Bitcoin fungibility and inscribed sats

Bitcoin fungibility and inscribed sats
From: alicexbt @ 2023-03-31 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Greg Sanders

Hi Steve and Bitcoin Developers,

I have created a new thread as requested by one of the developers. I respect him and the readers of this list.

> "want bitcoin to be money and money means different things for people in
this world"

> I think we can all agree that a property of money is fungibility, and by
its very definition NFTs are not fungible and thus not money.

Inscriptions do not affect fungibility of bitcoin:

- There is no token standard being used. These are just sats being considered as inscription in an external protocol or explorer. Bitcoin nodes do not consider them as something special.
- Users can always sell those inscribed sats or UTXO as normal bitcoin on bisq or any exchange.
- They can use different amounts for it using tools like https://raritygarden.inscribetheplanet.com/ which is created by super testnet who is active dev in bitcoin and ln.
- Inscribed sats are different from Ethereum tokens because they will never go to zero and you can always consolidate lot of them to use as normal bitcoin.

Bitcoin fungibility is anyways debatable and I cannot change anything about it even though working on a coinjoin implmentation as some post mix UTXOs are censored on some exchanges and its easy to identify them. Some coinjoin implementation themselves work with chain analysis companies to censor inputs used for rounds.

Ordinals theory is a parallel universe in which some users believe in and they have been trying to learn how bitcoin works. Example: I did call with someone this evening to explain how PSBT and multisig works who never used bitcoin before

Developers are interested to build things and they have tried to create BIP, DEX, look for libraries, ask questions, projects implementing PSBT etc.

I do not live in first world country and do not attend bitdevs but always wanted bitcoin to be here. I have tried my best but failed. Please let people do what they want with bitcoin without changing consensus rules. It will help Bitcoin.

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]


  
From: Kree Love @ 2023-04-20 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5724 bytes --]

I have been meaning to respond to this thread earlier, but better late than never.

"want bitcoin to be money and money means different things for people in this world”

The definition of money is very subjective; when I began my involvement with this project in Late 2010. It was a lot closer to my personal definition of money, being an electronic cash system, whilst transparent, we did not have dedicated corporations like Chainalysis, nor the level of regulation (AML/KYC/CFT). We were lucky to have forum cowboys to hunt down lost assets and even then, whether the exchange would acknowledge the findings was another kettle of fish.

In 2014, Me and many others were very much against Mike Hearn’s Colored Coins as it recorded a public consensus and held judgement against parties which could be misused and abused. Now we are in an era where private consensus recorded behind closed doors rules the roost and you risk forfeiting your Bitcoin by merely sending it to an exchange and if you’re lucky you may get asked intrusive questions and be allowed to have it returned to you.

Technically, the mandated application of the artificially rate limited block size has caused significant network congestion during any time of market turbulence and rallies. Whilst I support the development of Lightning Networks and Segregated Witness, it does not mean that the network should be subject to ever-increasing fees. When we had High Priority Transactions by Days Destroyed, I never had to worry about fees unless some security or situation-critical event happened. These unnecessary coin splits/forks that resulted in 2017 have made it confusing to the end-consumer and destroyed continuity to anyone new to the market.

With the ever-changing climate, it’s an accomplishment that Bitcoin has survived but I would consider it an Electronic Asset more-than an Electronic Peer-to-Peer Cash System contrary to the white paper, as it’s easier for the industry to rely on Bitcoin as a Reserve Currency to the maintain the value systems of alternative currencies. Any attempts to improve the fungibility of the protocol (such as CoinJoin) are met with regulatory hostility which then becomes external pressures on the developers and end-users.

We are now in a brave new world where different governments, industrial lobbies and cartels all want to have involvement in engineering the outcome of this project and we need to remember that the usability, the fungibility and practical applications are paramount to Bitcoin remaining a global currency, even if it’s not practical to be used as an electronic cash now without additional development within the eco-system and very strong developers who are able to make personal sacrifices to ensure continued development in the face of hostility.

NFTs are the result of hemorrhaging VC money and distracting the public on trivialities while hard work goes on in the background to ensure the reserve currency (Bitcoin) is safe. The current state is a status-quo that many do not want changing while it remains economically advantageous to them. We should do whatever is necessary to guarantee a free-as-in-freedom and global future for this project.

Kree Love
Early Adopter

>> On Mar 31, 2023, at 11:30 AM, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Steve and Bitcoin Developers,
>> 
>> I have created a new thread as requested by one of the developers. I respect him and the readers of this list.
>> 
>>> "want bitcoin to be money and money means different things for people in
>> this world"
>> 
>>> I think we can all agree that a property of money is fungibility, and by
>> its very definition NFTs are not fungible and thus not money.
>> 
>> Inscriptions do not affect fungibility of bitcoin:
>> 
>> - There is no token standard being used. These are just sats being considered as inscription in an external protocol or explorer. Bitcoin nodes do not consider them as something special.
>> - Users can always sell those inscribed sats or UTXO as normal bitcoin on bisq or any exchange.
>> - They can use different amounts for it using tools like https://raritygarden.inscribetheplanet.com/ which is created by super testnet who is active dev in bitcoin and ln.
>> - Inscribed sats are different from Ethereum tokens because they will never go to zero and you can always consolidate lot of them to use as normal bitcoin.
>> 
>> Bitcoin fungibility is anyways debatable and I cannot change anything about it even though working on a coinjoin implmentation as some post mix UTXOs are censored on some exchanges and its easy to identify them. Some coinjoin implementation themselves work with chain analysis companies to censor inputs used for rounds.
>> 
>> Ordinals theory is a parallel universe in which some users believe in and they have been trying to learn how bitcoin works. Example: I did call with someone this evening to explain how PSBT and multisig works who never used bitcoin before
>> 
>> Developers are interested to build things and they have tried to create BIP, DEX, look for libraries, ask questions, projects implementing PSBT etc.
>> 
>> I do not live in first world country and do not attend bitdevs but always wanted bitcoin to be here. I have tried my best but failed. Please let people do what they want with bitcoin without changing consensus rules. It will help Bitcoin.
>> 
>> /dev/fd0
>> floppy disk guy
>> 
>> 
>> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7723 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]