I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.
I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.
It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.
I missed the bottom part of your post. I believe limiting witness data may not only make Ordinals users evolve and "innovate", they'll probably also start storing data within the actual blocks themselves like how Bitcoin Stamps is doing it. It's more costly but what is "cost" to a person who believes he's be storing his/her "art" in a bank vault.
consensus is CONSENT of the masses
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.
This again? Really?
No one needs your permission to opt in to new rules via softfork
No one needs your permission to develop off-chain features
No one needs your permission to disconnect another node from their node
And (as made evident by this topic) no one needs your permission inject non-transactional data into the chain.
Seems pretty permissionless to me.
Also, someone could steal your keys. Clearly that act wouldn't require your permission either. Show me in the code where it says that's not allowed.
Please stop living in a work of make-believe where you imagine everyone on this network requires your personal approval to do things. Sociopath.
You've spent years telling people what they supposedly "can't do", but they keep going right ahead and doing it anyway. You are demonstrably wrong and continue to be wrong every time you repeat this nonsense. Attempting to redefine consensus every time people do something you disagree with is not only futile, but also decidedly petty.
delaying/avoiding highway maintenance (to make the highway more efficient) is not a solution
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own
You're free to write your own highway code if you don't like our one. You could have whatever asinine rules you like. No one is stopping you. Build a testnet to prove it works. Maybe someone will take you seriously (although I doubt it).
Or whine some more. That's proven super effective all these years. Devs are just lining up to code your ideas.
"KARENPRIME1". Hahahaha! You made my day ser.
