Why does Bitcoin Core proceed to provide witness knowledge a reduction even when it’s used for inscriptions?
As a result of Bitcoin Core implements Bitcoin’s consensus guidelines, and people guidelines embody the witness low cost.
The consensus guidelines can after all be modified, however that’s as much as the whole Bitcoin ecosystem, not the Bitcoin Core implementation.
- Why is the witness low cost nonetheless utilized to inscription knowledge, on condition that it’s not signatures however arbitrary payloads?
In my opinion, as a result of there isn’t a motive to. Inscription knowledge is actually dumb, however I do not see it as dangerous: it performs by the identical guidelines, and competes pretty with different knowledge in keeping with an goal formulation: block area is an public sale during which the one with the upper payment per weight wins.
I personally suppose inscriptions are foolish, and need they’d go away, however that is not a superb motive for (making an attempt to) outlaw it. Even when it was, it’s only a cat-and-mouse recreation till different schemes for storage are developed.
- Was the opportunity of abuse for knowledge storage thought-about when SegWit and Taproot have been designed?
Actually. The low cost issue is a trade-off between bandwidth/storage progress, and financial incentives for UTXO set progress and validation value. A bigger low cost issue would enable extra bandwidth/storage, but additionally improve incentives for spending over creating.
Whereas totally different guidelines may have been adopted, that give totally different reductions based mostly on obvious intent of the utilization, I believe that is misguided. We should always set guidelines that assign financial value based mostly on goal influence on nodes, by way of disk area, bandwidth, computation, and I/O operation. The foundations adopted by segwit usually are not good on this regard, however near the absolute best inside what was achievable by way of a softfork on the time.
Taproot did not change something on this regard by way of consensus guidelines, as the identical weight guidelines apply. Its solely impact was the related standardness guidelines adopted within the Bitcoin Core implementation. Particularly, to these ignoring coverage guidelines, inscriptions as they exist at the moment have been doable earlier than Taproot.
- Would eradicating or adjusting the low cost for non-signature witness knowledge be technically possible, and in that case, why has it not been proposed or merged?
Reducing the low cost issue, even conditionally, can be a comfortable fork. I can not communicate to why it hasn’t been proposed or gotten traction by others. For myself, I imagine such a enterprise to be misguided for the explanations said above.
- How do present Core defaults make sure that block area stays prioritized for financial transactions somewhat than backed storage?
They do not, and by no means did. I do not imagine node implementations are, or ought to be, ready to evaluate what transactions are good or unhealthy. It’s, and ought to be, as much as the market.
Coverage guidelines at finest present inconvenience to creating options that depend on non-standard transactions. They’ve been used succesfully prior to now to this impact, however this breaks down as quickly as adequate market demand causes growth of approaches that bypass the general public P2P transaction relay mechanism.
Nevertheless, they do not improve value, or present prioritization, simply short-term discouragement to growth.
