1) Slow RTT
2) Misuse of bitcoin with crazy amounts of blockchain spam (could end up blocked by miners too)
3) Expensive
4) Loss of access to a Bitcoin API means app downtime
5) etc...
Maybe it's adequately named 'vapor' as in vaporware? But I agree, surprised it didn't implement its own token or cryptocurrency instead of polluting BitCoin.
From the docs it does not look like that every http tx is stored onchain. It is more like an ssl-alternative where you sign stuff with bitcoin crypto and therefore not need to trust the sender.
Then it would just linger in message pool until it expires, I think. But it does seem to me like transactions are involved and in either case I'd consider their use case to be abuse.
Speaking of which, I looked up how PyBitMessage is doing and surprisingly it's still around.
I like the research idea but please do this on a separate blockchain not on the Bitcoin network. Not only would it be so expensive to be unfeasible, it'd also be an egregious waste of a vital resource (block space). The Bitcoin network is virtually the only way to transfer money uncensorably and it's supported by volunteers like me. If I have to buy more hard drives, I'm less likely to keep my node online.
7 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 27.4 ms ] threadSpeaking of which, I looked up how PyBitMessage is doing and surprisingly it's still around.
[1] https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage
It's called "Bitcoinized HTTP" because they wrap requests and responses in Bitcoin transactions (as the packet format).
- monetizable requests/routing
- proof of request/response
- data portability
- wallet as universal identity