"You can't sell a UTXO" ... "A UTXO doesn't move and neither does a satoshi." This seems like you're picking on the use of imprecise language, irrelevant to the actual phenomenon itself.
It's clear that if Alice mines a block and has a 3.125 coinbase reward, and Bob wants to own a UTXO that came from Alice's coinbase reward, they can make that happen. Alice can use her 3.125 bitcoin as an input, and deliver him an output. If Bob thinks it's cool to say "look at me, I have a UTXO that came from this coinbase transaction!" good for him. Nobody can deny the truth of the statement, either.
Now if Carol is jealous of Bob, and wants to be the owner of a UTXO traceable back to Alice's coinbase, can Bob facilitate this? Technically, yes. He can use his UTXO from his transaction with Alice as an input to a transaction with Carol.
This could continue across many people, and would be quite simple to follow, if there were only 1 input and 1 output each time. A value of 3.125 slowly deteriorating due to fees. But obviously things can get messy and confusing if multiple inputs and outputs begin to get involved.
We could say "stop being sentimental, it's dumb." Rather than listen to this advice, they've decided to use ordinal theory, to keep track of "the traceability which matters for sentimental reasons." (Lots of collector cultures set various boundaries as to what they consider valid, special, interesting.) If you believe they should be stopped, how??
Tom Honzik /
npub1tq…hxzxp
2024-04-27 03:04:09
in reply to nevent1q…3rgf
Author Public Key
npub1tq7z72r2g859ucwfmr4qne8ft6v2z38c2qlqhmq098q4qpvv5m0svhxzxpPublished at
2024-04-27 03:04:09Event JSON
{
"id": "2fcc8f6a5974f6eb30fbbad7ef1268c7db722582eff9757c44d897f6df443452",
"pubkey": "583c2f286a41e85e61c9d8ea09e4e95e98a144f8503e0bec0f29c150058ca6df",
"created_at": 1714187049,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ddcfc61cb65af4417ab3a839ab771d95ed3f85aef4b262c2f99c16d804000abe",
"wss://nostr.cercatrova.me",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ec8a43e10a0441a36632c0851fe72dcd560811cae38dff9da5b1a4f730d755ca",
"wss://nostr.cercatrova.me",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"583c2f286a41e85e61c9d8ea09e4e95e98a144f8503e0bec0f29c150058ca6df"
],
[
"p",
"21580a98aaf64f7d66705abe7bf7a7acf4ee440fcf6b59d0b76e16217824d895"
]
],
"content": "\"You can't sell a UTXO\" ... \"A UTXO doesn't move and neither does a satoshi.\" This seems like you're picking on the use of imprecise language, irrelevant to the actual phenomenon itself.\n\nIt's clear that if Alice mines a block and has a 3.125 coinbase reward, and Bob wants to own a UTXO that came from Alice's coinbase reward, they can make that happen. Alice can use her 3.125 bitcoin as an input, and deliver him an output. If Bob thinks it's cool to say \"look at me, I have a UTXO that came from this coinbase transaction!\" good for him. Nobody can deny the truth of the statement, either.\n\nNow if Carol is jealous of Bob, and wants to be the owner of a UTXO traceable back to Alice's coinbase, can Bob facilitate this? Technically, yes. He can use his UTXO from his transaction with Alice as an input to a transaction with Carol.\n\nThis could continue across many people, and would be quite simple to follow, if there were only 1 input and 1 output each time. A value of 3.125 slowly deteriorating due to fees. But obviously things can get messy and confusing if multiple inputs and outputs begin to get involved.\n\nWe could say \"stop being sentimental, it's dumb.\" Rather than listen to this advice, they've decided to use ordinal theory, to keep track of \"the traceability which matters for sentimental reasons.\" (Lots of collector cultures set various boundaries as to what they consider valid, special, interesting.) If you believe they should be stopped, how??",
"sig": "2f3e9c23f1cb3bc2b5780ee19425f5690b295e38deba1953a5d2f3b049508e2e266458e2d2b03f04845da07dd1eba63cd0e427774c79e4316264bb012110148f"
}