How does one decide what is financial data? Who is going to make that decision?
Also, the average block size did not really pass the 2MB limit, so one can argue about the real impact ordinals have o...
Node runners get to make that decision through cautious changes to consensus rules over time.
It’s usually pretty obvious what is and isn’t a financial use case. Storing jpeg image data is not a financial use case - it’s a storage use case. Storing a hash that proves ownership of that jpeg might be considered a financial use case and since the burden on nodes of storing a 32 byte hash is negligible that should be (and is) possible within an 80 byte OP_RETURN. Anchoring a L2 chain like Lightning is a financial use case - other chains might not be financial but as long as the burden is no more than lightning they’re tolerable. Smart contracts that have no embedded data and release non-dust-sized UTXOs under certain conditions are probably financial. Node operators can accept or reject changes to consensus rules based on their own interpretation of what is a financial use case.
Lots of spam sits in mempools waiting for a low fee environment because they don’t care how long it takes to confirm. So they’re paying less per byte than typical financial transactions but increasing memory and storage demands for nodes significantly over the past few years. I read a recent analysis that fees are about 7% of miner revenue, so spam pays miners only a few percent but burdens node operators in terms of resource needs and unnecessary legal risks. I think spam eventually leads to centralization of nodes and that’s why I’m against spam.
It’s usually pretty obvious what is and isn’t a financial use case. Storing jpeg image data is not a financial use case - it’s a storage use case. Storing a hash that proves ownership of that jpeg might be considered a financial use case and since the burden on nodes of storing a 32 byte hash is negligible that should be (and is) possible within an 80 byte OP_RETURN. Anchoring a L2 chain like Lightning is a financial use case - other chains might not be financial but as long as the burden is no more than lightning they’re tolerable. Smart contracts that have no embedded data and release non-dust-sized UTXOs under certain conditions are probably financial. Node operators can accept or reject changes to consensus rules based on their own interpretation of what is a financial use case.
Lots of spam sits in mempools waiting for a low fee environment because they don’t care how long it takes to confirm. So they’re paying less per byte than typical financial transactions but increasing memory and storage demands for nodes significantly over the past few years. I read a recent analysis that fees are about 7% of miner revenue, so spam pays miners only a few percent but burdens node operators in terms of resource needs and unnecessary legal risks. I think spam eventually leads to centralization of nodes and that’s why I’m against spam.