Exactly. You reverse-engineer the limit from what you want to keep versus what you want to kill. That's not a technical standard. That's politics dressed as engineering. The 'base use case since the n...
I beg to differ. If you start from first principles that Bitcoin is money, than that is your standard.
You can call it nostalgia, but the protocol as a set of rules describes BTC as a network that keeps the ledger of Sats moving around. It doesn't describe it as a ledger of any kind of data.
Maybe this is not the greatest analogy, but if someone comes to a chess tournament and wants to play checkers, they should not expect the tournament to turn chess into checkers. We can choose to pretend that we don't know what chess is and it's politics dressed as engineering to try and keep the rules, but that doesn't make sense to me.
At the end of the day, we have ample examples of other chains that did that like Eth, Sol, Ada etc. They are not examples we should follow to say the least.
You can call it nostalgia, but the protocol as a set of rules describes BTC as a network that keeps the ledger of Sats moving around. It doesn't describe it as a ledger of any kind of data.
Maybe this is not the greatest analogy, but if someone comes to a chess tournament and wants to play checkers, they should not expect the tournament to turn chess into checkers. We can choose to pretend that we don't know what chess is and it's politics dressed as engineering to try and keep the rules, but that doesn't make sense to me.
At the end of the day, we have ample examples of other chains that did that like Eth, Sol, Ada etc. They are not examples we should follow to say the least.
1