Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan McClelland)

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Concern about "Inscriptions". (Keagan McClelland)

[Einherjar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --]

About price space in the UTXO set:

I am highly concerned with that proposal.
The reason is this could restrict users to do proper UTXO management and lead to doxing and privacy issues. Now there are few costs associated to having lots of UTXOs, mainly fees associated with spending low-valued UTXOs.

> There is an open question as to whether or not we should figure out a way
> to price space in the UTXO set. I think it is fair to say that given the
> fact that the UTXO set space remains unpriced that we actually have no way
> to determine whether some of these transactions are spam or not. The UTXO
> set must be maintained by all nodes including pruned nodes, whereas main
> block and witness data do not have the same type of indefinite footprint,
> so in some sense it is an even more significant resource than chain space.
> We may very well discover that if we price UTXOs in a way that reflect the
> resource costs that usage of inscriptions would vanish. The trouble though
> is that such a mechanism would imply having to pay "rent" for an "account"
> with Bitcoin, a proposition that would likely be offensive to a significant
> portion of the Bitcoin user base.
> 

> Cheers,
> Keags


Einherjar - E7ED 7E35 F072 CA83

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

[-- Attachment #1.2: publickey - realeinherjar@proton.me - 0xBF60A699.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 657 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]