And, as was proven earlier this week, not spending 0 sat outputs is not a protocol rule, but a node policy rule, just like block size and transaction size. Miners set policy based on the economic realities of the chain. The error you get when you try and create a spendable 0 satoshi output is a DUST error. Same as if you go < 546 sats in BTC.
So... if policies can change via miners, how is BSV set in stone?
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
18xXxqZbcMGzJUdvTSMj7VbqmyesZCa31p UnverifiedThe underlying protocol is, and if wallets and miners want to offer novel services, they can (and do.) That's why a stable, general-purpose protocol is so valuable. The people who built TCP/IP didn't fathom Twetch, and they didn't need to.
I suppose... Idk @292 I tend to believe, from what I know to this point, that Bitcoin was originally supposed to be non-confiscatable.
I believe the powers that be deemed this an existential threat, and that's why we have two fucked up non-Bitcoins (BTC/BCH) and BSV which is Bitcoin with confiscation, which kind of defeats the purpose of the original protocol in that regard. But again, I think non-confiscatable digital assets, with utility, are actually an existential threat.
The protocol is fixed. If you mine it yourself, you can set any policies you want and your block will be accepted. If you want someone else to mine for you, you need to provide a transaction in their financial interest to include.
I guess that's understandable. That makes more sense than any other explanation I've been given about 0 sat utxos. Now, what about confiscation?
Have coins been confiscated? I understand the concern of the association policy, but I’m not convinced that an alert would actually be honored. Any such action risks a spilt and has real potential cost to miners
It’s probabilistic turtles all the way down. We can never be certain how the future plays out, but the economics drive all such decisions
If it goes to scale, I 100% guarantee confiscation will be used since Craig basically "added" it. That's why I think this is franken-Bitcoin too. I genuinely think non-confiscatable Bitcoin must be an existential threat that has been disallowed by the powers that be.
Yes. We showed the BSVA policy to our attorney, and he said it could only be honored if it was domesticated to a Florida court order, and coordinated to the jurisdictions of every other mining operation.
This is a very high threshold, and the process would apply just as much to BTC as to BSV.
In fact, the protocol is fully functional on any bitcoin-based network.
So, it's a super outside possibility that it ever gets used, and if it ever did, the precedent applies just as much to any bitcoin-style chain as it does to BSV. @51413