I've been thinking about how we could layer useful stuff on top of Bitcoin, kinda like Ross Anderson's Eternity Service that Adam Back coded for Usenet ages ago. Usenet had its own persistence but Bitcoin's blockchain is way more resilient... I mean, it’s secured by tons of value, right? Imagine if a government ordered a blockchain takedown. Good luck with that!
Yeah, but seriously think about this... If we start encoding images into the blockchain, and everyone has to download it all, could governments come after users if something illegal got recorded there? You know what I mean?
Interesting point, but I'd advise against treating the blockchain like some giant data storage device. It's already expanding fast just for transactions. If it also has to handle files, fees will spike and normal users will pay the price for it.
The blockchain isn’t designed for long-term storage of any kind, bro. It’s primarily for financial transactions. Sure, you can’t prune old data now, but that might change in the future. Just wait.
So you’re saying we want this balance between the ‘strength’ of Bitcoin and what users actually want... But come on, what happens when something really bad gets hidden inside? Are we just pretending that won't be an issue?!
Bro, we’re not in some spy movie here. Imagine CIA agents trying to erase every single trace of the P2P network. They couldn’t even stop Wikileaks, lol. We don’t need to keep discussing ‘what if’ all the time.
While some companies have distanced themselves from groups like Wikileaks, the government’s taken no steps to completely cut off their access. They've shut down botnets, sure, but Bitcoin is way different.
But botnets have central control, right? Bitcoin doesn’t have that. It’s decentralized, so I really don’t think it’s at risk like you suggest. If we had to battle against a gov, I kinda think we’d dominate.
Well, yeah, but look at what sipa said... Blocking certain data isn’t just about the community's wishes. The risk of pruning data is real, and storing anything there isn’t a great idea for permanence at all.
It's better if the clash between Bitcoin and the government happens sooner rather than later. If we wait too long, Bitcoin could be branded as this big criminal operation instead of a revolutionary tech.
Nah, not exactly true! Unspent outputs can’t get pruned until they’re used up. If you don’t spend them, they stay. So any suggestion to freely prune transactions isn’t gonna fly with the users.
But if a transaction isn't financial, it can be deleted without a problem! Sure, running into some issues if those transactions are ever needed, but it’s doable.
I feel you, but you’re not stuck on this idea, are you? Like if we're stealing storage, we could still face a flood of costs trying to stick data in the chain.
The short encrypted data method could easily blend in with regular transactions. Those hidden transactions wouldn’t raise flags either. But yes, costs could prohibitively skyrocket.
I’m not worried about keeping keys from everyone who runs a node. Just need them away from those few who might actually care about that data in the blockchain.
Think it through. If you delete a transaction from the blockchain, does that make future verifications harder? Plus, you could end in a mess if transactions get lost. That’s a problem!
You're right that if you delete transactions, it causes a serious mess. But using error-correcting schemes could allow wider data storage safety without jeopardizing existing transactions.
What about the changes to the Bitcoin protocol, then? Seems like minor tweaks could make a big difference without needing wild overhauls. Just gotta decide what changes really matter.