstly all users need to retrieve their UTXO from somewhere to then form tx's to spend value. but if full archival nodes are only transmitting data to paid partnersof lite wallet server owners then those paid partners will pass on their 'costs' to end users.. EG lite wallets and full nodes charge customers to retrieve their UTXO's (much like banks charge to receive bank statements/ATM balance checks)
seems some core devs are under the impression (probably via their sponsors) that bitcoin inevitably will become a pay-for-blockchain
That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate. They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.
So not only do you have to worry that it might become unavailable, it'll be inevitable, except in the sense that perhaps there may be some archive someplace or another that has the historical chain and might make it available to you at some cost. But if that's good enough you could put your data on archive.org today or just put it anywhere on the internet and let the common crawl pick it up. This file storage stuff will hasten the day when the historical chain becomes hard to access, because people will store illegal data in it and then node operators will be forced to shut down or face prosecution. Already I'm being sued over accusations that I ran a node that distributed copyrighted data hidden inside transactions (by third parties without my knowledge or involvement). (so, please, preface any response that this is a speculative concern with a credible offer to cover my legal expenses and indemnify me should we lose)
To the limited extent Bitcoin accommodates it in practice today it's _exceedingly_ inefficient for it in the sense that the p2p network doesn't provide random access to the chain (and presumably won't be due to the abuse potential) so unless you don't mind downloading and processing a terabyte of data over the several days to retrieve your kilobyte of data it isn't available to you already from the network. It's also the case that other blockchains that care less about security or decentralization can do the same thing for radically lower cost (still a dumb idea to use a blockchain for this but if you must then almost anything else does it better). Finally, not that anyone doing it cares, but it's also a abuse that was expressly argued against by Bitcoin's creator.
funny part is the reasons for the bloat of nonsense data the dev quotation has concerns about, that will in his words lead to a drop off nodes and a commercialisation of full nodes.. is due to code he has personally advocated for and desired to be added which then got abused
other funny part is he pretends to define nodes as not requiring features that actually do differentiate them from standard software wallets. as another pre-amble of pretending the network doesnt need to decentralise the blockchain.. thus will lead to commercialisation of the blockchain if less 'nodes' are actually full nodes..
maybe instead of him worrying about the litigations and commercialisation of blockdata.. he should do his job and make new code to stop the unchecked(auto isvalid) data. EG if witness data is not some form of signature/proof of key system, thats actually listed as a rule. reject tx
also having a NODE that has ability to switch off features like archiving(via pruning) downgrades the utility to just that of being software like litee wallets are, if people dont want to be full nodes they can just use lite wallets.. instead of making what once was a full nodes become a mass mess of limp nodes pretending they are classified as full nodes but not actually offering the full node utility or purpose of what is "full node".. again something he as a core dev can change by ensuring full nodes do full node tasks... instead of these silly PR games of switching off utility but trying to still promote that they are 'full nodes'(a PR campaign his clan of ass kissing friends have been pressing for years)