Is it time to give Bitcoin a Use Value?

[username18333]

. . .

"[E]xclusive use of . . . pay-to-script-hash [P2SH] within all . . . transaction outputs" should do it.

Not being a core Bitcoin developer, I don't know what that actually means.  Questions that arise from it though:
1. What is a Great Empire Coin, Writcoin, and what do they have to do with Bitcoin?
2. Is the gist of your contention that the core Dev team wants to in some way take control of what we can and cannot spend our Bitcoins on, and vigilantly control our Bitcoin spending based on some "father knows best" algorithm?

It means what it sounds like: coins are addressed to hashes (double SHA-256 hashes?) of X-coin scripts instead of X-coin addresses.

A miner could also regulate the number of outputs he or she permits a transaction to have.

[1713559133]

1713559133

[1713559133]

1713559133

[1713559133]

1713559133

[BreathOfZen]

. . .

"[E]xclusive use of . . . pay-to-script-hash [P2SH] within all . . . transaction outputs" should do it.

Not being a core Bitcoin developer, I don't know what that actually means.  Questions that arise from it though:
1. What is a Great Empire Coin, Writcoin, and what do they have to do with Bitcoin?
2. Is the gist of your contention that the core Dev team wants to in some way take control of what we can and cannot spend our Bitcoins on, and vigilantly control our Bitcoin spending based on some "father knows best" algorithm?

It means what it sounds like: coins are addressed to hashes (double SHA-256 hashes?) of X-coin scripts instead of X-coin addresses.

A miner could also regulate the number of outputs he or she permits a transaction to have.

The latter point is of course true, and I fully expect that data transactions will pay their fair portion in miners fees to be seen as worthwhile from a miner's perspective.  It is after all only fair.

As to the former point though, I still don't really know what you are saying.  Also, I really do want to know what a Great Empire Coin is.

[username18333]

. . .

It means what it sounds like: coins are addressed to hashes (double SHA-256 hashes?) of X-coin scripts instead of X-coin addresses.

A miner could also regulate the number of outputs he or she permits a transaction to have.

The latter point is of course true, and I fully expect that data transactions will pay their fair portion in miners fees to be seen as worthwhile from a miner's perspective.  It is after all only fair.

As to the former point though, I still don't really know what you are saying.  Also, I really do want to know what a Great Empire Coin is.

1. An X-coin transaction that is addressed to an X-coin address contains an X-coin "script" which includes the actual address and some related commands. An X-coin transaction that is addressed to an X-coin "script hash" contains an X-coin "script" which includes the message digest of the aforementioned kind of script and some related commands.

2. Great Empire Coin (GEC) is the official currency of Great Empire of Earth in much the same way the United States dollar (USD) is the official currency of the United States of America.

[BreathOfZen]

1. You need to explain to me why I care about the scripts - are you saying that transactions can been erased, that the network will start rejecting ones it doesn't like, or what?

2. I feel like I know less then before, but I'm pretty sure that "Great Empire of Earth" is not something that should show up in technical documentation for Bitcoin, or any other ostensibly serious endeavor.

[username18333]

1. A message digest produced by a cryptographically secure hash function cannot be run through the algorithm in such a way as it reproduces the data that was used to generate it. Therefore, the data hashed by one or more of these functions for the sake of fulfilling an X-coin network's requirement for transactions' addressing their outputs to, ultimately, message digests will not be useful for storing information but, merely, the message digests derived therefrom by practically "irreversible" means.

2. a) Bitcoin Core for Writcoin™ is a Bitcoin Core derivative specificaly designed to transact digital GE coins over Writcoin™, a network.
2. b) Great Empire of Earth is an empire whose imperium is an Earth-centered celestial sphere of a radius of about eight hundred seventy thousand kilometers.

[BreathOfZen]

1. A message digest produced by a cryptographically secure hash function cannot be run through the algorithm in such a way as it reproduces the data that used to generate it. Therefore, the data hashed by one or more of these functions for the sake of fulfilling an X-coin network's requirement for transactions' addressing their outputs to, ultimately, message digests will not be useful for storing information but, merely, the message digests derived therefrom by practically "irreversible" means.

2. Bitcoin Core for Writcoin™ is a Bitcoin Core derivative specificaly designed to transact digital GE coins over Writcoin™, a network.

I see, I apologize for encouraging your trolling. 

[username18333]

1. A message digest produced by a cryptographically secure hash function cannot be run through the algorithm in such a way as it reproduces the data that was used to generate it. Therefore, the data hashed by one or more of these functions for the sake of fulfilling an X-coin network's requirement for transactions' addressing their outputs to, ultimately, message digests will not be useful for storing information but, merely, the message digests derived therefrom by practically "irreversible" means.

2. a) Bitcoin Core for Writcoin™ is a Bitcoin Core derivative specificaly designed to transact digital GE coins over Writcoin™, a network.
2. b) Great Empire of Earth is an empire whose imperium is an Earth-centered celestial sphere of a radius of about eight hundred seventy thousand kilometers.

I see, I apologize for encouraging your trolling.  

How, then, do you intend to recover data from its cryptographically secure message digest?

[BreathOfZen]

So long as one can look at the inputs and outputs of every single transaction going back to the very first transaction, which one can currenly do in Bitcoin, then the data will be available. 

[username18333]

So long as one can look at the inputs and outputs of every single transaction going back to the very first transaction, which one can currenly do in Bitcoin, then the data will be available.  

Those base58 message digest of "public keys" will have been replaced with base58 message digests of cryptographically secure message digests. That's what you're not understanding: all the output scripts would contain would be cryptographically secure message digests and their required data, and inputs would still be required to be able to sign the outputs they spend.

[BreathOfZen]

So long as one can look at the inputs and outputs of every single transaction going back to the very first transaction, which one can currenly do in Bitcoin, then the data will be available. 

All that would be available are message digests. That's what you're not understanding.

I am very much doubting your claim to the implementation of transaction destruction, as that is not how Bitcoin currently works, is mentioned by no one other then yourself, and it would make a mockery of the Proof of Work model.

[username18333]

So long as one can look at the inputs and outputs of every single transaction going back to the very first transaction, which one can currenly do in Bitcoin, then the data will be available.  

All that would be available are message digests. That's what you're not understanding.

I am very much doubting your claim to the implementation of transaction destruction, as that is not how Bitcoin currently works, is mentioned by no one other then yourself, and it would make a mockery of the Proof of Work model.

Here's how it works:
[sender]
1. Get hash of recipients "regular" script.
2. Create transaction addressed to hash of recipients regular script.
3. Broadcast the transaction.

[recipient]
4. Receive the transaction.
5. Sign my regular script whose message digest (hash) I gave out.
6. Create transaction with that signature.
7. Broadcast transaction.


It works because someone can still check the signed script for whether or not it actually corresponds to the given message digest or not. As well, since the full script would have been in the signature anyway?, it actually reduces the size of a given block since transaction outputs would always contain scripts of a certain, relatively small size.

[DeathAndTaxes]

That wouldn't prevent the encoding of non-txn data in blockchain.   Those who want to would simply place the encoded data in place of a valid script hash in the output.   One can't verify the 256 bits provides represents a hash of a valid script and not some other arbitrary data.  The script hash isn't verified until the output is spent by hashing the input script hashing it and comparing it to the recorded output ScriptHash.   Compared to the existing network this would actually be a step backwards because unlike OP_RETURN the network wouldn't know the output is unspendable (it just would never be spent).   This means it would bloat not only the blockchain but the UTXO set as well.

Also while I like the "script hash only" concept (although not for the incorrect reasons you give) it doesn't make blocks any smaller.  The script will not be in the output however it will not mean the script is in the input so outputs become smaller but inputs become larger.

[username18333]

That wouldn't prevent the encoding of non-txn data in blockchain.   Those who want to would simply place the encoded data instead of a valid script hash.   One can't verify a hash is a hash of a valid script with only the hash becauses hashes are indistinguishable from random data.  The script hash can't be verified at the time the output is created.  It is only verified at the time the input is spent.  This would actually be a step backwards because there would be no valid script to redeem the output but unlike OP_RETURN the network wouldn't know the output is unspendable (it just would never be spent).   This means it would bloat not only the blockchain but the UTXO set as well.

Also while I like the "script hash only" concept (although not for the incorrect reasons you give) it doesn't make blocks any smaller.  The script will not be in the output however it will not mean the script is in the input so outputs become smaller but inputs become larger.

1. I will concede your foremost assertion.

2. Actually, since Writcoin™ doesn’t require its transactions to have inputs (each client is, essentially, a branch of the GE’s central bank), its “script hash only” design could ensure its blocks remain comparatively small.

[bakedrice]

The truth however is that Bitcoin has one giant Use Value lurking in the background, but one that the developers don't like - One can use Bitcoin to inject information into the blockchain, and that information will last for all of time (or at least so long as the blockchain exists).  In a word, it would mean you can use Bitcoin to save your files to the blockchain, in an uncensorable and inerasable form. 

Blockchain as file storage - it will cause Bitcoin to go back up in value, and it will give us a solid reason to give for why Bitcoin has value in the first place.

Is it time?

Wouldn't this cause the problem of bloat in the blockchain? As it already is, takes forever to download the entire 6 years worth of blockchain.

[BreathOfZen]

The truth however is that Bitcoin has one giant Use Value lurking in the background, but one that the developers don't like - One can use Bitcoin to inject information into the blockchain, and that information will last for all of time (or at least so long as the blockchain exists).  In a word, it would mean you can use Bitcoin to save your files to the blockchain, in an uncensorable and inerasable form. 

Blockchain as file storage - it will cause Bitcoin to go back up in value, and it will give us a solid reason to give for why Bitcoin has value in the first place.

Is it time?

Wouldn't this cause the problem of bloat in the blockchain? As it already is, takes forever to download the entire 6 years worth of blockchain.

Success and growing adoption are the single largest factors that cause the "bloat" of the blockchain.  How long will it take you to download the blockchain if Bitcoin actually catches on and 1% of online sales are made through it?