Very well said. Bitcoin survives and thrives in future if it is used as money. Data storage was not what Bitcoin was created for.
'Data Storage' is not a great framing. It's bias. It's better to compare Bitcoin for money vs Bitcoin for other property too.
It's not the data storage that is important to users who are putting things into Bitcoin. It's the property rights over that data (a title, a digital product, etc.) that makes it special and Bitcoin is the best way to provide property rights the human race has ever devised.
No central authority, globally fair and permissionless. Why would we want to force the world to continue to beg at the feet of authorities and cabals of banks when it comes to all of their other property? Money alone doesn't make an economy. Money and Property is the whole economy.
I reserve the right to agree, if things change, that some limitations are needed, because of the need to keep the system sufficiently decentralized, but on principal the argument that Bitcoin should be 'only money' falls flat. That's an opinion, not a fact of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not in danger by allowing other property utilizing it's network. It would be in danger if there was no block size limit already, but there is.
We should remove the subsidy for witness data, and make other changes to help nodes keep up, but this crusade against other property using Bitcoin is insane. There's no danger in that, specifically. The danger is already mitigated by a block size limit.
It's not the data storage that is important to users who are putting things into Bitcoin. It's the property rights over that data (a title, a digital product, etc.) that makes it special and Bitcoin is the best way to provide property rights the human race has ever devised.
No central authority, globally fair and permissionless. Why would we want to force the world to continue to beg at the feet of authorities and cabals of banks when it comes to all of their other property? Money alone doesn't make an economy. Money and Property is the whole economy.
I reserve the right to agree, if things change, that some limitations are needed, because of the need to keep the system sufficiently decentralized, but on principal the argument that Bitcoin should be 'only money' falls flat. That's an opinion, not a fact of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is not in danger by allowing other property utilizing it's network. It would be in danger if there was no block size limit already, but there is.
We should remove the subsidy for witness data, and make other changes to help nodes keep up, but this crusade against other property using Bitcoin is insane. There's no danger in that, specifically. The danger is already mitigated by a block size limit.
21
