It sounds inefficient but it really isn't. Miners can offer script templates at reduced costs that they have optimised for. The script templates don't break existing software and infrastructure but still allow for efficiency.
I think so. I think I got a little confused because you said it was not covered under that. It's still not really clear if it is or not to be honest.
It seems like this requires a two-pronged attack. It needs propagation, perhaps based on the blockchain model but then storage needs to be incentivized too, probably on an ongoing basis.
The holdup is it is less efficient to require all network participants to upgrade their applications to support new opcodes for any reason, let alone for something that can already be done with existing opcodes.
For those that wish to be compatible with the protocol, obviously yes.
No risk, no reward.
A protocol that is efficient at all levels will outcompete the ones that aren't.
at the beginning you pay a fee and some miner picks up your data-heavy transaction. what's to guarantee embedded data will be available in perpetuity? it will be someone's business to charge for queries of the blockchain, this may be sufficient incentive for that business to maintain a copy of its entirety. but to guarantee data integrity, the business might also have to pay other nodes with the full history to corroborate the results. these other nodes might be keeping the full history for a number of reasons besides the present business case.
Inefficient, you say. How would you implement the service on the BSV chain?
In this case, due to the relatively small amount, it was considered discretionary within existing approved development funding Devpool2.
Right. So they're storing your data, for which there's no guarantee that they'll ever receive a fee and for your data which they may receive a fee, they are probably storing 1000 times that in data that no one will ever access (and probably even more that people will access but not from *them*). So they have cover costs for that which means you're going to be paying for that one way or another. Meanwhile, Amazon will stick your documents on an SSD and keep a couple of redundant copies around for next to nothing.
Thanks @Peter R and @solex for you responses.
Besides the "other discretionary work" part the two points define work done for BU code or passed by a BUIP.
This part defines the impact of the Devpool work.
Will anonymous payment methods be banned on that market? Aren't ZCash and Monero the first projects that will be banned? Wouldn't it be better to wait with such functionality until Bitcoin is too big to fail? Isn't TPTB happy to get a reason to ban Bitcoin too? Did it sponsor that project too? Will miners (be able to) ban shuffled transactions?
It will happen once miners see value in doing this. Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
"Work" to me implies that BU has requested something (be it a wallet improvement, logo design or cleaning the BU bathrooms) be done for pay. I'm not sure that a donation falls within that. Unless that was just a misnomer. Not that I'm necessarily against such donations per se but I agree that it appears to fall between the cracks.
