@linzheming 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 linzheming's activities
Total Economy: 0.84 USD
BSV Ledger is just a technical tool, not a solution. We have to find solutions to solve those existing issues. Why only BSV could do that?
unwriter tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
siosism tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
john tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
By the way, would really love to read your thoughts on OP_FALSE OP_RETURN as a viable method for writing data on-chain. My thought is it would be better to prune these, as unspendable tokens is clutter. But my opinion matters much less than yours since you'll be influential in the future of BitCoin data methodology. I may have assumed too much here... https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-zen-yotta-mond-data/ Let me know what you think, and I'll edit it. Was going by previous statements by mempool about pruning, but those might be an incorrect interpretation.
linzheming replied:
I think OP_FALSE OP_RETURN is just a way of getting transaction time-stamped. Those transaction might be pruned from the main server immediately but will still be available for paid services. The only question is who pay for the service cost. How could service provider benefit from storing data that might never be accessed? I think we may separate different services from the role of node(miner), and think about the incentives.
john tipped:
0.16 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
I agree, OP_0,RETURN should be pruned by design. If the data is not written on a spendable output, and saved by the owner, it deserves to be pruned. So is the current 0.5 sats/Byte high enough to allow a person to etch their full-length book into a UTXO? A book is about 1 MegaByte, thus 500,000 sats transaction fee, or $1.00. Consider you can buy a 16 TeraByte HDD for $350, or 2 pennies per GigaByte. So now we're talking about how much electricity cost to keep HDD spinning. You'd have 98 cents left-over to spend on electricity, and while that's happening 500,000 sats might go from $1.00 to $1,000 in value, thus inspiring the owner to spend the UTXO (which would be like pruning it).
john replied:
So if I was your Chief Strategy Officer at mempool, I would recommend you simply set a minimum UTXO set per OP_PUSHDATA. For the book example above, I might demand the author write his book into a UTXO set worth $1.00. That way, mempool not only gets the transaction fee of $1.00, but also can rest easy knowing the author's book must either gain transactions, or the deflationary nature of BitCoin SV would economically incentivize him to self-prune the UTXO-set if the book is a dud. That way mempool won't have to hold it forever and burn electricity for nonsense. Or in short, you'd want to dis-allow users and apps from storing lots of data into a 1-satoshi coin. Sure, it's possible, but it might be awful for Node/Miner economics/profitability.
john tipped:
0.01 USD
1 year ago
john replied:
Another example: Stanley Kubrick's estate wishes to not ever lose the timestamp or digital data-set for a posthumous movie they want to publish in 2021 which is 2 GigaBytes in size. They place the entire movie into a UTXO set worth, say, $1,000. This would saddle mempool and other miners with 2 GigaBytes of info required to be stored inside a live UTXO. However, so long as the UTXO set is big enough, let's say $10,000, you'd rest easy knowing the Kubrick estate wouldn't want to waste $10,000 in BitCoin, especially if deflationary BSV goes up 1,000 in the next 50 years, such that the UTXO set is now worth $10 MILLION to the Kubrick estate. In 2070 the estate would simply spend the UTXO set, but then burn the 2 GB movie into another $10,000 UTXO set, linking it to the first one for time-stamp purposes, and voila! BitCoin Network gets a few fat transactions via data size, Kubrick estate gets a $9.99 mm profit on its old UTXO set PLUS still keeps it's copy, and everyone is happy. If lucky, the Kubrick estate even sets up it's main copy as the sole master copy, such that distributors need to pay a large fee to simply download it, thus multiple transactions collected thru the years. But if a less-than-dust UTXO set is used, then storing 2 GigaBytes might be cumbersome for the network. Thoughts?
linzheming replied:
1. We have to move to other fee structure in the future. like data*1+op_checksig*200(sat/kb). 2. Those data should be saved by the miner but not necessary provided as a free service. 3. I think UTXO will be much more expensive to process than datacarrier, so we should encourage datacarrier usage by lowering the fees. We still got very good publicity and other advantages to put raw data in a transaction. 4. Dust limit is important as a security deposit for someone to collect it in the future and pay enough fees. incentives for miner to keep it. If we lower the dust limit, we(miner) may not save it for the future. Thus we should use data carrier. 5. More complicated calculations will emerge.
john replied:
This is interesting, then data would be two orders of magnitude cheaper than the rest of a transaction. By my calculations, this would allow storing a 2 GB movie at about $2.00 vs more like $1,000 today. Seems about reasonable. Amazon S3 Glacier is about 1 penny per year, but that's with access speed measured in hours as I'm guessing AWS stores the info on "cold" hard drives which normally have their power turned off except a couple times per year or less when a query is made. I don't think this includes the access (transactions) either, but I could be wrong.
john replied:
Math: data * 1 satoshi/kiloByte = 2 GB * 1/kB = 2x10^9 / 1x10^3 Bytes = 2x10^6 satoshis = 0.02 BSV. 0.02 x $150 = $3.
john replied:
or $4 at BSV = $200. (mental math error on my $2.00 estimate above).
linzheming replied:
I think eventually we(miners) will move those movies into S3 or other service providers, and provide such ability to access those data for a reasonable low fee. But the bandwidth to sync transaction should be paid. 1sat/kb is our goal but may not be very realistic unless we've got huge amount of transactions.
john replied:
Ok, that makes sense on S3. 1 sat/kb seems very far off, indeed. Probably not necessary for it to be any less than a tenth or hundredth of a penny.
Only BSV can advance what we call the internet over the next 20 years, because it's the only solution that has a chance of working right now. We already have ponzi money, it's fiat (USD, Yen, Yuan etc...), and we already have the "cloud", it's AWS and iCloud, but BSV is a possible superior widget to both-- in one. If BSV succeeds, it will in fact replace gold as the most common asset to back human money. The ledger is the asset which backs the coins. Without it, BSV is nothing. Time will tell.
I think the best way to get to success is to experiment as much as possible. Even if an idea sounds silly, people should just try building it just for the sake of it, and see where it goes. Because, even if it's some crazy idea which goes nowhere, other people might see it and get inspired to turn it into a viable model. And for this, I think really important to create an environment where experiments are encouraged instead of frowned upon. Whether it's only BSV that could do it or not, can only be found out by pushing the boundaries, in my opinion.
libs tipped:
0.02 USD
1 year ago
linzheming tipped:
0.64 USD
1 year ago