Yeah - I remember the incident. It was self-correcting, and BTC Guild never in the interim abused their outsized position. Relevance?
Unsure what Shadders expounding upon the nChain client dev process has to do with whatever point you are trying to make. I've had the complete presentation on deck for watching since this morning, but have not had time to absorb it. Can you be more specific about what you see as a problem?
Then i read this and everything made sense to me....
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/fixing-op-fals-fd157899d2b7"The aim was never to allow the creation of scripts that are designed to diminish the long-term viability of Bitcoin, and to this end miners will be able to recover this form of funds as if they were salvaging sunken treasure. This returns the coins into circulation."
+
OP_RETURN
We will be publishing a strategy where OP_RETURNS are published on a time basis. The amount invested into the OP_RETURN will set the length of time before these are removed and pruned.
" if a 100-KB file is to be stored for 1 year, miners
V = T*S = 31,536,000*100/100 = 0.315 BCH
The exact figures would be left to market forces to determine. When the time has expired, a sunk fee can then be recovered by miners."
So,if you want to keep info stored on sv chain then you need to pay up at different time intervals...kinda like gas for eth.
This is a proposal for additional semantics attached to OP_RETURN. An OP_RETURN tx is already an explicitly prunable tx. What is the issue here?
make the permissionless blockchain into permissioned...
Exactly how do you see this transition happening?
decentralized into centralized...
Exactly how do you see this transition happening?
Control old keys...some very very valuable...
Exactly how do you see this transition happening?
Is this the way faketoshi becomes satoshi, taking his coins.
Are you aware of any satoshi coinbase txs with an OP_RETURN? Or am I misunderstanding your point again?
