Hacker News Reader

Comment by schmichael | Hacker News Reader

Isn't this just needless blockchain spam? Seems like the blockchain is getting huge enough without spammy messaging transactions like these.

View on HN

Well, This was inspired by the upcoming v0.9 release which makes OP_RETURN (allows you to create immediately prunable output to attach message bytes) a standard transaction output in Bitcoin. And when does get released we will move to use OP_RETURN instead of creating messaging outputs.

So back to your question, do I think this is spammy? No, because this project will never generate enough transactions to matter in the slightest bit to the size of the blockchain. However, I feel the project is important to demonstrate a point which is this:

Bitcoin as a programmable currency protocol has enormous potentials beyond just sending transactions. And OP_RETURN (when it does become standard) has important implications for smart contracts, using Bitcoin transactions to prove / transfer ownership. The objective of this project is to raise awareness in that area. And make developers realise the potential in a fun way on Valentine's Day.

At most, I would say using hash160 output to attach messages is not an elegant way to do this compares when OP_RETURN does become standard. But I believe this awareness that we generate is far more important to Bitcoin development.

It seems dangerous to encourage people to use the Bitcoin blockchain for messaging at all as even if this implementation has little traffic, future work may only encourage more messaging.

It seems if people want to use blockchain technology for messaging, they should create a new blockchain and not clutter Bitcoin's.

This chart is scary enough without throwing new use cases into the blockchain (e.g. messaging) that have nothing to do with Bitcoin transactions: https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size?timespan=all

I must say I disagree with you although I do see your point.

I don't believe that people will use the Blockchain for messaging. It will cost you 60c per message. I certainly wouldn't use it for messaging.

I think the implication is being able to use OP_RETURN (which btw does not add to the size of the blockchain because it is immediately provably prunable) and people will be able to attach payload onto a transaction. This will be important for this currency to be far more powerful beyond just sending money around.

Isn't the blockchain going to keep growing like that indefinitely _anyway_ if Bitcoin is successful? Unless there's a plan to reset it somehow, then a few valentine's day cards are, in the long run, going to be the least of your worries.

If BitCoin can't handle "needless spam", it can't do the job it's claiming to do. "Needless spam" is an obvious attack vector it's going to have to deal with, and, also... a currency that decides what is and is not "needful" is a rather dangerous thing.

While I agree with you, this does not actually mean Bitcoin can handle needless spam.

This is one of many reasons that while I think cryptocurrency in general is extremely interesting (I remember reading about "digital cash" in Applied Cryptography 15 years ago), I seriously doubt BitCoin in particular is going to last very long.

Bitcoin supports want Bitcoin to take over the world.

If the blockchain can't handle a few spammy message transactions like this, how could it handle taking over the world?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com