@john is on PowPing!

PowPing is a place where you can earn Bitcoin simply by socializing, for FREE.
Never tried Bitcoin? It's OK! Just come, socialize, and earn Bitcoin.
Check out john's activities

Bitcoin SV Node Q&A

visit channel home
Total Economy: 3 USD
Ok, so 0-value BSV tokens scare me, and so do OP_FALSE/RETURN unspendables. The first question is: Will Nodes be allowed to create their own private dust limits? Will they always have control over whether they allow 0-value tokens or not? Next question, just from thinking about it (no research), how hard would it be if in like 5 years BSV wanted to shift to 128-bit computing, and on top of that how hard would it be to allow decriminalization down below 8 places (to the right of the 1 bitcoin)-- such as maybe 10, 12, 16 decimal places? Just thinking long term here. Lastly, what happens when people try to store long term storage things in a 0-value token or unspendable, and only need to access them once a year or less-- like grandma's home movie collection? If transactions is the ONLY way to collect money for long term storage then eventually 0-value tokens could become a waste-bucket with a magnet attached to it. There's this thing in business called "Adverse selection" and it sorta creates havoc in everything from Spotify subscriptions, poker websites, and maybe BSV too if taken down a seemingly harmless path (at first). I worry that BSV won't have a real value if UTXO-sets are devoid of data/code bc all the valuable stuff is stored in infinite amount of 0-value coins; I worry that makes BSV just a glorified version of btc-- with a slight advantage due to transactions and scale, but ultimately susceptible to attack by a clone chain which doesn't favor these "no-coins". Just really looking for more thought-process here, to hear the support cases for OP_FALSE-RETURN unspendables and 0-value tokens. I'm just not seeing it, altho I agree the dust-limit should be removed in favor of allowing Nodes (the market) to set their OWN lower limits and pruning protocol. Putting the tattoo on my forehead, right or wrong, that right now I'm pro-pruning and pro competitive dust-limit (for Nodes, not a protocol-level dust-limit). Is that crazy? Long-term view: I think thoughtful Nodes setting non-zero market-determined UTXO-set lower limits for transactions and tokens allows BSV to stay deflationary money, and this could be continued forever so long as eventually there's a way to increase the decimal place (after 128-bit systems become cheap/standard of course). It's like an economic version of garbage collection or pollution credits. Bad data will get replaced (via spending the spendables with weak income) with higher income/value data. Thus the BSV tree ALWAYS is getting stronger, and more valuable, and the more valuable and efficient it becomes, he faster, cheaper and more secure BitCoin becomes. Furthermore, there's a fairness to not allowing zero-value coins, no? Then Nodes aren't stuck holding he bag. Very interested to hear your takes.
musiq tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
xhliu tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
mooncat tipped:
0.45 USD
1 year ago
Stating for the record: I am no longer "scared of zero-sat-ouputs" (ZSOs) [or if you prefer: zero-sat-tokenization, ZST]. They've been unsettling me for a couple months due to ignorance of how the system will work when BitCoin goes "Back to the Future" of it's 0.1.1 implementation (plus hopefully some cool scaling added by the@nChain folks) To be short about it, I've put my fingers in the wounds of BitCoin after it's reincarnation as #BSV, and very happy to say I've never been more confident in BitCoin's future than I am now. Would like to thank: @Shadders, who explained that 0-sat dust-limit was original BitCoin and was going to stay that way.@attila who had the wherewithal to verify and not trust.@digitsu and@xliu who interpreted technical jargon to help translate it to closer to "human understandable" so I could better grasp it. Everyone at Tokenizing companies who talked to me and explained how various tokens work; you know who you are. CSW of course who invented BitCoin ages ago and is probably tired of talking about the basics, and yet still does for all our benefit. I feel like I just wrote a book, but all I really did was complete some important research which allows me to continue betting my life on the power of BitCoin. But it FEELS like I just completed a book. > 1.5 years of intense studying of BitCoin with all my spare time, and finally in a really really great place. Again, thank you all.
I'm curious what the business use case for 0-sat outputs are? (not the OP_R kind either).
john tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
They would allow 2 things different from 1-sat: 1. Cheaper to implement tokenization. Microsoft wishes to tokenize their shares— let’s pretend it’s 1 billion shares. If a 1 for 1 token to share issuance is done (that’s another topic for debate) then that will require 10 BSV which today is worth $1,600 down payment. With ZST there’s no down payment, or “par” value for the shares. 2. Never hit 2.1 quadrillion limit. {Also requires more discussion as all tokenizations may not be 1:1. } If BSV begins onboarding entire countries to put fiat on BSV, plus derivatives, stocks, bonds, etc... then just look at a 1:1 tokenization of the US Dollar alone: $10 trillion in the monetary base (at the rate we are going in 2020 this will be achieved in 2021) means 1 quadrillion pennies. That would take up ~half the BitCoin tokenbase. Again we need a discussion about why 1:1 can be improved. For instance, there will never be a point where 1 quadrillion US Pennies are needed at the same time just like there will never realistically be a need for 2.1 quadrillion sats at the same time. This is why UTXOs exist— like coin denominations. We used $100 bills before the invention of electronic USD in America.
If fiat currencies are issued as 0sat tokens, then you could theoretically have trillions of dollars and pounds swilling about on the bitcoin blockchain, or rather, moving over the network, and everyone would be paying miner fees, so the base token would constantly be in demand.
domino replied:
thats not true,central banks could settle the fees in fiat(or other form) directly to the miners.
My thoughts are - Can't we just put this in the discussion box for a year before thinking about having a rash fork. There's obviously a lot to think about and new issues might come to light given time.
john replied:
I don't think anyone is going to fork, Attila is just trying to better understand the promotion of 0-satoshi tokenization. Same for me. I think it's probably appropriate to continue the discussion, and get everyone feeling warm and smarmy. There's a solution to this, one way or the other. I think the solution is Nodes shouldn't promote 0-satoshi tokenization, nor FALSE RETURN as "immutable ledger". It's not that I think FALSE RETURN doesn't have a purpose, its that marketing is important or things like Nodes can go off the rails. Thankfully, Attila is defaulting conservative. He's saying HIS node won't support 0-sats. That won't hurt ANYONE. Unless missing something, I think his thinking might be closer to ideal. But that said, I don't think he'd be willing to fork over it, instead, just leave the system if it's dying (bc there's some truth to his concerns).
attila replied:
I'll accept those blocks, of course. It's the free market and leave it to consensus. But it's very worrisome if miners do not want to accept BSV or they actually will do things to reduce the velocity of the native cash Satoshi when we should be fighting to increase it. Some will say this is "bagholding" behavior and that it is "speculation". Duh. Obviously that's what it means to try to predict the future and save for rainy days. Some people choose to bag hold VC debt, weekly paychecks, USD, or other cryptocurrencies. They are free to bag hold anything they want of course. I'll continue investing in Bitcoin-as-cash and I'm a proud "bagholder" that will help INCREASE the Satoshi monetary velocity instead of working actively on features to reduce it. Everyone is a bagholder. The question is which bag they prefer.
john replied:
Agreed on the "bagholding". There is no such thing as a "safe" asset to hold, there is only relativity-- in wealth managment. Some assets go up in price, others go down, and this includes assets which have cash-flows attached (like IBM or Apple equity shares) or those which do not (an original Picasso sitting protected in a person's attic). According to legend, Satoshi Nakamoto himself held more bags than anyone in the history of "crypto", he capitalized and financed several businesses using the sale of saved sats, and presumably still has benefitted from squatting on the future value of BitCoin. "He who has not sinned, cast thy first stone", and that's only if you believe savings are sinful. It's an interesting time period, the present, to study and interpret the "parable of the talents" indeed. Just because we CAN, via the code and/or protocol (which I consider differentt things, especially since BitCoin is not yet "written in stone" until Chronicle at the earliest), use ZSOs (zero-satoshi-outputs, or ZVOs per wiki.bitcoinsv.io ), doesn't mean we SHOULD. Regardless of how a Node likes to be paid (fiat or BSV), the transaction fee TYPICALLY comes out of transaction inputs total, does it not? It is not a UTXO output from a transaction, but a remainder which is aggregated with all the other mining fees in the block. When the block is published, accepted, stands for the obligatory time uncontested (100 blocks?), all the fees are finally paid to the Node/Miner in a single UTXO which emerges from the block itself-- along with the Coinbase transaction (block subsidy). For those of you HEAVY in mining details, how does a zero-fee transaction occur? Is that not something checked in the submitted transaction, thus if the default fee is not met the transaction can sit in the mempool unprocessed? In BSV I believe there will be a time-limit to mempool transactions sitting, such that if no miner includes the low-fee or no-fee transactions, they will be cancelled? So how is it set up in raw transactions if@weathersv wants to pay a lower-than-default mining fee to@mempool? Does WeatherSV simply pay the normal default mining fees, and then Mempool pays them a discount? Or does WeatherSV on the sending-end lower the fee below default, and simply wait for Mempool to include the transactions anyway? Any detail here would be fruitful. Assuming it is the latter, then 0-satoshi inputs TOTAL can be sent to the network, and will be processed, and the below-default fees can be paid in FIAT to the Node which agrees via an SLA. https://www.slictionary.com/testit/sla/2b521b6d3752b84bb7e71f188721039cadcd7e1d81dd717a22d577c00e02bfa5 Coder-detail: What in the raw transaction identifies that the sender is changing the default transaction fee? I'll take it as a look-up unless someone provides a screen-shot of the code (or JSON). It is my assumption, since I didn't "bitcoin" in the early days, that before transactions fees became a thing, most all transactions were free. Will have to put on my list, a study of the history of the first transaction fees. And by free, I mean no dust limit and no Nodes refusing ANY transactions whatsoever. Thus back then, a DOS attack was possible (but not probable as discussed in #DITR episode 2 "...Optimal price to pay for btc"). In fact, what prevents a DOS attack NOW is simply the default setting for transaction fees (0.5 sat/Byte if not mistaken). What prevents DOS from causing mempool congestion in the future, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the proposal to allow mempool clearing (after about 2 weeks? working from memory here). My concern about ZSO still stands. While it might be POSSIBLE; I consider it poor practice. It also begs the question which remains un-answered by those intending on releasing Node software of the future--- how will storage price marketplace be done, as it's readily apparent it needs to be separate from transaction (fees) pricing? Unless I'm missing something of course. I would point to a very poignant mention by Craig of the value of BitCoin in the "first paragraph" episode of@ryanxcharles ToB, in which he listed TWO things: 1. Information stored on the immmutable ledger 2. Faster speed of transactions In this discussion, myself and@attila refer mainly to "1" above, and those not concerned with ZSOs refer to "2"? That's a question. Regardless of the answers to any of these questions, I would consider ZSOs a threat to the entire system, until substantiated otherwise. I fully understand transactions are great for the system, but the majority of those economics goes to the Node companies themselves, not to the value of BSV. the main argument from the other side seems to be: So long as customers of Nodes pay fees to go hand in hand with ZSO payloads, all is well. Why is ok for BSV's value itself? The argument is: If fees and usage of the BSV network continues upwards, more reserve satoshis will be needed to be held in wallets, thus taking up space in the 2.1 quadrillion sat bounds. But this isn't necessarily right, as pointed out above, fees can be paid in fiat. So NOW why hold sats at all? 0-sat-token is sent to a Node from a customer. No fee is sent with the token above. Customer pays Node privately via USD channels for accumulate fees for the month. So where are sats needed for this system? If we think this way, 10,000 small unsophisticated businesses using BSV and paying fees in satoshis is FAR more valuable than a giant corporation standardizing on BSV. SLictionary could be a better standard bearer for the BSV network's health, than onboarding the US Federal Reserve and 100% of it's paper-electronic "funny-money"-- all 700 trillion (and rising) pennies-worth would be located in zero-sat tokens, fees paid with electronic fiat. This is posted for open debate, happy to learn.
"Lastly, what happens when people try to store long term storage things in a 0-value token or unspendable, and only need to access them once a year or less-- like grandma's home movie collection?" They still have to pay a fee to create the output in the first place so I don't think this will happen frivously. The first reaction I hear to the concept of 0-value outputs is "unbounded UTXO size!" but in reality it is bounded by economics which is an elastic bound. A few will slip through the net because irrational behaviour etc. But I doubt this will be of any consequence. Miners will get clever with storage applying heuristics to determine likelyhood of spend. We already know from 11 years of data that the older a UTXO is the less likely it is to be spent. 80% of outputs are spent within the next 1000 blocks. So once the likelihood of a UTXO getting spent in the next few blocks gets low enough (by whatever heuristic) you can shove it off to glacial storage. Eventually maybe even a tape drive. The few that do get spent will probably require a higher fee to cover the retrival, might take longer than usual.
john tipped:
0.1 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
Interesting on all, great answer. Amazon's AWS certainly has a detailed menu, QUITE. Would imagine BitCoin will be the same. The nice thing is, deflationary currency solves a LOT of problems all by itself, especially the one of long-term glacial squatting. If BitCoin is deflationary money, glacial storage becomes uneconomical, and incentivizes pruning by the owner himself. And this is so sexy to me, that it makes me think of the danger of the OTHER side. Namely, if we store most of the tokens, data, etc... into 0-value tokens, BitCoin is certainly LESS deflationary. My question is, is it deflationary any longer at all? In other words, not much is gained by 0-value tokens, other than the ability for token companies to be care-free, and the worser term might be wasteful. Does EVERY company need a billion shares? The farmer down the road from me ran an entire business on 12 total shares, and he could've got by with 2. Nakamoto Consensus will rule, I'm ok with that. HOWEVER, if I was at the controls of the save-all spaceship, I might recommend a different course than the actual captain ("please bring me my wine") of the ship-- call him "Captain Pink" (Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun). I think deflationary money is a tremendous solution, and it's probably so that the more deflationary it is, the more efficient and "healing" it is-- a motive force for good. How? Again, it forces people to clean up after themselves. Think about it from this angle. How many pictures, videos, and other saved information crap do you have which probably will never have a value to you or your next-of-kin and will eventually get deleted by someone getting annoyed paying your Apple iCloud monthly, or Google One Drive annual? Everyone promises themselves they'll spend a Saturday deleting stuff they don't need, but don't. The fees add up, because Google and Amazon and Apple have fifgured this out and even encourage wastefulness. (if you don't believe me, try to QUICKLY find the "trash" folder in gmail-- it's buried WAY down so you can't just empty the trash and lower your GigaMegs number below the "You're over your limit, we recommend lifting your wallet out of your pants" warnings). Long winded way of saying I enjoy the cycles of "low on time, high on money" and "high on time, low on money" and how it self-cleans the system. Seems BitCoin is beautifully set up the same way. NUMBER GO UP? Time to prune, spring cleaning! Decide if it's important, and spend those UTXO-set equivalents of Old-Lady-Shoe-Houses. NUMBER GO DOWN? Get liberal! Store Store Store. Pack old teddy bears into expensive Hermes boxes you pick up behind the dumpster. Buy Manhattan farmland above Houston Street. But if all the data ends up trending towards 0-value tokens and OP_0/RTNs, then maybe BitCoin isn't backed by anything? that's the main fear. My hope is that the EXPENSE and COST of maintaining a system like that-- prevents it from ever happening. Until then, guess I'll be making different choices programmatically-- for the long term Noah's ark scenario that "break glass when/if needed" is heavy on the "WHEN" and not the "IF". (imagine picture inserted here of Noah's Arc floating in a sea of drowned 0-value-token people-water.)
slictionary replied:
Obviously Shadders should've defined HEURISTICS, as he would best provide an example sentence which highlighted an imagined future technique deployed by Nodes. But since we had to read this quickly, put something together here... https://www.slictionary.com/testit/heuristics/txid Interesting the difference between using HEURISTIC and HEURISTICS. How can HEURISTIC be a noun as Merriam-Webster says it can-- weird. HEURISTICS (with the S-ending) sounds so much more natural. Similar to the different between STATISTIC and STATSTICS. Show us YOUR heuristic & we'll show you ours!
"Will Nodes be allowed to create their own private dust limits? Will they always have control over whether they allow 0-value tokens or not? " Yes they will. Nodes can choose not to mine any transactions for whatever reason they want. What the software does by default is a different story. This is the difference between policy and consensus. If a transaction follows consensus rules you are free not to mine it because it doesn't meet your policy rules, but if someone else does and you don't accept that block there's a good chance you'll end up on an orphan chain. Right now the default policy behaviour is to enforce dust limits for all except OP_FALSE OP_RETURN style outputs.It wasn't in the original Bitcoin software. In fact if you look at the code it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that it was a deliberate decision to allow zero value outputs as it already does a negative number check and it would have been trivial to impose a limit of 1 or higher rather than 0.
john tipped:
0.18 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
If I designed it, I'd want charity to be allowed, and 0-value tokens is charity imho. It begs the question: What if at scale the Nodes are doing quite well enough to decide to allow certain TYPES of 0-value tokens to be kept? Could they simply put a limit on the maximum data-size of those? So maybe like a check can have a small "note" section as it fits nicely onto the check with room to spare, we'd have the same thing in BitCoin? Want to put a phrase onto the immutable ledger and not take up any room? Voila! It would work similar to Twitter-- a character limit of sorts. Could that be abused? I think so. But maybe not-- haven't thought about it long enough. This is what made Satoshi great, he didn't impose limits based on his own philosophy, he like a good market kept everything LEGAL and DO-able except that which was not LEGAL or safely DO-able (secure). What's your opinion on potential abuse? Do you think we'll get away with 0-value tokens? Or will some store long-term data there which requires very little transactions (thus potential revenues for Nodes)? Or maybe I've forgot something here? I still think that in the very long run, 0-value tokens won't really last, but at least I think Nodes will responsibly deprecate them without having a catastrophic failure/dismissal of them. In other words, like you did with legacy things like P2SH, grandfathered with a timer on them, could be done again if 0-value tokens becomes a source of abuse. Always game for the leeway, or "break in case of emergency".
shadders replied:
Are you confusing 0 value outputs with 0 fee transactions? As I said the first time I mentioned it I shouldn't have used the term 0 'value'. I should have said 0 'satoshis'. There is no incentive to create outputs with zero value because it cost you satoshis to creates them. It only makes sense to create a 0 sat output if it has value in excess of the tx fee which is probably embodied in the data attached...
john replied:
No, I fully understand that going IN and coming OUT of 0-value-tokens will cost money/Byte. I still think they can become a wasteland for nonsense "data" and bog down the network at scale. If you think about it, what will 0-value tokens attract the most? Probably crappy social media blurbs, ephemeral AND worthless from the getgo. At the margin, who cares? But 1billion transactions x 500 Byte "pinpricks" is the same as 1 transaction at 500 GigaBytes, no? The Node might be THRILLED to accept that write initially, and then regret it after 5 years when zero activity occurs and it sits like lead in the Node stomachs-- all 4 or 10 of them. DEATH BY 1,000 PRICKS. Gulliver lands on the island of micro-men.
john replied:
Boy do I wish that whole twatt-storm happened in a channel which was born and bred for such a discussion. Twatter doesn't deserve the dignity of a good discussion about the consensus-working of a new digital asset they not only don't understand-- but actively shun. Calling ALL@shadders &@attila s.
john replied:
To@joeldalais tweet. No arguments from me on zero-fee transactions-- if U wanna make wine and give it away for free that's a Node's option. This discussion is more about establishing good Nodes with a view long term to make sure the system thrives well past our lifetimes. To me, Nodes establishing a precedent, a well-beaten path, of FALSE RETURN methodology (and there's ephemeral purpose to that, so not against it code-wise or anything) and 0-satoshi-tokenization can be detrimental, or else I'm missing something. I don't think Attila is 100% either, but his gut tells him that a bunch of applications and Nodes getting drunk on 0-satoshi implementations can be bad for BSV. I'm with him on that point. Totally open to understanding how BSV's value is somehow tied to transactions and size of network. I do attribute SOME of BSV's value to those things, particuarly scale and a healthy Node system. But salamanders can live without limbs for as long as some Eagle doesn't swoop in and eat his defenseless body. So for me, this is about potentially saving BSV from a lost decade. Nodes are happy with near-term transaction fees, so long as BSV is steady or goes up slowly they make money for a long time. Token companies are happy with 0-satoshi tokenizations, it lowers their costs and pleases their customers (apps). So long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising. Users don't care, so long as BSV has a value which is steady or slowly rising (deflationary). In these 3 statements, everyone is happy. Except for one caveat. If BSV doesn't have a stable or slightly rising value. I've heard CSW say many times already that BSV is deflationary. I agree. However, using FALSE-RETURN and 0-sat tokenizations can have the reverse effect. I wonder if anyone can explain why this thinking might be wrong. Happy to be wrong; in fact, it's much easier on me if I'm wrong here. But all my study of historical economics and business says that commodities get their value from utility, stores of value. Oil can fluctuate any way it likes in the market, but it ALWAYS can heat my home for the winter. Corn gets expensive, I buy relatively cheap wheat. Corn goes down in price, I make corn-bread, Corn-puddin, corn pops cereal, and start a corn-sugar business and get rich selling to coca-cola in 1984 (New Coke). Again, CSW has said this many times, so think he understands it well. But there seems to be a theme that BSV gets its value from transactions. This to me is perhaps the central issue of discussion. I say BSV gets a MINORITY of it's value from transactions, and a majority of it's value from the city-effect. A 1 acre empty lot (a BSV token) get's it's value due to all the local "high-rises" of tokens which have value in them. Gold gets it's value because no one melts down King Tut's 331 troy ounce mask. Why? Because the mask generates an income, something a gold coin does not. A gold coin is like a satoshi, but King Tut's helmet is like Banksy putting a digital original masterpiece inside a 1-token UTXO that the Node network ensures him will be protected until he spends the coin. Where am I going wrong here?
boksnik tipped:
0.3 USD
1 year ago
joeldalais tipped:
0.59 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
I dunno what's worse, Nodes disagreeing or a community with solid dogfoodie alternative addicted to twatter.
shadders replied:
Will see if Atilla is willing to come here and continue the discussion... Right now where we seem to be at is that he thinks Satoshi screwed up the original implementation with this consusens code: "if (txout.nValue < 0) return error" This has been part of Bitcoin protocol since day 1... Craig has confirmed it's intentional. In order to change would require changing a fundamental part of the protocol and splitting Bitcoin in what would be in effect a hashwar between a faction that wants to stick with 'locked down protocol' and a faction that thinks it needs fixing. The argument against 0-value outputs appears to be that it somehow changes the fixed coin supply which is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin. But I have yet to hear any convincing argument that this is true. I will leave this subject there and allow@attlla to make the argument before I respond.
joeldalais replied:
@john you get it, there is much utility in zero value tx's, many business use cases. As you know a lot of businesses in the contemporary world offer their customers "free", and eat the costs as they gain in other ways and customer retention. Miners can also offer batch amounts of "free" for x amount, or simply deem to process "free" tx's as it allows much more utility to bitcoin. I did type something longer out but wasn't logged in and lost it.. but it was to do with automation and whatnot, and much more utility for businesses and individuals. I remain confused as to why Atilla is thinking that these types of 0-value outputs create more coin. I am also interested in a reply so that it can be explained why it's in error, in case this ever crops up again.
john replied:
When the Spanish Royal mint in Peru gets destroyed by locals tired of enslavement, the Spanish "Pieces of 8" (Po8) still has value. The Po8 has LESS value without the mint, since stamping and recoining encourages confidence in the coin, and keeps it current and easily transferrable, as well as leverageable. BitCoin doesn't attempt to create NO authority, it simply spreads it for robustness as well as keeping the golden goose alive. The Spanish Mint system is just like the BitCoin Node system or the American mint system, destroying one mint in Philadelphia will not take the system down. Robust. So even gobment coin is robust. The big change circa 2009 is limitation on the number of coins. This isn't important YET, because 2009-2020 has been one big economic party. If 21 million or 2.1 quadrillion limitation was everything, then BTC would be gone by now. It will be in the next economic down-cycle (likely a large one coming) where we see which "cryptos" have been swimming with no trunks. If BSV doesn't have a commoditized utility value, then it too will sell off to insignificant levels along with all the crypto-crap ponzis. Economics are harsh in a downturn asset-deflation sell-off, and prior to every hyperinflation in history is a big fat deflationary collapse. Expect it, plan for it. BSV can do very well in that environment so long as it creates value. How better to do that than to have tokens with cash-flows? What is IN AWS? Data, Information, valuable data. Is it Amazon's transactions which give that data value? Partly. But you come to Disneyland too ride the rides, not pay money at the opening gate ticket booth. Without the rides, no one is clamoring thru the gate to get to Space Mountain. King Tut's Mask, the Mona Lisa, or the Ark of Convenant could be hidden from all the world's view in the dark basement of a billionaire for hundreds of years, and when removed they'll have just as much, if not more thanks to population growh, value coming out of the dank tomb as they had going in. So why should Nodes support an "end-around" solution for tokens like 0-satoshi tokens or FALSE RETURN? Prune! Pruning is good. Let apps and users know that zero-sat tokens and FALSE RETURNS are shaky ground. Why? Because apps don't currently know it yet. In fact, the opposite. Apps are currently promising their users that FALSE RETURN is the "immutalbe ledger". And not because they're defrauding people on purpose, but because the app companies believe it! No dust limit, no fees, no satoshi tokens, I'm fine with all of it. But I don't prefer it, because I think it devalues BSV and makes it weaker. For ephemeral purposes, OP-FALSE-RETURN is excellent. It's a nice way to count transactions with minimal data, but I don't need that data once the count is done.
shadders replied:
I think we need to clarify there is a huge difference between several things... 0 satoshi != 0 value (value can be embodied in the data) 0 value output != 0 value tx... If a transaction is not accepted as 0 fee then to use a 0 value output you would still need to include a valued input and a valued change output so you can include a transaction fee.... Miner isn't going to be interested in a tx that contains 1 0-sat input and 1 0-value output as there is no tx fee... Unless miners are being altruistic none of this happens without value being transferred to miners and it's the miners that determine how much they should get paid...
shadders replied:
Devs doing business/economic modelling is generally a shitty idea which has already led to block size caps/segwit/CTOR ets....
john replied:
Good thing I'm not a dev by first-trade then!
john replied:
Good thing I'm not a dev by first-trade then!
john replied:
I agree with 0-satoshi != 0 value DATA. 0-satoshi can equal 0-value BSV.
john replied:
DATA can move. The reason it STAYS on BSV is BSV is a robust network with qualities other system (like AWS) do not have.
john replied:
But BSV with a steadily lowering price which can end up at zero as block subsidies die, is not a healthy environment for my digital art masterpiece.
john replied:
The Nodes can make money on fees all the way down, so they are the last to care. BSV's public price is like a confidence meter, when it's up it does free marketing for everyone in the ecosystem. when it goes down, muggles think there's something wrong with it, and get concerned. If BSV is earning lots of money, then no concern, value investors will step in. But how does BSV the MONEY earn money? By charging admission for the information stored on chain-- generating transactions, which pays the miners and allows miners to invest in infrastructure, thus increasing the size and stability of the network.
joeldalais replied:
(random thoughts) Batch Pay (mining services); business X could offer miner Y, xxx per month to process xxx 'free' transactions (not free as they're paying the miner a monthly fee), the business then uses the 'free' transactions to offer services (or products) to their customers, whereby the customer would be using the 'free' transaction, thus gaining users for the chain-at-large, and gaining customers for business X the service provided might even be something where the customers are never even aware that they're using bitcoin also :100: on setting understanding of terminology, seems there's some confusion on the twitter thread
john replied:
Also, I 100% agree with your estimation of miner's getting paid fees along with 0-satoshi tokens. No arguments there. My premise is that's great for Miners, but not necessarily so for BSV. MINERS get their value from fees, BSV doesn't.
john replied:
or more accurately, BSV gets much less value from transactions.
john replied:
A good starting point for estimating the true value of BSV. BSV = Network-Replacement-Value + Value-of-least-expensive-data-on-chain. When BSV gets dear, and incentivizes selling: the selling first comes from those who own BSV with nothing inside-- think of it like selling containers instead of containers with diamonds inside.
john replied:
So a container with digital Banksy art is not spent, but a UTXO with grandma's ugly photo in it will be sold for the value of the current BSV price.
john replied:
Thus, it is the value of the cheapest-available coins which ALWAYS will determine BSV's price.
joeldalais replied:
>> But how does BSV the MONEY earn money? By charging admission for the information stored on chain-- generating transactions, which pays the miners and allows miners to invest in infrastructure, thus increasing the size and stability of the network. Data & Information Information is data coalesced into use. Specialized nodes might not just provide access to the data, but how they coalesce said data into information might be rather valuable to some types of people and/or businesses.Would you pay £1 for sheets of paper with seemingly random numbers all over, or maybe £5 to access to the same numbers, but presented to you via charts, with labels, colour distinctions, and summary evaluations. And we seem to be digressing the thread.. so I'm going to stop now :D
john replied:
the more the sats are filled with Digital Banksy's, King Tut's Mask, and other treasures like recipes, copyrights, EHR data, fish whereabouts, all those things have income-streams attached-- they are off limits. Supply of BSV = InformationTokens + BlankTokens. BlankTokens = "Money", the commodity. InformationTokens = Value. It works just like an island city-state. You don't pull down the Empire State Building to erect a new 60-story building, you pull down Grandma's 1-story ShoeHouse (after she dies) and erect the 60-story building in its place.
joeldalais tipped:
1.18 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
Joel, my point is that if you offer me a cheaper fee to store my charts on 0-sat tokens, I'll probably do it. But then what are the ACTUAL BSV tokens for then? Miners collect fees, BSV's price per bitcoin does not. So how does BSV get it's value-- why does it have a price at all if it's not due to the struggle to obtain tokens needed to DO something with them. Offer me 0-sat tokens, and I'll continue to use them until BSV's price is zero.
shadders replied:
If anyone has time it would enhance this thread if someone copy pasted the twitter discussion to here...
john replied:
NOT IT!
john replied:
Deep Thoughts unrelated but related to this thread: powping and Twetch are totally different products, it would be 10 years before they even butted actual heads. Twetch is great bc I don't think you can SEE the conversations if you're a muggle. Private "gulch" effect. powping is great bc of the threading, ability ot have QUICK live conversations, like reddit. Twetch is held back a bit by time it takes for processing transactions. Lastly, there seems to be a feeling in the community that use of powping is some sort of back-stabbling to the community of Twetch. Ridiculous. Attila should be here. I like both apps, and use them for different purposes. I also use both Twitter (altho not for long) and Snapchat and iMessage and geeks have me on Telegram, WhatsCrap and others. It's a mess, but consolidation takes decades. Our community needs to support each other-- we're years and years away from competing and if someone produces a better app than me and blatnatly copies it but better, I've got a dozen more ideas and copying my app would only flatter me and help me market the next one.
shadders replied:
"Lastly, there seems to be a feeling in the community that use of powping is some sort of back-stabbling to the community of Twetch. Yeah this is a kind of fucked idea that seems to be real... Many people including major BSV media organisaions seem to be afraid of putting content here in case they raise the fury of twetch... The impact of that fury needs to measured and put in perspective... I've done it and I'm not remotely worried....
joeldalais replied:
"tokens" are basically script programming language, so you could design "higher programming languages" from compiling the script into more readable/usable code, and then you can create further things (and open up development for more lay-developers) but depending upon your program/software you'd still need to interact at the base/coin layer, maybe for execution, or confirmation, maybe for taking a fee for running your program. also .. automation en masse can only be done properly with using the inherent script language, and the 'incentive' for automation to be run can be coupled with 'payment' (interaction with the base layer). And the proper use of oracles requires a combination of both also. >>Lastly, there seems to be a feeling in the community that use of powping is some sort of back-stabbling to the community of Twetch. Ridiculous. Agreed, its ridiculous, as you know, competition inspires growth. And as you say, both could grow for a long time (and potentially in different directions) before butting heads. I'm going to copy/paste the twitter thread here somewhat;
joeldalais replied:
So, for those reading this thread here is some context: https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325151598587207685
Shadders@shadders333 · 5h 1/ The possible income is the tx fee when it's spent. There is a natural ceiling on creation of such utxos because they aren't free to create. There might still be some that need to be kept but once miner decides there's minimal chance of them being spent they can move them... Shadders@shadders333 · 5h 2/.. To cheaper storage if they want. This would likely be a tiny amount of data compared to full utxo set though. The economics discourage creating these unless there is value embodied in them some other way. Bitcoin has allowed zero value spendable outputs since the beginning Attila@AttilaAros · 5h Sure, Bitcoin allowed many things. We're taking here about a hostile miner who will bloat the UTXO set with 0 valued UTXOs and then force everyone else to socialize the replication of these valueless UTXO's. At this point Bitcoin becomes a clock. A timestamper. Not cash. Jackson Laskey@JacksonLaskey · 4h What’s the difference to miner B between a block of 0-sat transactions and a block of 1-sat transactions mined by miner A? Miner B gets the fees in either case. Isn’t it better for both miners to be able to accept fees in a flexible manner? They can be shared if necessary Attila@AttilaAros · 4h Why not just have a timestamp server in a closet, lock down the protocol with patents and then just sign packets of data with no Satoshis at all in the system. They get fees (fiat, etc) regardless, right? Jackson Laskey@JacksonLaskey · 2h Why limit yourself? Attila@AttilaAros · 2h Why not have negative Satoshi value too. Why limit yourself? Shadders@shadders333 · 2h Not part of the Bitcoin protocol rules... Attila@AttilaAros · 2h '1 CPU, 1 VOTE' Satoshi didn't include code in paper and his first version of source code left a lot to be desired. We'll let POW speak for itself and see what "rules" emerge. Shadders@shadders333 · 2h Just so I'm clear. What you're saying is that you think Satoshi was wrong in implementation and that a protocol rule that has been present in Bitcoin since Jan 2009 until today needs to be changed and that you are willing to hard fork the protocol in order to effect that change? Attila@AttilaAros · 1h Nope. I'm saying that I'm with Satoshi and the Bitcoin whitepaper is defining the Bitcoin systems to have a pre-determined maximum number of coins. Put these 2 statements together in the images below and it is trivially true to see that 0-valued Satoshi outputs violates it. Shadders@shadders333 · 1h You cannot fix this "problem" without changing a protocol rule and thus causing a chain split. The examples you give talk about chains of digital signatures. That has nothing to do with the satoshi value of an output. It also doesn't affect the fixed satoshi supply. Attila@AttilaAros Replying to @shadders333 @JacksonLaskey and 4 others The protocol is SET IN STONE. It was set in stone when it was defined in the paper We all agree that nChain's node is NOT set in stone. Whether or not consensus rules are this or that, as we have seen change many times in past decade. Satoshi said predetermined number of coins 7:02 PM · Nov 7, 2020·Twitter Web App Joel Dalais@JoelDalais · 1h Replying to @AttilaAros @shadders333 and 5 others original intention was always to have some space for "free" tx's, there are reasons for this, that i won't elaborate on twitter & nchain/svnode IS the reference client, but many more specialization 'nodes' are yet to be created personally, not a debatable point for me Shadders@shadders333 · 1h Replying to @AttilaAros @JacksonLaskey and 4 others The nChain implementation of the protocol IS set in stone with a few well defined exceptions that are directly associated with reversing changes to the original protocol. No one is suggesting changing the number of Satoshis. John Pitts@EquityDiamonds · 1h J Dorsey the Horsey doesn't deserve all this. Especially since a channel was created with this entire discussion in mind (and left open-ended...). Switch walkie-talkie channels please! powping John Pitts@EquityDiamonds · 1h AKA, let's bSV grownups and get the hell off this hell-hole of a platform. Shadders@shadders333 · 1h link to discussion please...
joeldalais replied:
more; https://twitter.com/AttilaAros/status/1325152107939340293
Attila@AttilaAros · 1h I'm going to keep hammering this hard. Bitcoin is SET IN STONE. BSV nodes are NOT Bitcoin. BSV nodes change, consensus rules upgraded, whatever. No UTXO and no Satoshi inflation please. Satoshi said so clearly and that's why I'm bullish af on Bitcoin from the start. Quote Tweet Attila@AttilaAros · 1h Replying to@shadders333@JacksonLaskey and 4 others The protocol is SET IN STONE. It was set in stone when it was defined in the paper We all agree that nChain's node is NOT set in stone. Whether or not consensus rules are this or that, as we have seen change many times in past decade. Satoshi said predetermined number of coins Attila@AttilaAros Replying to @AttilaAros There is no supreme leader in Bitcoin. We thank Satoshi for his service and we will guide our actions by his words and our ability to make sense of it as clearly and honestly as possible. 0-valued Satoshi outputs violate the "predetermined number of coins" principle (2.1 Quad) 7:04 PM · Nov 7, 2020·Twitter Web App 1 Quote Tweet 1 Like Shadders@shadders333 · 1h Replying to @AttilaAros "There is no supreme leader in Bitcoin" - correct. However your final statement is completely false. How can an output with 0-satoshis affect the supply of satoshis? Attila@AttilaAros · 1h Because then the number of "coins" are no longer pre-determined. This is a trivially true corollary from the 2.1 quadrillion Satoshi limit and the definition of a "coin" being a chain of digital signatures. Then satoshi pointed out that corollary.
joeldalais replied:
i won't copy/paste more.. seems a bit spammy ..and readers can follow the links above to find/read more ..@unwriter requesting threading please if possible, ty i will add in this note though: There is some KEY misunderstandings coming from Atilla, and possibly some terminology mixing up.. and as a secondary note, there will NOT be any more "forks" or shit like that
john replied:
There are likely interesting things to learn from the “Velocity of Money”, such as things related to price stability, the need or non-need for mining or alternative money, and first and second derivatives which can help mark prices extremes (hi, low, inflection...). HOWEVER: Please supply evidence that a commodity derives its value, the MAJORITY of its value as reflected in its highest-volume market price, from the velocity of money? This quote might be relevant... It is assumed that, other things being equal, prices must change in proportion to the changes occurring in the total supply of money available. This is not true."— Ludwig Von Mises
john replied:
Important recap: @shadders asked: "I don't see any connection with those highlighted statements and the idea that 0-value outputs changes the supply of satoshis. You're going to have to explain it better." @attila answered: "It doesn't change supply of Satoshis. It changes the supply of COINS. Satoshi != Coins. The UTXO is a Coin (and it's entire ancestry) S. Nakamoto said pre-determined number of coins and no inflation whatsoever in the system."
john replied:
My approach hasn't been from code or protocol, but from considering BitCoin as a commodity, and determining how that commodity achieves a value. I know how Gold achieves it's value, and wampum, and barrels of oil. But BitCoin has a slight difference to those. There are three different ways to obtain gold: 1. Mine it. Thus, gold mined will typically sell for a premium to the cost getting it out of the ground. "Proof of Work" is the cost of getting it out of the ground and minted into coins of the realm (with Caesar's bust on them and a serial number) 2a. Buy King Tut's Mask, and melt-down the 321 troy ounces of gold it contains, then mint the coins. The gold will sell for whatever raw gold sells in the open marketplace, PLUS the cost to melt and mint new coins of the realm. Just one problem with this method. King Tut's Mask brings in 10 million tourists a year thru a museum charging $50 per entry, thus has a cash-flow income stream attached to it. This means the mask as a financial asset is probably worth something like $2.5 to $10 billion. 321 troy ounces melted is more like a half millliion dollars. So ONLY crazy people will do this-- crazy people like barbarians who one day sack Egypt and steal all it's treasures after burning the city to the ground. 2b. Buy some gold nuggets which were stored in your nieghbor's grandpa's safe. It's not a ring with a cool inscription, or a fun piece of jewelry, it's just some nuggets above ground already. they will sell at a DISCOUNT to coins of the realm because the nuggets will still need minting work added, which will be a cost. 3. Buy coins of the realm. This will cost the market price for 1 troy ounce coins, so $1,900 per ounce in 2020. If you melt down these coins of the realm to make "New & Improved" King Tut's Mask 2, 2020, put it in a museum and sell tickets, well, now you've created cash-flows which give the gold a potentially higher price. With #2 not really efficient, #1 and #3 will compete with each other. Is it easier to buy gold coin MONEY, or mine it? that depends on the willingness of people to part with their above-ground gold. In an inflationary time, this will be quite expensive and your bidding for gold will push up it's value. In a deflationary collapse, gold will be sold to buy even-cheaper assets, such as Florida homes in 2009-2011. Mining investment will increase along with the gold price, but over long stretches of time, mitigated by technological advances in mining, the work to get gold out of the earth will likely increase as all the "low hanging fruit" gold has already been found/mined. Eventually we send spacehips to other parts of the solar system, Avatar-style, to look for cheaper mining methods. But what are the ways to obtain BitCoin? 1. Mine it. Well, we know this only lasts so long as the mining subsidy is > 0. We're at 6.25 right now. At scale, we expect this to go to zero eventually. So let's discount it as an option. 2. Buy it from someone else, who holds satoshis. This is like #3 above, satoshis are "coins of the realm"-- there's a fixed supply of 2.1 quadrillion of them. As people obtain more for data-purposes, less available for "money" purposes. 3. Print 0-satoshi-coins, just ask your friendly nieghborhood Tokenization company (Jay Leno for Frito-Lay, "we'll make more!"). #3 is the cheapest option. So theoretically, unless I'm missing something, it should be used most often. If so, then why should BitCoin have any value at all, above zero per Bitcoin (for 100mm sats)? If your argument is transactions, well, then things like paying Nodes in fiat suddently seems a LOT more important, doesn't it? And what would you be paying for? Moving around worthless zero-sat coins? Isn't that what AWS and iCloud already do-- without all the protocol headaches? King Tut's helmet still has a melt-down price for the gold used in its form, regardless of whether it sits in a museum with tons of transactions to see it, or whether it sits in a basement of some billionaire. (see "Gail Wynand"). Transactions can equal improved pricing information, but it doesn't give gold it's value or price. Transactions are GREAT for the museum, and transactions are GREAT for Nodes. But are they great for BSV? All ships sink with the lowering tide; all ships rise with the rising tide. BSV is the tide, who is economically incentivized to make sure it doesn't go down to zero like the waters of Lake Havasu, if it is not ALL OF US?
fragments replied:
As I understand the pre determined amount of 21 million bitcoins would be seen as false since it is possible to execute 0 value tokens as they could then be seen as additional (plug ins) to the 21 million?! I don't see that as false. IMO it is all about "liquidity". Supply and demand. Liquidity is the outcome of created value. I believe that 0 value tokens will bring value to BSV. You buy share through a broker, let's say TSLA shares, right now 1 share is $417 problem here is that we don't know the finite amount of dollars hence owning a TSLA share doesn't say much about it's true value. It is a great mix of speculations involved. First the company itself, you invest your money in shares as you believe the value of the company will rise making your shares value grow. The company mainly using dollars to trade (produce & sell) their products so the company exist within the ecosystem of dollars. The dollar is volatile as it has infinite supply and rely on how the economy of businesses preform along with the governments interactions with the rest of the world. If it would only be bad preforming companies within the ecosystem of dollars the dollar would do bad regardless of how the government performs. The reasons we are into bitcoin is 1, peer to peer cash system (Decentralised nature) 2, finite supply 3, Store data made possible with BSV If a company decides to build their products on BSV weather it is directly using the main network or creating 0 value tokens as shares or perhaps redeemable points it will bring value to the network. Especially if the company proven to create something of value that attracts more consumers. As long as we continue to attract high quality businesses and individuals (smart crowd) the value of BSV will always increase. I can't see why a business would just want to use one side of the coin. As little as I would see Tesla motors a company registered in the US trading with lets say Russian rupees instead of US dollars?! BSV let the original intended use case to its full potential of being a true peer to peer electronic cash system with micro transactions. On top of it we can store data and let companies enter the eco system with tools like 0 value tokens to create shares or anything between heaven and earth they find value in to create on a superior blockchain that is bitcoin SV. We might be a small community still, but we are a community of quality rather then quantity, we shall so let it be. Every project building on BSV has value whether it is twetch, powping or anything else within our Bitcoin SV universe. I think we are great in the way things are being built. It is all built with simplicity, beautiful end user experience and most importantly giving the world a tool to freedom.
peakstuff tipped:
0.03 USD
1 year ago
benjamin replied:
@shadders - on Twitter you mentioned: "original intention was always to have some space for "free" tx's, there are reasons for this, that i won't elaborate on twitter" Do you feel that's been addressed in the thread dialogue here... or is there more to say?
ken16310 replied:
Question: 0 satoshi out put, an envelope without satoshi coins, can be sent around to others like normal bitcoin tx? For example, Alice send 0 satoshi output (which represents other kind of value e.g. token) to Bob's empty wallet. Then Bob send it to Chary's empty wallet. These two txs are a series of txs? Is it connected like we can follow movement of individual satoshis via txs?
ken16310 replied:
shadders replied:
To the same extent you can follow any tx, yes. The parent child relationship still exists. Remember though there'll still need to be satoshis in some input to pay tx fee.
john tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
Really like an example brought up by@xliu of@scrypt regarding parent-child relationships in BitCoin: inputs: 0 thru 99 inputs each with 5,000 satoshis each (totalling 500,000 sats) outputs: 0) 249,750 sats to Abigail for services rendered. 1) 249,750 sats to Bertha for services rendered. REMAINDER = 500 sats which becomes part of the block's coinbase-- mined for the benefit of the winning Node. Question: in the great "chain of digital signatures" story, who is Abigail's UTXO parents? Which inputs are Bertha's parents? Are many-input transactions an indirect way to SLIGHTLY wash/cloud the path of coin-travel? When a spent transaction is pruned, other than the branch hash (which could over time rise up to be just the root hash if all the tranactions are spent), what evidence do we have of that transaction at all? Are Nodes keeping just the state of UTXOs, or does BitCoin really have a transaction history which stretches thru all of time? Feel free NOT to answer these questions, but these come to mind when thinking about the protocol and it's future variability-- ESPECIALLY wrt pruning (which I think is terribly important in the long run, for BitCoin and perhaps one of it's most elegant features).
shadders replied:
There is no variability other than possibly a change of a future broken hash algo... The history will always be available from somewhere... At the bare minimum for as long as is required by law but much more likely forever... Why indiscriminately delete 2gb from 20 years ago to save space when you're adding that amount every minute today? Something in that 2gb is worth money but you don't know exactly which data so it makes sense to keep it all...
john tipped:
0.15 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
A really nice point about Node not knowing which held-data is important until requested. And the Moore's Law effect ($300 for 16 TB in 2020 => 4 cents of lifetime depreciation for 2 GB) works nicely in favor of storing everything... until the aliens land and demand to dig up our BitCoin Node-Tree of Souls to dig for gold underneath. Will a roadmap emerge before actual software is released, for how data-services might work via TeraNode? Or is that something left to the Nodes to configure outside of TeraNode?