rich1.0Freakoverse (npub18n…zzk9r)https://yabu.me/npub18n4ysp43ux5c98fs6h9c57qpr4p8r3j8f6e32v0vj8egzy878aqqyzzk9rnjumphttps://yabu.meHad an interesting discussion with another person about bloat/spam on bitcoin, we were pretty much on the same page, aside from my DNS solution with DNN. Even though DNN doesn't add anything to Bitcoin (no op_return data, no exploitation of witness data / taproot, zero), no writes, where it only reads from Bitcoin as users do a simple self-transfer (bitcoin address A sends to the send bitcoin address A), I could not comprehend the presented issue of: 'There's now an incentive for people to do self transfers, and at scale this would result in bloat in bitcoin not for its intended purpose of sending money from A to B.' (paraphrasing) I couldn't comprehend the presented or perceived issue because: 1. It is sending A to B ('B' being 'A' itself) 2. It doesn't add anything, no bloat 3. Even if a full block or blocks were about these self-transfers, they are legit and clean (no non-transactional data / zero) The gentleman I was discussing it with see DNN as a bigger threat than Ordinals, which came to me as a surprise considering I myself am against it, and don't mind also if op_return was zero, and that's why I made the DNN the way it is now. My best attempt at coming to an understanding is that because the reason/incentive isn't about sending money from A to B just so that B can have the money, then this shouldn't be socially pushed to become mainstream because if it catches on and many people start doing self-transfers, it'll bloat bitcoin blocks with these self-transfer type of transactions. But even then, my thought was "So... because the reason/incentive for sending a transaction isn't for sending someone money or utxo consolidation, then it's a bad utxo, even though it's no different from any other clean utxo, if not cleaner in comparison to many other utxo because no op_return rule + input=output, as in as legit/greenlight of a bitcoin transaction as it can be". I was wished upon that I'd stop doing DNN because of this perceived threat that's supposedly bigger than ordinals and op_return (combined?), but wtihout coming to understanding how this is that big of a threat, if a threat at all, I probably won't... ...not out of being malicious, as I'm simply solving the ID and DNS problem with it, as effeciently as possible, and as cost-effective and cleanly cleanly as possible, and the most simplest with the highest security possible, and there's no one backing me, and I won't be getting anything out of this aside from using it like everyone else, so there's no conflict of interest or ulterior motive (not saying anyone is saying that, just trying to deliver a point, which is...), so since I can't see or understand the problem, then I can't even agree or disagree if it is a problem or not to then decide if i'd continue making DNN or not, as a result i'd continue making it. From my point of view after thinking about it, the pushback isn't a protocol purity resistance (resistance against op_return/junk, witness exploitation, etc, which is a legit pushback and I resist it as well), but rather a hyper purestic ideological that extends/overeaches outside of bitcoin. Going back to what Satoshi mentioned about this topic, where one or more people asked about adding a DNS solution into Bitcoin, the idea was rejected and suggested that a DNS solution should be on a different chain, so that no non-bitcoin/transactional data is added to Bitcoin, and as a result namecoin and others like it were born, however, the discovery with DNN is that it follows that exact logical reasoning: nothing is added to Bitcoin (no spam/junk/bloat), and DNN only observse it (observes only clean transactions). If there was such a thing like a 'Satoshi Test', then DNN passes it with flying colors. When I think about my opinions on Bitcoin in regards to what should be done with it or what shouldn't be done with it, the line is clear: don't add unrelated things to it (op_return, witness exploit, ordinals, etc), don't overreach (prevent people from doing a normal utxo because of a disagreement on the why, which is more dangerous as that would add subjectivity to objective system). However, I might have gotten something wrong or am fully delusional, so if you have thoughts, feel free to share it.