valid, it’s accepted by the protocol
just like the spam is valid too.
both monterey and non-monetary transactions are valid on the protocol, always have, probably always will
if the rules to a ...
Telos. Beautifully explained.
If I can tie in an engineer's perspective on this: this is exactly why I do support 110. Telos is how you do rational software architecture and make rational maintenance decisions.
If the purpose of the protocol is money, then we can objectively decide what to do as software maintainers. If we are allowing space for non-monetary uses to slip through which can be closed without hurting monetary use, responsible software maintenance is tightening those constraints.
This simplifies the state space, reduces attack surface and supports decentralization by keeping the chain lighter.
I haven't found any arguments against 110 on valid technical grounds. It appears to be correct software maintenance. Rational node software maintenance is important to Bitcoin.
I also agree that spam will probably be priced out in the long run, so I'm not going to dramatize it, but that is not an excuse for us to willfully neglect proper maintenance.
Does that make sense?
BTW, totally other topic:
I wonder if you might be interested in taking a look at this essay I just wrote. I tried to ground the physics of Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time in Thomistic metaphics. You might find it interesting and could possibly tell me if I screwed anything up on the metaphysics side.
https://zsubmesh.net/essays/bitcoin-and-the-theology-of-time.html
Either way, I will definitely look forward to hearing you on the podcast. I hope it brings a little more reason back to the conversation.
If I can tie in an engineer's perspective on this: this is exactly why I do support 110. Telos is how you do rational software architecture and make rational maintenance decisions.
If the purpose of the protocol is money, then we can objectively decide what to do as software maintainers. If we are allowing space for non-monetary uses to slip through which can be closed without hurting monetary use, responsible software maintenance is tightening those constraints.
This simplifies the state space, reduces attack surface and supports decentralization by keeping the chain lighter.
I haven't found any arguments against 110 on valid technical grounds. It appears to be correct software maintenance. Rational node software maintenance is important to Bitcoin.
I also agree that spam will probably be priced out in the long run, so I'm not going to dramatize it, but that is not an excuse for us to willfully neglect proper maintenance.
Does that make sense?
BTW, totally other topic:
I wonder if you might be interested in taking a look at this essay I just wrote. I tried to ground the physics of Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time in Thomistic metaphics. You might find it interesting and could possibly tell me if I screwed anything up on the metaphysics side.
https://zsubmesh.net/essays/bitcoin-and-the-theology-of-time.html
Either way, I will definitely look forward to hearing you on the podcast. I hope it brings a little more reason back to the conversation.
1❤️1