Concern about "Inscriptions"

Summary:

In the email, Chris addresses the concern about "inscriptions" in the Bitcoin protocol. He emphasizes that understanding the strategy incorrectly or purposely driving the interaction into a false framing does not benefit Bitcoin. The proposed strategy aims to increase the coercion cost of mining entities compared to the cooperation cost of mining entities regarding arbitrary data insertion. It is important to note that this strategy is not about banning or censoring.Chris clarifies that mentioning other ways or methods to insert arbitrary data should not be seen as a threat, but rather as topics that Bitcoin developers should consider solving. It is necessary to assume that arbitrary data insertions are not innocent or negligible.The Bitcoin system is currently facing a struggle between two visions. One vision is characterized by every node operator having control, resulting in a highly decentralized system where nobody alone controls. The other vision is controlled by a few highly capitalized entity node operators, leading to a highly centralized system where a committee controls. To achieve the latter vision, Chris suggests incrementing the cost of operating a regular Bitcoin node, also known as an archival full node. This tactic would reduce network decentralization, making it vulnerable to central entity elimination or control acquisition. It is worth noting that the central entity does not necessarily have to be a national-state government.The email was forwarded by Russell O'Connor, and it is part of a discussion on the Bitcoin protocol. However, the farewell part of the email should be ignored for the purpose of summarizing the content.Overall, Chris highlights the importance of understanding the strategy correctly and considering the implications of arbitrary data insertions in order to address the ongoing struggle between decentralization and centralization in the Bitcoin system.

Updated on: 2023-08-24T01:51:46.944010+00:00