On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:17 PM Melvin Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

pá 27. 1. 2023 v 13:47 odesílatel Robert Dickinson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> napsal:
I'm curious what opinions exist and what actions might be taken by core developers regarding storing unlimited amounts of NFT (or other?) content as witness data (https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html). The ordinal scheme is elegant and genius IMHO, but when I think about the future disk use of all unpruned nodes, I question whether unlimited storage is wise to allow for such use cases. Wouldn't it be better to find a way to impose a size limit similar to OP_RETURN for such inscriptions?

Personally, I was always considering future disk use at full capacity anyway (and planning accordingly). Even without inscriptions/ordinals that would happen. The latter competes for block space and are paying tx fees so I don't see it as that much harmful (esp.now that it is out there... I would be more conservative if we were talking about introducing it!).

I think it would be useful to link a sat to a deed or other legal construct for proof of ownership in the real world, so that real property can be transferred on the blockchain using ordinals, but storing the property itself on the blockchain seems nonsensical to me.

Low tech solution: miners charge a premium for storing images in the block chain. Say 2x, 5x, 10x.

This encourages bitcoin to be used as a financial network, while increasing the security budget.

How would you enforce this technically? I only see it feasible if miners agree by social contract.