What do you all think about Jason Smith's departure from BS…

He supposedly sold all of his BSV but somehow he's still posting on Twetch. 🤣

Can’t fix stupid.

Who?

Who?

I’ve got no time to waste thinking about it

WHO? 😂

you mean Cypher?

Bye Felicia

Jason made salient points about the prunability of OP_RETURN data that nobody in BSV wants to touch.

In that sense the departure of his contrarian perspective is a loss. The way he left was shitty.

@576 I was too slow on the draw 😂

His main point seems to be Op_return outputs are prunable. I'd love to hear from Twetch on what he misunderstands regarding the immutability of twetch over bsv

Whore

What does that mean? Where do I read these articles @39 ?

@1850 @576
The issue is economic in nature.
I believe @39 has written some articles on the subject.

He developed a sudden case of Craig Derangement Syndrome. I hope for his sake at some point he recovers.

As for Jason Smith. I don't think about him.

This is probably the article @45 is referring to:
https://www.yours.org/content/on-metanet-and-the-information-market-c14b539fc7b5

The fact is, if it is valuable, it won't be pruned because access to it will be sold. More valuable data will be in greater supply, so a lower access price. Less valuable data will be in less supply, so either less speed in access,or higher price, or both.

People need to start looking at Bitcoin as a production structure. What is the good being produced, who is the consumer. Then, supply and demand. It's markets all the way down.

In short, pruning isn't a problem. In fact, it's essential to the system.

What people are thinking is that if it can be pruned, it's not permanent, and people are (wrongly) selling op_return as permanent.

Free markets for nodes that store and allow queries on certain data is part of the solution.

But this is not a purely economic consideration. The whims of anticapitalist State actors should be considered but is not thought of as a threat by most in BSV.

I think I understand what you mean by valuable data not being pruned, but what about data no one is accessing, like a video I upload that has sentimental value. If I want to access it a decade later is there a chance it won’t exist because pruned? @39

Such a market would require both infrastructure and jurisdictional arbitrage. But that's difficult to guarantee when a single actor (nChain) owns the patents and Terms of Service on all BSV's scaling achievements.

So many in this space hold at once that legal compliance is of the utmost importance and that censorship-resistance is sacrosanct. These are antithetical ideas as law is ever-changing and far from universal.

Simple example: People have been uploading CAD files for firearms to BSV. ITAR deemed this illegal in 2012, legal again in 2018 after losing a court case, illegal once more in certain States.

Who provides? Who prunes? Which State actors have the most influence? All unanswered questions, not easy ones.

We are not a community, so why would I care?

If he produces something valuable for the Bitcoin Society, then I will care.

That is what society is all about - trade.

There are ways to store information on BitCoin that aren't prunable.

@1850 if a single copy of the data exists anywhere in its full, original transaction form, it can be repropagated to the entire network.

It sounds to me like your concerns stem from a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works.

A simple proof of this... Do you run a node?

I don't. I've pruned the entire blockchain.

Twitter suspects that Jason is a Peter McCormack wannabe. I have news for you, Jason! There can only be one!

@2 that isn't true.

Everything can be pruned. The question is, what is lost with that data?

If the data is kept in an output script, then it's part of the UTXO set. So, pruning it prunes part of the UTXO set. That makes it harder to validate new blocks.

hahahahaha @t38

@39 If BSV is successful the cost of maintaining a "single copy of the data... in its full, original transaction form" will be relegated to a few specialists.

Regardless, I fail to see what that has to do with prunability vis a vis legal compliance.

BSV is actually poised to have the most independent "economically significant" nodes out of all blockchains at scale.

https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/fe5aa9a4c44122170a1ae7a4a5debc33e8fe571fedd028d5434976a95cfcdc34

So far, every one of your concerns have stemmed from ignorance of how Bitcoin works, or of the economics involved.

Given that there is a bit of a pattern here, might I suggest questioning yourself a little bit more? Do you really understand this stuff?

@1850 you misunderstand me. And, you're also wrong.

I was referring to any given transaction, which is what you talked about as being pruned because of legal jurisdiction.

As for barriers to entry leading to only a few being able to afford to store all the data, you fail to understand the issue because you only look at cost while ignoring revenue.

There will doubtlessly be a paid access market for such data but we do not exist at present in a laissez-faire economy, rather an interventionist one.

Allowing for prunability is a Faustian bargain with interventionists.

I'm not referring to the cost of storing a single transaction's data (which is low) but the significant *regulatory* cost for an eventually small pool of true full nodes to repropagate a legally controversial transaction in full.

@39 it's 💯 true. Because if you store the data in the way I'm talking about then try to prune it BitCoin breaks for your node.

@gato, irrelevant. You utterly fail to understand my point. Please think past the first layer of thought. Think through the implications.

Also, the "small pool of true full nodes" is wrong. I explained that already.

Learn how Bitcoin actually works.

@2 I'd love to challenge that assertion. Let's talk elsewhere, unless you'd like to explain your method here.

@2 @39 I would be interested in this conversation as well