So, for those reading this thread here is some context:
<a href='https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685'>https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685</a><div class='embed' data-url='https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685'></div>
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
5h
1/ The possible income is the tx fee when it's spent. There is a natural ceiling on creation of such utxos because they aren't free to create. There might still be some that need to be kept but once miner decides there's minimal chance of them being spent they can move them...
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
5h
2/.. To cheaper storage if they want. This would likely be a tiny amount of data compared to full utxo set though. The economics discourage creating these unless there is value embodied in them some other way.
Bitcoin has allowed zero value spendable outputs since the beginning
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
5h
Sure, Bitcoin allowed many things. We're taking here about a hostile miner who will bloat the UTXO set with 0 valued UTXOs and then force everyone else to socialize the replication of these valueless UTXO's.
At this point Bitcoin becomes a clock. A timestamper. Not cash.
Jackson Laskey<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
·
4h
What’s the difference to miner B between a block of 0-sat transactions and a block of 1-sat transactions mined by miner A? Miner B gets the fees in either case. Isn’t it better for both miners to be able to accept fees in a flexible manner? They can be shared if necessary
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
4h
Why not just have a timestamp server in a closet, lock down the protocol with patents and then just sign packets of data with no Satoshis at all in the system. They get fees (fiat, etc) regardless, right?
Jackson Laskey<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
·
2h
Why limit yourself?
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
2h
Why not have negative Satoshi value too. Why limit yourself?
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
2h
Not part of the Bitcoin protocol rules...
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
2h
'1 CPU, 1 VOTE'
Satoshi didn't include code in paper and his first version of source code left a lot to be desired.
We'll let POW speak for itself and see what "rules" emerge.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
2h
Just so I'm clear. What you're saying is that you think Satoshi was wrong in implementation and that a protocol rule that has been present in Bitcoin since Jan 2009 until today needs to be changed and that you are willing to hard fork the protocol in order to effect that change?
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
1h
Nope. I'm saying that I'm with Satoshi and the Bitcoin whitepaper is defining the Bitcoin systems to have a pre-determined maximum number of coins.
Put these 2 statements together in the images below and it is trivially true to see that 0-valued Satoshi outputs violates it.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
You cannot fix this "problem" without changing a protocol rule and thus causing a chain split.
The examples you give talk about chains of digital signatures. That has nothing to do with the satoshi value of an output.
It also doesn't affect the fixed satoshi supply.
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
and 4 others
The protocol is SET IN STONE. It was set in stone when it was defined in the paper
We all agree that nChain's node is NOT set in stone. Whether or not consensus rules are this or that, as we have seen change many times in past decade.
Satoshi said predetermined number of coins
7:02 PM · Nov 7, 2020·Twitter Web App
Joel Dalais<a class="mention" href="/@JoelDalais">@JoelDalais</a>
·
1h
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
and 5 others
original intention was always to have some space for "free" tx's, there are reasons for this, that i won't elaborate on twitter
& nchain/svnode IS the reference client, but many more specialization 'nodes' are yet to be created
personally, not a debatable point for me
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
and 4 others
The nChain implementation of the protocol IS set in stone with a few well defined exceptions that are directly associated with reversing changes to the original protocol.
No one is suggesting changing the number of Satoshis.
John Pitts<a class="mention" href="/@EquityDiamonds">@EquityDiamonds</a>
·
1h
J Dorsey the Horsey doesn't deserve all this.
Especially since a channel was created with this entire discussion in mind (and left open-ended...).
Switch walkie-talkie channels please!
powping
John Pitts<a class="mention" href="/@EquityDiamonds">@EquityDiamonds</a>
·
1h
AKA, let's bSV grownups and get the hell off this hell-hole of a platform.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
link to discussion please...
So, for those reading this thread here is some context:
<a href='https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685'>https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685</a><div class='embed' data-url='https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685'></div>
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
5h
1/ The possible income is the tx fee when it's spent. There is a natural ceiling on creation of such utxos because they aren't free to create. There might still be some that need to be kept but once miner decides there's minimal chance of them being spent they can move them...
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
5h
2/.. To cheaper storage if they want. This would likely be a tiny amount of data compared to full utxo set though. The economics discourage creating these unless there is value embodied in them some other way.
Bitcoin has allowed zero value spendable outputs since the beginning
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
5h
Sure, Bitcoin allowed many things. We're taking here about a hostile miner who will bloat the UTXO set with 0 valued UTXOs and then force everyone else to socialize the replication of these valueless UTXO's.
At this point Bitcoin becomes a clock. A timestamper. Not cash.
Jackson Laskey<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
·
4h
What’s the difference to miner B between a block of 0-sat transactions and a block of 1-sat transactions mined by miner A? Miner B gets the fees in either case. Isn’t it better for both miners to be able to accept fees in a flexible manner? They can be shared if necessary
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
4h
Why not just have a timestamp server in a closet, lock down the protocol with patents and then just sign packets of data with no Satoshis at all in the system. They get fees (fiat, etc) regardless, right?
Jackson Laskey<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
·
2h
Why limit yourself?
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
2h
Why not have negative Satoshi value too. Why limit yourself?
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
2h
Not part of the Bitcoin protocol rules...
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
2h
'1 CPU, 1 VOTE'
Satoshi didn't include code in paper and his first version of source code left a lot to be desired.
We'll let POW speak for itself and see what "rules" emerge.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
2h
Just so I'm clear. What you're saying is that you think Satoshi was wrong in implementation and that a protocol rule that has been present in Bitcoin since Jan 2009 until today needs to be changed and that you are willing to hard fork the protocol in order to effect that change?
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
·
1h
Nope. I'm saying that I'm with Satoshi and the Bitcoin whitepaper is defining the Bitcoin systems to have a pre-determined maximum number of coins.
Put these 2 statements together in the images below and it is trivially true to see that 0-valued Satoshi outputs violates it.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
You cannot fix this "problem" without changing a protocol rule and thus causing a chain split.
The examples you give talk about chains of digital signatures. That has nothing to do with the satoshi value of an output.
It also doesn't affect the fixed satoshi supply.
Attila<a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
and 4 others
The protocol is SET IN STONE. It was set in stone when it was defined in the paper
We all agree that nChain's node is NOT set in stone. Whether or not consensus rules are this or that, as we have seen change many times in past decade.
Satoshi said predetermined number of coins
7:02 PM · Nov 7, 2020·Twitter Web App
Joel Dalais<a class="mention" href="/@JoelDalais">@JoelDalais</a>
·
1h
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
and 5 others
original intention was always to have some space for "free" tx's, there are reasons for this, that i won't elaborate on twitter
& nchain/svnode IS the reference client, but many more specialization 'nodes' are yet to be created
personally, not a debatable point for me
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
Replying to <a class="mention" href="/@AttilaAros">@AttilaAros</a>
<a class="mention" href="/@JacksonLaskey">@JacksonLaskey</a>
and 4 others
The nChain implementation of the protocol IS set in stone with a few well defined exceptions that are directly associated with reversing changes to the original protocol.
No one is suggesting changing the number of Satoshis.
John Pitts<a class="mention" href="/@EquityDiamonds">@EquityDiamonds</a>
·
1h
J Dorsey the Horsey doesn't deserve all this.
Especially since a channel was created with this entire discussion in mind (and left open-ended...).
Switch walkie-talkie channels please!
powping
John Pitts<a class="mention" href="/@EquityDiamonds">@EquityDiamonds</a>
·
1h
AKA, let's bSV grownups and get the hell off this hell-hole of a platform.
Shadders<a class="mention" href="/@shadders333">@shadders333</a>
·
1h
link to discussion please...