Thanks for the explanation but: > 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the to

Thanks for the explanation but: > 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the topic I'll quote Daniel Krawisz's tweets with added emphasis on the points which indicate he wasn't proposing storing content on a blockchain: > It would be so cheap to record [enough information] about all @Wikipedia interactions on the $BSV blockchain [...] Key word "enough", suggesting "not all". > My point is just that because because Bitcoin transactions always leave records, someone who uploaded illegal content would leave you with more [contextual information] that you could track on the blockchain than you would have if there weren't payments associated with their interactions. "contextual information" == "metadata" > 2) you end with “you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn” which almost seems like trolling because it’s essentially what this guy told Wales. That was more about noticing the irony in GP chastising the tweeter for their ignorance and then showing seemingly greater ignorance about the same topic.