Bitcoin Forum

Looks like the salvo I fired at the mailing list caused an angry reaction on Twitter, and even news reporters are covering it (this guy is no reporter, but some random dude I scrolled past by):

http://talkimg.com/images/2023/05/10/45B5B810-53BE-4647-B437-CE553FD173A76c4864160c8b6d4c.jpeg

Funny how everyone including the news is trying to make it as "Luke Dashjr vs. the world" and conveniently ignore that I and other members of this community also stand against them.

https://beincrypto.com/bitcoin-core-dev-war-brc-20-ordinals-network-spam/

Do you guys think I should email these bozos and tell them who's really behind the "war declaration?" 😂

---

Anyway, the point being, there are now two groups of (crypto) people: One group (us) who believe that Ordinals and BRC20 are spamming the network and action must be taken against them to preserve its usability

this also includes miners and other users who like BRC20 for the fees but would be happy to support any network projects that alleviate the stress on Layer 1, as well as said developers themselves, and people who like the idea of Ordinals but are not happy with the backlog it's causing

The other group is comprised of the shit-token traders themselves, and also a legion of basement dwellers, shitcoiners, and FUD enthusiasts who are proclaiming loudly People have the right to spam the network with BRC20 and Ordinals but refuse to actually do anything about the problem except for bitch and moan like a horde of wild orc[-20]s.

Will there be a fork? No.

Will actions be taken to insulate bitcoin users from high fees? Yes.

Should these blokes be taken seriously? No.

But should they be challenged anyway? Yes, because if we don't, newbies will be caught in their disinformation net.

We've already seen an exchange try to launch a FUD attack during this chaos (and fortunately they failed). I can see that nearly everyone on this website agrees with me on these points.

So, it is time to challenge these claims on other platforms, particularly Twitter, which is still very relevant platform even though it has fallen out of favor. That's where all the post-news firestorms begin anyway.

If you cannot code, or draft Bitcoin documents,
Know that there are other bitcoiners like you fighting the word-battles over there.
Help them.

The truth is that everyone want ordinals to be cancelled in it entirety otherwise they find a lasting Solution to it, but yet as bitcoiners anticipated for the outcome on this, some have even come out boldly that they had preferred bitcoin despite the present challenge than having their asset with any centralized organization, a statement made by Robert Kennedy Jr said he would preferred bitcoin over CBDC because his asset will not be frozen by politics or any centralized institution and authorities including government. https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1655874701321814018?t=rbcvNlxEYzKagrPwGWmf_Q&s=19 this kind of mindset and determination is what we seek with everyone to go for the change they want with their financial economy and adopt a new system with bitcoin, the centralized system is nothing but a modern way of advanced financial slavery, bitcoin has come as a game changer and table shaker of them all, creating a balance between the poor and the elites, after the experience with ordinals, more wins will emerge on the bitcoin network as a call for more adoption.

Its because thats on social media and thats more visible to a lot of audience. Kinda read the convos on that thread. Almost all are CTs and blue tagged people, whom have different opinion about it. Based on the thread they way more favor or bullish on whats happening on the ordinals but some also dont agreed since its affecting the majority. Its just that those guys have a deep pocketed purse that they can make this more longer. Until they are satisfied with the gains they would leave bitcoin nfts behind. Some retailers are takign action as the number of ordinals wallet are increasing.

https://i.ibb.co/NZw5mF2/7l7j62.jpg

I'm quite understand, but it based on the above tweet it looks like easy to stop BRC-20 transactions? if it's possible then action will be taken ASAP because I think most of developers are don't like it and they're maximalists.

Asking miners to avoid BRC-20 transactions are impossible because they will get benefit due to people willing to pay with high amount of BTC.

@NotATether, answering to the question I can answer in conscience which is if we (you devs and us community) clear the media out about who's not happy? Fuck yeah. It's not a single dev that is against this crap. Most of the community is, and despite the fact that miners may like it though, the community is not only miners, it's all of us.
And Luke, obviously should not be left alone fighting the "civil war". He was just one person coming up front and saying it out loud. Of course the impact if different because he's a well known and old member of the community and a dev, specifically. So, if it was on me, hell yeah, I would take action on behalf of Luke and any other well known member that may come under any type of media attack or any other type of attack!

We are all Satoshi. We are all Bitcoin.

@notatether

seems the main core team answered and they want to do nothing. pretending its impossible
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021625.html

funny how they orchestrated many soft forks in the last couple years but now pretend its difficult

they even orchestrated a major hardfork via a mandated mining pool blackmail of block rejecting 6 years ago.. but now they are pretending they cant do it again

they argue that they cant reject data space of more then 20 signature lengths because it would cause issues like pre taproot.. yet they know that they can implement rules that what goes into witness area is an actual signature because the CONTENT has to meet a rule of being a signature that matches the signing key. and reject anything thats not a signature/doesnt meet a rule of association with utxo rules of spending

they are stupidly coming up with stupid excuses not to change things to fix the problem

also taproots "promise" was a new way for multisig thats just 1 signature length. so their talk of 20 sig lengths becomes meaningless if they actually did meet their promises

they want to keep the space open but not implement rules of what goes inside that data.. that is what i define as a trojan horse
saying the gates of the castle are open to horses but we wont check that its a real horse or whats inside the horses satchel or inside the horses belly(wood or meat looking horse)

they like the lack of rules even though code should be used to make rules not break rules

they know they can set rules for each opcode. and enable unset opcodes to be disabled until true consensus is reached, where true consensus would only be reached when a unset opcode gets proposed to have certain conditions and nodes have the code of those rules conditions to THEN activate it (as the old way was).. but they simply dont want to do it

---

as for the civil war

its core maintainers(corporate sponsored devs that are messing with bitcoin for last 7 years), casey (ordinals idiot) is part of that chum group. and a few of their acolytes
vs everyone else


Luke JR has been a high contributor to core but he was always sidelined. when he is usefull to the core roadmap they let him code. when he is not usefull to their roadmap they ignore him.

luke had some fixes but could not even get them listed as BIPS. thats how much control the maintainers have of bitcoin

I believe that to build a bigger ecosystem, brighter future for Bitcoin, we need to have bigger communities, more use cases for its network.

Coming to a solution to block Bitcoin Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens, smart contracts are very last solutions which are not best idea and solution for all. It is kind of censorship on use cases and if Bitcoin developers, communities can do such censorship this time, they will be able to repeat same in future.

In addition, if we believe that in future, Bitcoin adoption will be bigger, demand to use on-chain transactions will be bigger to a level which is similar to the current one even without Ordinals, BRC20 tokens, we must deeply think of other solutions, technically rather than simply censor any use case we don't like.

Please refrain from false generalizations. Personally, I find the central idea of ordinals quite elegant and true cypherpunk. It is somewhat lazy to evaluate the quality of the implementation, but the fact that this little project was implemented in the rust programming language and was able to compile is already a good recommendation for the quality of the implementation (if you know what I mean). I also understand the arguments against ordinals and some of them seem reasonable to me.

But I can't stop thinking that a large part of the source of the resentment on the forum is the selfish fear of losing signature revenue from all those many mixers and casinos that seem to be having problems operating normally in the face of increased transaction fees. Fear is a good motivator and a bad ally. I'd like to avoid splitting and not trying to fix what isn't broken, but if I have to choose sides, I guess I'll take the side without fear.

you are joking right
ordinals are junk. its not something cypherpunks would ever waste time on

you do realise that the crap junk of json data has no real proof of transfer within the json data that has rules to stop counterfeiting or double spending right..
.. do you even know why cypherpunks spend decades trying to make good money. becasue idea's like the json data fake tokens are not a currency.  so they did not even bother with json crap

as for the previous versions of ordinals like the deadweight memes, those too had no proof of transfer within its system
and the 'first sat' version is broke. there is a miscount of inscriptions and such already.

so please actually learn that ordinals is junk of meaningless value/rule/proofs of cryptographic transfer and realise cypherpunks wont even waste time on that crap.. because they never did

If that's what you believe is the motivating drive for half of DT and a hundred other users to be talking about this then just GTFO. Bitcoin network hasn't ceased working, its just more annoyingly expensive like PayPal.

<This post does not quality for sig campaign payments per my request, if that makes your astute mind feel better.>

Probably Bitcoin itself seemed to be the same junk to an outside observer shortly after the launch of the network. I see the elegance of the ordinals idea in the fact that all satoshi in the block chain are initially implicitly numbered hard. It's just that ten years after the idea was formed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.0), someone explicitly implemented it. Sooner or later it had to happen, and now it has.

No one promised that transactions would always be cheap. By itself, determining the actual price of a transaction on a competitive market basis explicitly implies that transactions are cheap only in conditions of low competition for a limited place in the block.

It will be a tough war. On one side you have logic and reason who care for the greater good of Bitcoin with profits balanced healthily within their motives...and then you have the social plebs and profit hungry whales who are trying to make as much as they can out of this feature. Unfortunately, the ones who have the most power are the latter. I am glad that Luke Dashjnr is standing up for the greater interest of Bitcoin and those who look at it from an experienced and knowledgeable angle. Of course, those who are profiting heavily from Ordinals will speak against him.

While I think that NFTs and Ordinals do have real use-case, Bitcoin is clearly not ready for it if the ability to spam the chain is as easy as the attackers are currently making it seem. Once this problem is alleviated and plebs wake up and stop buying ridiculous mass-minted graphics for even more ridiculous prices, maybe they can thrive. Until then I think the last few days prove that Ordinals need to be rethought and changed/removed.

I think that we will have quite a debate running and problems with the usability of Bitcoin for quite some time. It takes time for things to pass through consensus, for discussion to happen and for the codebase to be changed. Especially when high powered interests are involved in the decision making process and the publicity side of things. Eventually though, good and reason should prevail. It will just take time. I have been wondering what might stop Bitcoin from rallying early before the halving next year, considering the banking turmoil that happened earlier in the year. I suppose this and whatever cascade comes with the height of this consensus problem is the answer to my wonder.

Positively, more time to accumulate!

Nice one :P

If neither a soft fork, nor a hard fork is required, then in my opinion there won't be any "civil war". Everything will depend on what the Core Developers decide.

BUT if there's truly going to be a "civil war", then definitely it won't be against Ordinals users/supporters. Who will lose the most if Ordinals functions are undermined? I believe the miners will be in the other side of the "civil war".

I don't see any reference to it being "impossible", so if you could perhaps refrain from your usual extremist tendencies and just stick to what they actually said, without embellishments, that would be appreciated.

What they're saying makes sense to me.  If we start closing off potential exploit vectors, then you'll moan that we're not making enough progress on scaling (even more than you already do, at least).  And then the silly-picture-brigade will just find a different method to inject this data.

I'm all for individuals setting their own node policy to reject such inscriptions.  That's their right and I'll always fight to protect that.  I wish the "Ordisrespector" project every success.  However, I'm not convinced that a consensus change will be an effective deterrent and may cause later hurdles to clear when we look at future scaling proposals.

doomad im not saying is impossible. im saying the core dev is finding excuses to not make it possible

by the way you are the one that took one word and extremitised it to mean what you thought it meant to then cry like a baby. you did not read the contents of the whole sentence i said
heck you even in your post just doubled down by throwing more silly excuses why that cant, wont, shouldnt do it.. proving my point


they use excuses like pretending rules cant be made to fix it. by saying if they just shorten witness space to 20 sig lengths then people will still use the space.. however what they are not capable of admitting is that they can put rules inplace to say what data would go into such 20 signature length space.. EG actually have rules to validate the content


so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security

realise one thing
you spent so many years sucking up to them, presumably for free hoping they pay you one day. but by your penny pinching of sigcampaigns have you not realised yet your ass-kissing wont get a pay day, or it would have already

care more about bitcoin and less about the monarchy controling bitcoin. one day when you had enough of kissing ass you will realise they are the authoritarians.. not the community

Then why say it at all?  You do this every time.  You say things deliberately to make it sound as though the situation is worse than it actually is and then you claim that I'm taking your words out of context somehow.  I didn't put a gun to your head and force you to use the word "impossible".  You made a conscious and calculated decision to use that word.  Your choice, not mine.

Don't get pissy at me just because it makes you appear disingenuous.  You're doing that all by yourself without any help from me.

The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history.

I think it’s a good thing if there is a patch that stops their BS. Fees were up to over 300 sat per byte which is ridiculous. I mean we could wait for the trolls to run out of bitcoin so their spamming dies down but doing something to stop it is wise. It’s not being done for any other reason than to spam the network.

I’m sure miners were enjoying it but it’s not what bitcoin was created for. Shitcoiners are welcome to fork bitcoin & continue their nonsense on another chain, alternatively use BCH or BSV  which have bigger & often empty blocks.

Any way I doubt anything will be done. Fees are already lower than the peak as the mempool clears a bit.

https://i.imgur.com/1437BBV.jpg

For several days there has been a huge problem on Bitcoin Tx speed, memecoin like PEPE coin on Bitcoin blockchain for BRC-20 based platform, creation of NFT on ordinals protocol etc. has caused massive transactions on Bitcoin blockchain which has been responsible for high fees for quite some time. If Bitcoin Ordinals are not removed from the blockchain, Bitcoin transaction fees are not expected to drop easily.

the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled
a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature
they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits

if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be

letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse.
if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make
years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled

they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box

reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it.
before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development.
it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now
going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes

and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content

Your gesture is commendable, but it has little effect on the overall balance of power in this issue of pro and contra. I don't want your sacrifice, make money while you have the opportunity, I just don't want the fear of losing this source of income to interfere with your ability to adequately assess the possible negative side effects of your proposed hasty decisions.

There is no war. Just a bug being exploited. Lets kick the spam out. they can go elsewhere, no one is stopping them to make their own spam blockchain.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvrPT5QaMAAeOrP?format=jpg (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvrPT5QaMAAeOrP?format=jpg)

Ordisrespector (https://github.com/Retropex/Ordisrespector-Bitcoin)

that is not a fix but a weak bypass. it just makes nodes not relay zero confirms p2p. yet most of the ordinal scumbags are doing pushtx direct with mining pools, evading the zero confirm p2p relay. so it wont stop it

a true fix is to have devs actually only enable opcodes that have rules and conditions of use. where if the content after the opcode doesnt fit the rules then its rejected. thus no random data can be put into witness

whereby blocks can be rejected if they put in tx that dont fit the rules.. as bitcoin should be (having proper consensus rules)

You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap.

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

Yes, you're right and i like the fact that you specifically quoted the aspect that i mentioned "provided there will be a lasting solution to it" it's bot about kicking against ordinals that solves the entire problem because we can't predict the future on what's coming next after this on bitcoin network and the transaction fee, we can give ordinals a two method of approach, first is the use case of bitcoin which has increased through the introduction of ordinals on the bitcoin blockspace.

But should that be a threat to users by inflating them with high fees while the external users are enjoying the pump on their token at our own expenses? Secondly if we are to eliminate Ordinals, does that gives a permanent solution to any means of increased transaction fee in the future? I also finally agrees that we are trying to secure the network from future attack through this by kicking against ordinals, to me we have to give a good attention to the both sides and think twice before the new solution arrives.

I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale.

you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them
(i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally)

so here is my response
before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016

GO learn

oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing

these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern
its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system

another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too"
the rebuttal of that is simple
back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk.

opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned..

unlike the situation in the recent years
yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them..
well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do

and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script
i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research

Dude, you are too fixated on specific implementation details and it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. It is possible to ban a particular implementation at the cost of several years of progress towards scaling, a split in the community, and perhaps even at the cost of the success of the bitcoin project as a whole. But it is impossible to forbid the very fundamental possibility of adding arbitrary data to the bitcoin blockchain, because it has existed since the start of the network. You forbid one implementation - sooner or later there will be another. But then you will not be able to say in a conversation with friends over a glass of whiskey that this network is resistant to censorship and anti-fragile. Think about it at your leisure.

your soo fixated on letting devs loosen consensus for their benefit of not having to wait for the community to be ready to activate a new opcode/ruleset.. and not fix their stupidity. that you will let them make more future stupid implementations that allow newer future exploits

ever heard the term bug fixes, patches, .. i guess not
you do realise that things can be fixed without halting genuine progress

devs own message about enabling lots of opcodes was that they would when utility of such was needed they would then apply rules to opcodes.. thus avoid a activation process in the middle by flipping the paradigm
however guess what these unassigned opcodes that had no rules are being used so devs should now be assigning rules .. BUT THEY ARE NOT. thus breaking more promises


take your scripts and shred them. and then go do some research, learn the code learn how things worked and how they work now. stop reading some cave dweller chest thumping words and actually learn bitcoin

you are putting more care into what certain devs should be allowed to do unhindered rather than thinking about BITCOIN that should protect itself from human exploitation of code

dont defend a dev. defend the code from devs
if devs make a mistake they should undo that mistake

there are ways to code rules that dont hinder development.. its called rules..  yep code is rules.
the current bypass and assume valid lack of rules is a flaw not a feature

Any action that can be taken to make the high Bitcoin transaction fee from the blockchain by the developers should be done with immediate action. People are not happy about the stuff. The fee right now is abnormal to the average users of bitcoin.

But they are affecting the whole system, so if there is any way out then... action should be taken.

It is not only newbies that will enter the disinformation net but also those who are not aware of the news will be affected. Therefore challenging them is one of the best approach to free the system.

I might agree with you if you were talking about kicking spam off the blockchain, but simply because prices go up in a supply and demand environment, trying to regulate them down is a mistake that has been known since Diocletian's edict, no matter how much certain politicians insist on forgetting history. So what happens when fees go up in a mass adoption environment? Or in the future when the block reward is minimal?

But it's all you're likely going to get for the time being.  The devs can't even agree between themselves what the "right" course of action is.  I don't think they'll be intervening directly in the very near future.  And clearly the miners won't have much interest in stopping all this extra income they're getting.  I suggest you try to "make do" with what you've got.  

Or, at the risk of suggesting something utterly futile, you could code something yourself and release it (but we both know that's never going to happen and you're too entitled to do anything yourself when you could simply whine about it and accomplish nothing, as per usual).

---

What you both need to keep in mind is that the Devs you are referring to are not directly beholden to you.  It's unreasonable to expect them to take any action that would appease you but upset others in the process.  I'd like to think I'm not the only one who cares about censorship resistance and I would find it deeply troubling if we abandon that principle at the first sign of a problem.  I'm fully aware that neither of you care in the slightest about my concerns, but just try to keep in mind that you don't speak for everyone.  I have zero personal interest in silly pictures, but I don't see it as my place to police what others can or can't do.  

If you believe it is your place to dictate how others can transact, then I sincerely hope Karma bites you in the arse at some point in the future and someone tells you that your usage of the blockchain isn't acceptable to them and they intervene to stop you transacting in the way you want to.  And if it reached that stage, I'd be long gone, because BTC would be well and truly dead in my view.  And your totalitarian mentality would have been what killed it.

Permissionless freedom or bust.  I'm never budging on that, so either get used to sharing a blockchain with me or fork off.  Your call.   :P

I do not think it is necessary telling them who declared the war. This should be a good strategy to get them confused as to where the pressure is coming from so they do not know and channel the revenge and retaliation against you.
This is a good way of attacking the enemy. Let them never know it is coming from you while you sit and watch them fighting themselves.

It is quite unfortunate what has happened the past few days.  The network congestion was something else. Very frustrating and dissappointing. If not spamming, I would have preferred it to be called BRC20 bot attack on bitcoin chain. It was very devastating that the delay caused a lot of set backs and backlogs of transactions to be confirmed coupled with the high transaction fee charges which did not go down well with bitcoin enthusiasts.
I support the motion for actions to be taken against the BRC20 bots before they overwhelm the whole system with their greedy and selfish interest.


The battle line has already been drawn.  Either way, I believe bitcoin enthusiasts on Twitter are releasing their arsenals against them.
This is a good war to demoralizing them before hand and making them feel the pains they already caused verbally and through the social media outlets while the others carry on the war from the other zone.
"Ceteris paribus"

Disappointed. Really disappointed.

What are you going to do if they send them to miners? Soft fork? What then? What if they embed them in non-standard OP_RETURN transactions? Ban the op code? What if they send them in 256-bit chunks, as if the metadata is divided in multi-sig addresses?

And who had me signed that I should make transactions only if they help on Bitcoin adoption? Misplaced meme.

Miners fees currently went up in the market, so as to keep them encouraged following their recent halas. This is according to recent reports trailing the current Bitcoin price having gone down by a percent. We are experiencing a time where Bitcoin management is stepping up to make the exchange better.  Ordinals or not, the system can only grow if we trust it would work.
The war would mostly be effected by miners, even with our output on media, only those who really impact its development will cause the fork if not with one mind and it would ruin whatever ideology was thought out for the whole concept of a BTC decentralized system.

Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.

Not to mention you are ignoring the core devs that appear relatively neutral right now. No doubt because their job is to fix bugs and ordinals isn't a bug. Or otherwise improve the network, while there is no urgent need to improve the network, as it is functioning exactly as programmed. They've already done segwit and taproot in recent years, so not going to rush a soft fork obviously, these take months, even years to code.

But sure, you can just blame shitcoiners, basement dwellers (whatever that really means) and anyone you don't like as those who are supportive of ordinals. Even though probably the majority of Bitcoin users are currently opposed to them, what you have to remember is that Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about it's users. It only cares about those who are following the rules of the network and paying the appropriate fees.

Often people forget that users can complain as much as like like, just like in 2017 with the civil war over block size. But ultimately it doesn't matter how many people bitch and moan like babies and cry about high fees, the miners will keep on mining, the devs will keep on coding. Those who aren't willing or able to pay high fees will get left behind. Bitcoin doesn't wait for any cry babies I'm afraid. Harsh but true. My only real fear/concern if that those opposed to ordinals and inscriptions will begin to promote the hard fork approach, and it will be like 2017 all over again, with new BTC-based shitcoiners born every minute.

I'm not even someone who's supportive of ordinals or BRC20 in general, I think Ethereum is a better designed network for these type of endeavours if that's what you're into. But what I am opposed to is the amount of people complaining about how popular Bitcoin currently is, which I have no issues with personally. Calling ordinals spam when it's neither advertising, phising or malware - so by definition can't generally be considered spam - this is just a matter of perception. One persons idea of spam is others idea of something they want to buy, own or find value in. Doesn't matter how many times you call it spam, it doesn't make it so.

Rant over. TL:DR: I take the Bitcoin maxi view of Michael Saylor in favour of Bitcoin usage.

Anyone can think in the poor El Salvador people who use BTC in her normal day? :P

Do you imaging paying $10 usd fee for one kg of bread?.

Well i know nobody use in the day to day BTC its only a "joke".

saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi
he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's

he wants people to move away from bitcoin and use another network. so ofcourse he doesnt want bitcoin exploits fixed

the thing is many have used LN seen its flaws and moved out of LN. there are more people using other subnetwork bridges. becasue of the simple fact that LN is flawed and limited and doesnt meets its promises/purpose/function that people were told it could

LN will never handle bitcoin value amounts. its always going to be a small niche service for the penny pinchers to borrow value between each other and steal that borrowed value from others


el salvador was scammed/duped into using LN because they were told "it was bitcoin".. after 3 months. they seen the flaws and liquidity issues. they instead went with something else

the promoter that duped them then ran off and tried his game in africa. who also seen the same flaws..
they too are trying something else

i do hope devs dont waste another 6 years trying to force people over to broken LN and instead try to plug the bitcoin exploit or start afresh on a different subnetwork bridge that is actually useful.. because the solution/salvation is not going to be LN

Pretty sure MSTR hold their BTC holdings on the mainnet, in cold storage, without any intent on selling it, while having 0% shitcoin holdings. So if that's not being a maxi, I don't know what is.

Are you suggesting that his support of lightning means he's no longer a maxi? That sounds ridiculous, especially to all the maxis out there that support and use lightning. It seems more likely there are maxis that support L2s and those that don't. Simply claiming that the "purest" way to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin only is to support it's mainnet and nothing else just sounds ridiculous to me, as well as many other maxis. Especially when now the mainnet is being used for inscriptions and now apparently you can't even be a maxi unless you support censoring these valid transactions. Maxis can't keep moving the goal posts like this.

Anyway, I'm not going to suggest that Lightning is the solution to everyone's problems right now, I've been hearing an increasing amount of issues with it, but I'm not going to rule it out either as Bitcoin had enough issues in it's first few years as well. There are also better L2 solutions right now but they lack the liquidity as well as development. So whether this high fee era increases Lightning adoption, or otherwise increases adoption of other L2s, I still think it's all generally healthy. Even if it means these L2s need a LOT of work to become more functional, which I believe they do, it will also encourage this which is well overdue.

Also I've noticed that in these ordinals type of threads there are a lot of respectable members avoiding sharing their opinions on this issue (whereas they often do in this board without hesitation). I assume a lot of Bitcoiners, if not most, are actually on the fence at the moment (neutral), and instead most of the voices are wanting some form of censorship, as opposed to it being an actual majority of Bitcoiners wanting this type of censorship. Possibly because in a few weeks or months this ordinals "craze" might pass, just like the high fees at the end of 2017, or otherwise during 2021. Just a thought.

Finally many Bitcoiners remember how divisive it was talking about changing the network during the high fees of 2017, which led to a hard fork. Most people don't want another hard fork.

when you realise that he does not promote bitcoin but stores it. but does promote scams and schemes and another network that is not bitcoins blockchain nor something that will be the salvation.. he is not a maxi. he is a bitcoin hoarder but not a maxi
...
you do need to realise that those transactions you assume valid are not containing bitcoin rules.. they use a opcode that assumes validity by a "isvalid" bypass thatavoids standard bitcoin checks. which bypasses normal bitcoin format rules

yep thats how the junk gets let in, by bypassing normal standard bitcoin rules
yep the inscriptions are non-standard

..
funny part is maxi means maxi. but its you that wants to dilute(move the goalpost) its meaning to be middi. where you think someone that supports another network is still maxi. even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network

please learn maxi is short for maximum. meaning top, highest level. meaning yes its the purists.. not the average or altnet supporters that just happen to hoard bitcoin

If any idea, even initially sound, is elevated to an absolute, it becomes absurd. How far are you willing to go in bitcoin maximalism?
Hey, this is a ordinals transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a lightning network transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a mixed transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a segwit transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Only old school addresses starting with one correspond to the true vision of Satoshi. Sieg heil! ;D

You might be joking, but that's actually pretty close to how franky1 thinks.  He wants to be a part of this network whilst at the same time disagreeing with every choice the users of this network have ever made.  If he had all the rules set as he would want, he'd be the only user on a very lonely chain.  Compromise is a key part of collaboration and most users understand this fact.  But it's entirely lost on frankenfuhrer1.

No it isn't. I agree that it should, and that it's by accident standard. But it's pretty much of a fact that Ordinal transactions are standard. I'm also of the opinion that standardness is of little matter, especially when there's real demand for Ordinals. With one way or another, standard or non-standard, they'd find their way on the chain.

Comparably to your "proposals" of "fixing" Bitcoin, I'd consider absolute Bitcoin maximalism to support lightning.

It's because some people are turning it into a more ideological debate than a technical one. I personally don't like dick pics and fart sounds too, but if those transactions are following the consensus rules, and pay their fees to have there transactions mined in a block, how can we truly say they can't use the network.

BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.

Perhaps here I agree with you. How beautiful and elegant is the very idea of ordinals, which does not produce unnecessary entities, so as not to cause the anger of Occam with a razor, but only makes the implicit explicit. And just as shitty are these BRC-20 tokens, which are almost a direct insult and spit in the face. It's like when a teenager is first allowed to draw anything on a blank wall and he draws just the first thing that comes to his mind - boobs and a big dick. Did you expect to find Claude Monet's lilies there?

If we're going to stick with our censorship resistance strategy, we're going to have to open our mouths wide and eat this elephant whole, with a hundredweight of shit inside it. Because everyone has different tastes (and even coprophages also exist) and if we start trying to separate the more delicious from the less tasty, we will never come to a consensus that suits everyone. The wave of hype will subside and time itself will separate the assimilated and the rejected.

I had auto-included all of those people in the first group:


While they are not necessarily seeking to stop BRC-20 tokens, it can generally be agreed that all these people passively acknowledge the inherent scaling problem present in Bitcoin and would be happy to lend themselves to solutions for that.

I guess I did not make this section clear. Apologies for that.

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

most of the meme sales are not real sales between individuals. they are supported sales between a group selling to each other to mark a price on sites marking prices. this then creates the 'value" which they then use to scam people by pretending its worth

stories like the one you mentioned make people think they can buy a crap meme not even worth $1 for $250 because the idiot victims think they can then resell for $8million

the actual reality is that the creator wants thousands of idiot victims hand over a minimum of $250+ because all those small scams add up to alot of profit for the creator. while being too small per victim for the victim to fight for a refund via a lawsuit

Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi?

Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.


Like scammers?

 8)

It's hilarious to see these bozos think they've managed to increase the adoption of Bitcoin with the junk they grow. They have absolutely no impact on Bitcoin adoption, instead they make the Bitcoin network more saturated and they should leave this network and create their own community. Moreover, I think that Bitcoin developers should pay special attention to the Bitcoin network in the future and not let such communities in the future do what they want and exploit the main network and cause chaos. Because if Bitcoin developers keep letting things like this happen, how can they possibly aim higher and grow the community well.

It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog. What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture? I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally?

While I can agree there should have no forking. And not forcing the dev to do something then we all might just have to create NFTs on the blockchain and just don't mind the transactions to be confirmed for days.

I have to bring up that this will obviously hurt the network and less useful as well which I do think the dev team can come up with something. Otherwise the government learns how vulnerable BTC and the network with just this simple issue.

I just want to say... "There is a fine line between protecting the network AND censoring transactions."

I do not own any of these shit tokens and I will also not defend something that are causing congestion on the network, but I will lift my hand and try to highlight the fact that caution must be taken that filtering measures should not be applied, if the transactions are not deliberate to attack the network.

Bitcoin are not like some Alt coins, where they "authorize" ..what transactions are legit and which needs to be filtered or blocked.  ::)

Or to take that line of reasoning a step further, there are clearly some who feel that the very suggestion of implementing censorship is an attempt to (perhaps unwittingly) attack the fundamental nature of the Bitcoin network.

I get the distinct impression that some people don't even realise that asking for censorship would make Bitcoin weaker.  Not stronger.  Once that line is crossed, it sets a dangerous precedent.  If you help pave the way to censor others, they may later find it easier to censor you.  Be very careful what you wish for.  

---

You're sub-human, nazi trash (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.msg62238046#msg62238046).  You don't qualify as "people".  You're just a lowly shit-smear.

doomad pretends to be anti-censorship but is always telling people to not do research. not talk. and disapear. he wants peoples posts deleted and people banned.
oh he also doesnt want people transacting below certain value and wants the blockchain pruned


how about actually think about real fixes EG each byte have true meaning and reason for being in a transaction. where each byte is counted and actually checked for validity. non of this cludgy bypass crap

but no idiots like doomad want to soften the rules, make nodes not validate all transactions and prune them off just as quickly so that the blockchain is a cluster-f**k of data that is not complete or correct in all full nodes

all because he wants bitcoin to get ruined from many points of attack, lack of utility and expense.. all so he can advertise his other networks he adores so much he prefers people to use instead

I'm not debating if something like the Pepe is a scam. I'm debating if the developers of BRC-20, because as I understood you said they are merely riding the hype-wave, are acting like scammers.

Because from a developers viewpoint it wouldn't be rational to build something that wouldn't be making it more efficient/better. Let's be frank, what they're developing won't make trading tokens better. In fact, they're making it more inefficient and more expensive. If the incentive is just "profit now", then they're like scammers? 8)

This is basically the bottom line that many people don't get. First for example it's censoring BRC20's, next up it can be wills, testaments and other important data inscribed onto the blockchain. Notably no-one complained when data was ever previously inscribed onto the blockchain, instead it was celebrated as being creative/diverse use of the Bitcoin network, it was only when the fees increased people started complaining and calling it spam. It seems hypocritical when back in 2017 during the equally high fees period (if not higher), people were instead sensibly talking about the need for L2 solutions and adoption, not censorship.

I agree with your point, OP.
This Ordinals BS being portrayed as some kind of attack over the Bitcoin Core blockchain is something that annoys me.
It's not an attack. It's just a bunch of NFT holders, who don't care about congesting the blockchain with transactions and paying higher transaction fees. I'm not blockchain developer or expert, but my proposal is to impose a high minimum fee for the Ordinals transactions.
Let's see if those NFT holders will be so happy to pay 100-200 or 300 USD fee per transaction and keep congesting the blockchain. ;D

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance. The fact that developers are willing to build inefficient apps on the Bitcoin blockchain that doesn't solve anything, or doesn't push the network technologically forward, should tell us that these "improvements" are laughable from a development perspective.

Yeah but its not though.

Its literally just a bunch of degens who are using Bitcoin blockspace for their latest round of Ponzi hot potato passing. Once they grow bored of it, and they will, they'll simply move on to the next thing and fees will go back to normal (or at least substantially lower). I have heard the conspiracy theory that BSV people are behind it, and there are indeed developers from there working on ordinals and BRC20 stuff, but that's simply because its more profitable to work on BTC than BSV.

I don't believe these conspiracy theories about BSV developers using BRC20 as an attack vector - they strike me more like the people who say "Oh so Russia attacked Ukraine? It's WWIII now!" ^{(then why aren't you in your bunker?)}.

In other words, complete non-sense.

I never said anything is/was an "attack", I merely said that Ordinals "could be" used to attack the network. Because from a technical and practical standpoint in any software application - the more features it has, the more attack vectors it will also have. It's a fact.

I get that it can be annoying to pay the miner an extra dollar, but how exactly can it attack the principles of Bitcoin? It's just a bunch of greater fool theory worthless tokens which don't hurt anyone but the one buying them last.

Calling them "developers" somewhat insults the rest of the developers in the programming community. What was the last time they made a big commitment? By opening up the repository I only see just a seemingly dumped Bitcoin Core fork. Didn't expect more to be honest.

you two fools are both forum-sisters pretending to fight but just trying to distract from the real conversation. your shitty buzzwords pretending bitcoin shouldnt have rules is where you both fail. bitcoin only works due to rules.

the relaxation/removal and softening of rules is whats causing the problem. devs caused that.
asics do not program the bitcoin network. nor do asics choose the transactions. nor do asics choose the fee's so just stop with the "miner to blame" stuff.. its not logical

so you not realise your about 12 years out of date of blaming solo miners..

you want to pretend its user error or miner fault. but its not. its devs that created an exploit which is causing this nonsense useless bloat

bitcoin was invented WITH STRICT RULES.
every byte had a purpose and a validycheck rule for its utility.. over time those rules have been removed, relaxed , softened

your forum wife is the ultimate idiot feeding you both stupid narratives to social drama over to deflect from the real cause. and you both foolishly just follow his scripts like idiots.

bitcoins rules have been relaxed which is bad. grow up realise it and care more about bitcoin and less about kissing dev ass.. devs come and go so defending a dev while promoting the breaking of bitcoin rules is not a good trait. but heck you both are not bitcoiners you both love other networks. so i dont see you actually caring any time soon about the future of bitcoin. as long as you both continue hoping to recruit people over to your other prefered systems.

it is funny how 6 years ago your clan said that rejecting blocks was not censorship (mandatory segwit flagging)
it is funny how 6 years ago your clan said that excess transactions without meme/json bloat was an attack..

but now you are saying the opposite. you dont want blocks rejected for X. and you think spam of junk memes/json meaningless data is not an attack

the only time you pretend its meaningless data is when you see you fanbase move away from kissing your ass so you have to change your narrative to recruit people back..

you both cant even pick a narrative and stick with it. you just both follow whatever script was spoonfed to you.

You're a forum drama-queen. But what's the solution franky101? A hard fork the bigger blocks to "scale onchain" and end with us having an unscalable, bloated blockchain? Because that's always been your stance, and probably also the removal of the Core Developers as the stewards of the network. Your gaslighting might work on newbies, but it will never work on the forum-sisters. Hahaha.

When I used the term I was referencing people who decided to build on top of BSV (as dumb of a choice as that may have been, some have seen the err of their ways and reverted back to BTC or moved to other blockchains).


Frankly (no pun intended) I don't understand why he even bothers... He's wrong on a technical level a decent deal of the time so its not like he's really "here to educate." He's here to derail topics and crack heads, specifically those of people who believe in milli-sats.


so you're saying the script doesn't have a narrative?

For the record, there are a ton of power users who fork codebases left and right, and I don't consider any of them as developers. Same if you don't actually know how to code and you use a Generative AI to write all of your code.

Now then, forking a huge codebase and applying a few dozen commits doesn't bring your power levels up to 9000, which would be the case if they had actually made 9000 useful commits (that actually accomplish something that users/other devs need), which is also not the case ::)

the idiot brigade above have no clue they dont want the exploits fixed because they cant explain how to fix one.. all they think of is "forks" so thats all they want to mention(create new networks) as their possible option..

however exploits can be fixed without a fork.

forks (2 divided chains than sustain) happen when there is contention.. EG low acceptance rate of one side (no super majority)
doomad loves low acceptance rate he hates super majority. he loves contention. he things the only options is to fork networks where people have to create altcoins. where only core can control policy. where no one should ask core to do something for the community

however there can be a high consensus acceptance rate, without a secondary chain creation.
there can be rule changes that after block X witness area needs to be lean. with expected data that fits specifications..
there are many opcodes that can be changed. many limits many formats. its not just "put up with it or fork"

rules that expect formatting, expect actual signature proofs to belong in witness area is not censorship. its called efficient use of blockspace. people can still transact. but without having junk push their tx out of mempools.

all doomad cares about is the devs that patented a secondary network get to mess with bitcoin to push peoples transactions into such a premium and such a hassle that people give up using bitcoin to use the secondary network doomad prefers. because that secondary network (which has alot more bugs, flaws) is a network where middle men take a cut of the fee's people pay to use the middle men just to get them to accept their payments


the idiot brigade have pretended that bitcoin was always soft weak and open to abuse. yet if they dared even try to bloat a legacy transaction they would learn the hard way that bitcoin was not always like this.
if they even dared research outside of the spoonfed narrative they all recite and echo to each other like a cult. they would finally learn a thing or two about what actually happened, when it happened, how it was caused and how it can be fixed. but all they instead want to shout is "put up with it or f**k off to another network"

its the latest updates that became exploitable, not ones from decade ago. and they dont know this so wont admit this because all they have been told is stupid stories about how blocks have always been exploitable.. all becasue their silly puppet masters dont want them to know the real cause and dont want them to talk about how it was core devs cause.. not miners. how it should be core devs that take responsibility and fix their errors

core have become too centralised.. any dev thats not the "core" half dozen maintainers are treated as opposition if they even tried to fix the exploits. thats how centralised things have become. total elitist authoritarianism and yet the script puppets want to pretend its those that didnt code the exploits being called the authoritarians.. which is absolutely illogical narrative.

So Bitcoin belongs to you to do whatever you want with it and its the end of discussion.

Bitcoin belongs to anyone who is willing to pay the market price for a transaction. But for some reason you demand special preferences for yourself, and it seems your best argument is that transactions used to be cheaper than they are now. That's funny.

I was going to make a replication to your last comment, but i learn you are TROLLING a high level. Its doesnt worth to waste energy in a answer to that last claim.

I hope nobody keep feeding this troll. DONT FEED THE TROLL.

You have nothing to say in essence and you decided to get personal? Cute. I have more Merits in 120 days than you. I don't hide my face and don't try to lick ass on a price watch thread. So shut up and go fuck yourself.

Gaslighting and disinformation. I could personally say that it truly works on plebs/newbies, because I was one of those plebs/newbies who thought that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right solution to scale Bitcoin during the days of the scaling debate, thanks to franky101 and jonald_fyookball. They did a good job in convincing many many people that the "Evil Core Developers" were acting in their own self-interest by regulating the block size. But everyone already knows it was FUD, and ignorant comments. I don't know why people in the forum vote him every year as the "Anti-Hero". Hahaha.

so now windfury is denying the existing of these meme bloat.. and denying that core devs are devs..
soo who is mis-informing??

core are bitcoin devs that softened consensus and even your forum daddy admits core done it. he loves promoting their role in it.

so if you are denying it. then you are denying your daddy. again you sway in one direction when the scripts written for you say A then you change to script B denying A when the script changes

how about look at code. look at block data instead of your silly influencer social drama of trusting people.

LOOK AT THE DATA. do your research.  

Okay, you're right. The developers of the core have been quite consistent in easing the initially tight restrictions of bitcoin, this has had its consequences, both positive and negative. With this we figured out, to the question "who is to blame?" the correct answer is found, now let's move on to the question "what to do?". Because it's easy and fun to loosen restrictions - it entails promising prospects in terms of scaling and rapid success in terms of breadth of adoption. But there is a nuance, once a weakened restriction can no longer be strengthened back without at least a partial loss of backward compatibility. Someone will inevitably suffer in this case - simply because yesterday it was still possible, but today it has become impossible. What do you propose to do about it, other than pointless grumbling on the forum?

well the solution is not "put up with it or f**k off to another network"
that false solution is the idiot brigades thoughts on their only option to present

many topics talk about actual solutions
the main one that does not break bitcoin is tat from block 7XX,XXX opcodes need to show formatting conditions, expectations of data used with an opcode. and defined lengths of expected data.

this will make transaction byte data efficient and purposeful something that can be validated and verified. like it previously did

as for generating new opcode. well thats simple too. full nodes are suppose to validate all data. this includes the fullnodes mining pools use to manage block templates and what the network then validates to fit active rules to be an accepted block of accepted data.

so when a new opcode is desired devs PROPOSE an opcode and code it. and while in review the network users can download a copy fo also self review and when they flag they are ready to use it. that flag then shows consensus readiness that its at a safe enough level of network readiness to activate the opcode. and the opcode goes live knowing enough of the network is ready to validate the new feature. as what is suppose to happen.

yep full nodes are suppose to be ready to validate things. thats their point. they are not suppose to have blind bypasses of just calling things non standard and treat as valid without check just becasue someone called it a validation pass.

having opcodes that are tested. reviewed and have node readiness is a security feature.. bypasses allowing trojan data is an exploit/bug

Damn. This whole thread is filled with members literally fighting for various reasons. Personally, I was stunned to see BTC TX times and fees getting screwed thanks to NFT bullshit which I thought was dead sometime back.

Luckily, BTC TX times and fees have almost gone back to normal pretty quickly which is the silver lining basically.

I left this thread open so that it can demonstrate the point that Bitcoin consensus really is decentralized and is not a censor as some hooligans on Twitter and Youtube claim  :)

Pretty sure the only "war" going on here is 'deluded people' versus 'reality'.  Reality always wins.



In the sense that devs are leaving policy matters for those securing the chain to decide for themselves, sure.  In any other sense, you're talking out of your arse.

You're the one asking devs to dictate policy by requesting that they implement rules to set the network policy so that it would prevent people transacting in ways you don't approve of (except it wouldn't).  You then argue that Core have too much power to set network policy and yet your solution to that perceived problem is to give them more power to set policy!?  What is wrong with your brain?  Besides which, devs have no desire to become arbiters of what constitutes "acceptable use".  You're just spouting populist nonsense.  



Then go ahead and change them.  You claim everyone feels the same way you do, so surely people would run code with your preferred changes to these opcodes.  If you believe Core's product isn't good enough and that your changes are undeniably better, make the code already.  You act like you have all the answers, but you're just an obnoxious gasbag who won't lift a finger to enact the change he claims "everyone wants".  You claim Core aren't doing a good enough job, but you won't do ANY job.  You can literally say whatever you like because you know you'll never have to prove it in practice.  And that's precisely why you'll never code anything.  Because if you did produce code, it would reveal you as the utter fraud that you are.  Because all you know how to do is spout populist nonsense.

On the one hand we have a team of devs who produce code that people freely choose to run.  On the other hand, we have a whiny malcontent who produces endless pages of whiny bullshit and absolutely nothing of value.  Take a wild guess as to which one is going to have more influence on the outcome of this situation.  The malcontent could change things if he had a competitive product of his own.  But he only has pages upon pages of crybaby screeching.



You've been researching for years and still have nothing tangible to show for it.  You can spend all your life forming opinions based on what you think you've learned, but if you don't spend at least a small amount of time and effort putting what you've learned into practice, you'll never accomplish any of your goals.  

Telling people to "do research" and then do nothing else other than asking for devs to do stuff for them is weak advice at best (particularly if you've spent the last who-knows-how-many-years insulting the devs who you're now asking for assistance from).  

What I'd suggest is that people do their research AND THEN ACT UPON THEIR FINDINGS.  Run some code once you know what it does.  Make some code.  DO SOMETHING.  If people aren't willing to act or make any actual changes based on what they've learned, they'll likely just turn into bitter, feeble, whiny sad-sacks, like franky1, who spend their entire, pathetic lives achieving absolutely nothing (and having just one of those around here is more than enough already, thank you).  



Social contract.  Unenforceable.  That process can easily be ignored.  You can "suppose" all you like, but it's beyond apparent that you've completely lost all grip on reality.  

Reality happens.  Your demented suppositions don't.

Not only is it impossible to force someone to adhere to such a process, there isn't even an incentive to do so.  Aside from which, backwards-compatible changes can easily be activated if only a small portion of the network wish to use them (If 5 people agree to have burgers, putting ketchup on 2 of the burgers is still 5 people having burgers, ketchup is opt-in and doesn't require a majority).  

And, as ordinals demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt, external third-party scripts have even less developmental oversight and can be coded by anyone and hosted anywhere to allow anyone to inject just about anything into the blockchain.  Protocol be damned.  And it's nothing to do with "soft rules" either, because people are injecting stuff into other blockchains which don't have any of the "soft rules" that franky1 bitches about.  

It's all just pie-in-the-sky franky1 populist drivel.

Cry more.

Indeed, it's not. But if you're watching yourself repeating the same things all over again, in every page of this board, every day with absolutely no positive response, regardless of whether you're right or not, you might need to rethink the solution. If nobody agrees with you, or only some inadequate minority, perhaps trying to convince everyone to adopt your notion is utter waste of time for you.

I get that you happened to enter Bitcoin early, and must be retired already, but honestly: don't you have something better to do? You're doing the same shit for 7 years straight, and the feedback is mostly negative.

blackhat

you are reciting your forum-wife mantra.. it doesnt mean his mantra is right because its echoed. nor right if it comes with ass kissery

what i said here is not "frankys solution" nor is it something i have been saying for the last 7 years
its standard common sense

as for my negative feedback
the same idiots you ass kiss are the ones circling the same feedback.. so its not even genuine

take your forum wife doomad
he cannot understand the concept of consent
i gave him a real world example of what consent is and he cried that i even mentioned it

as for gmax, he commented about that your clan went crying to him.. so its all your lil group not the wider community

as for you wanting me to not discuss certain things relevant.. eg core and code and bitcoin exploits are very relevant
plus this is a discussion form not a "f**k off away from bitcoin" forum

I didn’t understand shit from what you propose to solve this issue, so I’ll ask differently. Suppose a conditional idiot uploaded a picture with his favorite meme to the bitcoin blockchain and paid for this transaction at the market price, it was confirmed. As a result of what you propose to do, will he still be able to transfer this picture to another owner, again paying for the transaction at the market price?

I put the question in this aspect, because the problem that has arisen is not entirely of a technical nature. If the downloaded image has lost its value over time, this is acceptable, a common investment risk. If an evil hacker hacked into a hardware wallet, took possession of private keys and transferred the picture to his address, this is also acceptable, a common information security risk. But if you change the consensus rules to tighten them up and a valid entry in the blockchain becomes invalid, this is unacceptable.

firstly..
ordinals do not transfer ownership.. forget caseys description of his project and understand how bitcoin works. not caseys crud.. especially becasue his crud is about explorer display decision. not block data rules

the ordinal meme spam junk sits in witness. but nothing in that witness suggested what output it tags too
becasue the witness is associated to the inputs not the outputs

so a tx of
BC1PJUNKUTXO 0.0001  ->  BC1POUTPUT1 0.00000001
                                          BC1POUTPUT2 0.00000999
signed key: BC1PJUNKUTXO
extrabloatmeme
(tx fee 9000sat)

that extra bloat meme is not locked to any output. so none of those outputs actually own the meme
so thats the first problem.. the meme is just dead data of the now spent BC1PJUNKUTXO

secondly

if rules came back limiting witness space to only include real signatures that actually associate to the utxo spend input where by nothing other then signature proofs can belong in the witness area...
then a tx would be rejected at relay and not appear in a block IF THE RULES WERE ENFORCED AGAIN
meaning no more junk spam containing memes

thus no more junk spam = no more junk spam..!

as for you caring about moving ownership of junk spam.. again it is never proven in blockchain data that junk belongs to particular output.. never has.. thus its never been a NFT or a ownership thing..
the junk spam data has just always been dead data added to witness area and just sits there as dead data.

worded a different way
ordinals never had real intrinsic value because its just junk spam dead data of no purpose apart from to fill blocks with dead data.
the whole illusion of value. is just a scam of ripping people off. getting idiots to pay for something they can never truly own. because it doesnt follow any real world economic flow nor even any blockchain proof of transfer. its an illusion of transfer without proof within the blockchain data.

casey can say this month all memes move via first output.. .. but thats not locked and secured by blockdata proof to suggest output1 . no proof thats the case nor always be true to be the case...
casey can without changing block data decide all memes belong to output 2. and suddenly the hopeful/delusional person of output 1. now realises he didnt own the meme. becasue now in CASEYS VIEW output 2 owned it historically

for a real proof of transfer the proof needs to be part of the block data and locked in a form that cant be changed after the fact.

caseys scam is that his proposed transfer is not locked in blockchain proof. but done as a after effect of a user interface decision that can change by just changing what the user interface decides. which does not require blockchain data proof decision changes. just a explorer decision.(which can change without affecting data) thus its not proof at all

Not trying to play the Devil's advocate here but I don't think the problem is ordinals itself, I think the problem is the fact that no one in their right minds (sorry devs) accounted for the scalability issue that expansion could bring when it does come. I'm pretty positive that even if ordinals didn't come around, some other enterprise that would challenge bitcoin's capabilities will, and sadly it wasn't able to pass the challenge. On the other hand, it's a little concerning how massive the repercussions of Ordinals' existence brought, you wouldn't see such high fees and wait times in other networks and projects, makes me think what in the hell are they doing over there that makes every transaction in the BRC-20 that heavy. Far as I know they only work with a single sat for the main NFT itself, and a couple more to work on the transaction. If anybody could shed a light on this one that's going to be awesome.

I'm not one to blame devs either, but I think you're right here. Bitcoin was always going to be tested as it were, and ordinals is simply that first test (likely of many, so best get used to it). All it required was an incentive to inscribe data for high value on the blockchain, which was satisfied by the demand of those wanting these inscriptions such as Ordinals. Otherwise, without the financial incentive, this wouldn't be happening.


Actually, we saw exactly this with Ethereum in the past (and even recently/currently). During the NFT boom in 2021 the cost of transactions went through the roof, much higher than Bitcoin's fees have ever reached. It's not that comparable though as Ethereum isn't an immutable blockchain, but to say this doesn't happen in other networks simply isn't the case. The only relevance is that fees did eventually die down on ETH after the NFT boom, nothing to do with any upgrades either, and most importantly the high fees didn't "destroy" the network either like many naive participants suspect is possible for Bitcoin.

I think that I, you, the developers of the core, and any user of the bitcoin network, have the right to have a private opinion whether the pictures of frogs uploaded to the network are useless garbage or malicious spam, and even have the right to express this opinion publicly (but for the developers of the core, it is in their own interests best to be as careful as possible). But we can't ban it just because we don't like it. Because the owner of the picture with the frog will say that bitcoin is a scam, promised to keep its value and did not fulfill the promise - and we will have nothing to object to him. Who in their right mind would entrust their value to a network that, over time, could change the rules of the game and declare that value invalid garbage?

most of the "[not]NFT market" and the fee .. is actually not real cost..

the NFT market is not real millions of people randomly buying junk.. its a small group colluding and collaborating together.. you can spot this becasue if it was random people. then the movements would be constant. however any simple analysis can see that the memes dropped nearly all precisely on the same day. and suddenly the new scam(brc) started a couple days later. which means unless millions of people just randomly all decided at the same time to throw memes off a cliff and jump onto BRC .. then thats a miracle. however instead it was a small group of the meme creators selling and posting fake priced and trading to themselves to cause a fake market hoping to dupe idiots..

luckily not many idiots bought into it which is why it died off a cliff so quick

now with the brc crap. its again not some massive market of millions of people. its a small group of idiot creators again spamming to each other to fake a market demand. ..

though these scams will die out when idiots wise up.. the problem remains.. keeping the security gates open just means new spam wil start. new rounds of different spam different junk different scams
{brc20}{brc721}{brc777}{brc1155} .. and whatever next may come to scam people whilst bloating the blockchain with nonsense data

. all pretending to offer value. while all they are actually doing is bloating the blocks with dead useless data.

im just glad not many suckers got suckered into handing money to these scammers. and as proven by how fast the memes dropped off in recent months. just shows how little did the scam work

Perhaps our common problem and the reason for the misunderstanding is that neither you nor I have uploaded a single picture with frogs to the Bitcoin blockchain (I certainly have not). But if I understand correctly, the main difference from NFT on Ethereum is that it is not links to an external image that are loaded, but the image itself - it gets into the block, it is integrated into the block chain, and from an ordinary digital picture it becomes a unique digital entity, which cannot be copied, but can be transferred to another owner by making a new transaction. In this case, it is no longer garbage, regardless of the content of the picture and your attitude towards it. Well, or all bitcoin is garbage.

appearing in the blockchain is one thing... that is called DEAD DATA

however the "transfer" part. is not proven in blockdata.
because the data is in witness of the inputs signature association.. but it does not tag to which output deserves the transfer

there actually is a way to prove it. .. BUT they are not using a true proof of transfer. thus there is no transfer proof.

take this concept..

you write a contract on paper
the contract says Bill has 1000 sats
he pays 100 to Chris
he pays 400 to Dave
and 500 is lost to the contract notary for confirming the contract
its signed by bill and then bill puts a smiley face next to his signature

no where on the contract has the contract stated that the smiley face belongs to chris or dave or the notary

yet bill vocally says on his website(separate thing) that he thinks this month chris should own the smiley face
even if the smiley face is not put against chris's part of the contract. not is the smiley face written to be chrises within the contract itself

yes its on the piece of paper below the signature. but its not beside chrises part of the contract so no proof the smiley face belongs to chris specifically..
.. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

next month Bill can decide without changing the contract.. that actually dave owned it all along.
even though still. to all outsiders and rational people.. .. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

Are you saying that if I want to transfer ownership of a picture of a frog uploaded to the bitcoin blockchain, then I do not have to physically move this picture to the address of the new owner? That the change of ownership will not be reflected in the bitcoin blockchain in any way and the picture with the frog will remain at my address, where I originally uploaded it, and only the entry on some external site will change? If so, then this is really some kind of shit and I need to learn more about the brc-20 token protocol.

franky1 is once again trying to push his misunderstanding of how Ordinals works as the truth. For whatever reason he is fixated on the notion that something must be done according to how he thinks it should be done in order for it to be valid. This seems to be a recurring theme throughout his history on the forum.


You can't transfer the picture, physically or digitally, as it is "inscribed" in immovable space (witness data). You've never needed to be able to transfer it in order for the Ordinals protocol to function. Ownership of the picture is assigned to a particular satoshi (otherwise known as an "ordinal") during the inscription process. When the satoshi is transferred to a new address, that address becomes the owner of the inscribed data per the rules of the protocol.

Insisting that the inscription data has to also be transferred for the Ordinals NFT system to function is ridiculous, and here's why:

If I make an NFT and upload the image for it to imgur or something, nobody needs to transfer that image to a new web address each time the NFT is transferred. Nobody has ever thought this had to happen for NFTs to work, so why would the same not apply to Ordinals?

The main two differences with Ordinals are:

1) Instead of using a traditional, external file host, it uses the bitcoin blockchain as the host.
2) Instead of using a tokenization protocol ala ERC721 or Counterparty, it uses a colored coins system, assigning properties to individual satoshis.

Its actually pretty simple to understand if you are willing to understand it.

Well if there's a double spend bug and some users manage to double their Bitcoin holdings using the loophole, tell me, when the bug is fixed, can these users keep their doubled stashes?  ;D  You're trying to put it in such a way to make people think these NFT actually have value (which they don't). So how can they lose value if they don't have any value? And another thing: Bitcoin doesn't promise anything to anyone. It doesn't promise you will earn anything or even keep the money you invested. Theoretically, Bitcoin can go to 0 any moment. So, saying Bitcoin should keep some promise to the NFT owners is simply laughable.  ;D

And I really think that Bitcoin devs are not stopping this madness because somebody on the internet forum may think they're abusing their power or freedom is threatened but just because for some reason they don't consider it a threat to Bitcoin and it's health (yet). 

You seem to underestimate this weird meme economy and the size of the meme community. When Coinbase recently stated that Pepe frogs are “co-opted as a hate symbol by alt-right groups”, it caused such a flurry of indignation that they had to publicly apologize (https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1656688561742131201). Or take the same doge, this is initially an absolutely useless coin created as a joke and mined for change from litecoin, however, it has a huge army of fans, a stable place in the top 10 and a capitalization of $ 10 billion. I also find this strange, but I would be careful not to underestimate the power of a mob of idiots. Everyone has different value systems.

I think for 90% the general public, bitcoin is considered a kind of ponzi scheme, for them, bitcoin is garbage, and not just garbage, but environmentally harmful garbage that burns electricity in vain and does nothing useful, so moderate your meme snobbery, for most people lovers of meme tokens and bitcoin-maximalists are the same idiots.

yet you dont understand

for instance
the assigning properties to individual satoshis:
firstly his counting policy is OFF(miscounting. miss associating to which sats go where)..
secondly he can change his counting policy without affecting the block data.
thirdly the blockdata does not link witness of the input to any specific satoshi.. HIS UX(GUI/EXPLORER/DISPLAY/USER INTERFACE does) meaning as i said secondly.. he can change his counting policy without having to change the blockdata. but the result of changing at user display (his easy scam) means ownership changes even without changing the block data

i tried to simplify it down to ELI-5 (Explain Like Im 5) because some people just cant understand technical stuff.. they ask for it to be explained to them more simply
because when i do mention technical detail people cry that they cant understand it.

so i then explain it simply.. then we have the idiots crying again that they dont want to believe the truth because i am not talking to them like grown ups. even though they asked for it to be simplified and treat them as toddlers becasue of their tantrums and not showing any desire to learn as adults.

how about instead of crying both ways to deny the truth, to stay in dream land. can you actually do some research, math, economics, data flow scenarios. reading block data. and learn something. from real data. not caseys described scam wording

you seem to waste weeks finding ways to deny the illusion. rather than just spend hours doing the research..
look away from what casey says about his scams method of counting. and instead look at the real block data. the structure of monetary policy and spends. and proofs(lack of).

instead of using "trust in human because buddy X kissed me", try to use logic, math, code, economics, real data to guide you
trust the blockchain data and math.. not a project manager(that can change the way he counts(bad math))

again i do find it strange that nutildah continually says he is not financially motivated to promote ordinals.. yet is hell bent on making people believe caseys bad maths as being more factual than the actual blockdata/monetary policy/economics value flow.. that does not even count sats in the way casey does

for instance.
when spending value. the mining pools take the value first. where the transactions listed afterward show the outputs  signifying where the 'change' (remainder) should return/go to.

this means when a coinbase reward is being spent. the "first sat" of a block reward actually goes back to the block which contains and spending transaction. because the fee takes the "first sat"

yep economics and maths beats caseys deception and miscount

..
but if you want to believe that ordinals are associated with a outputs sats..(according to caseys explorer counting method display)
there are already alot of inscriptions in transactions where the outputs value is ZERO sats. thus. not even following any sats. yet are listed in inscriptions with an index.. thus the inscription index count is also off..

He proposes nothing. He merely wants to gaslight everyone into believing that the Core Developers are "evil", and that they should be replaced as the stewards of the network. That has ALWAYS been the big blockers' agenda. Roger Ver and Jihan Wu have given up and hard forked to the altcoin Bitcoin Cash, but some of the members of their Flat-Earthers association has obviously not given up.

 8)


Putting words in my mouth again, franky101?

This is what I said,

i laugh at you silly people.. you spend more weeks wasted on personality attacks. rather then using brain to learn bitcoin

let me guess. you dont want to learn about bitcoin becasue "franky said to learn it" .. is that your excuse?
goodluck with that

i feel sorry that your only on this forum to talk about franky. and evade talking about bitcoin..
but atleast your methods explain why your still penny pinching for sats using forum sig campaigns rather then being self sustaining wealthy by understanding more,
maybe if you tried to learn a thing or two about how things work you would not need to penny pinch for scraps. and instead actually earn a proper comfortable living situation

so just for once try to learn bitcoin not "project managers kiss ass techniques"

We've been over all this too many times before. What it boils down to is your refusal to either learn or accept the rules of the protocol for what they are. You think things have to work according to how they work in your head, and they do not.

"But the rules could change at any moment!" isn't a valid argument. The rules of this forum could change at any moment, yet people still continue to use it. Coming up with "But what ifs" is just a way to avoid admitting that you don't really understand how ordinal transfers works, despite multiple (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.msg61880961#msg61880961) hand-holding attempts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446983.msg62013978#msg62013978) to explain it to you.

And your whole "nutildah is secretly invested in ordinals" scenario is just another dumb "what if." People can believe me when I say I've never purchased one and never will, or not. You're continuing to bring it up because you can't actually debate your points on a technical level.

The only reason I said anything here is because you continue to spew misinformation about how Ordinals works. You're intent on miseducating people for reasons beyond my understanding.

BITCOIN is a system where once the blockchain data is set. that is then confirmed immutible data that cannot change because it fits the rules and the rules fit the data

by softening the rules to let junk in. and then say that some project managers explorer display of said junk is the rules even though their display can change at a moment notice.. that is not a rule. that is just a display for noobs who the project manager wants to scam

caseys description of "ownership" can change because casey can say in his "special explorer" the meme in transactionXXX of block 7XX,XXX now belongs to output 2 instead of one. then thats not a rule


so instead of trusting a project managers special website comments.. instead follow the block data and logic and math. not some project managers weak soft description of what his "special explorer" weakly suggests. which can change at a moments notice to suggest something else

trust math, data, economics, logic, not project managers website comments
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

im not even asking you to trust me. im asking you to do your own research away from comments on websites

i do laugh that nutildah. pretends to debunk by using an example. yet the examples he uses debunks him
he then says how blockdata doesnt show ownership and that it requires a "special explorer" to show it.

again debunking his original premiss that its real proof on the blockchain

---

ok lets try this one more time lets use nutildahs own example against him

first (wrong)theory. is that first sat goes to output1..
well economics, math, monetary policy is that first sat actually goes to fee's and the remainder goes to the destination(people call it the 'change'(left over denomination) after a transaction)

but lets do a nutildah and ignore economic basics. and for hypothetical example just roll with his pretense he beleives.

so the reward went to
128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

by which the spend of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
is not the first in but the 4th. meaning there is 0.16738313 extra added to the mix before the "first sat of block reward" gets spent.
meaning if you follow the value (ignoring fee spends for this theory) the 0.16738314th sat of the 5btc is the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

(at this point its not important as the next spend of the first output is 5btc so somewhere within that 5btc is the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount)
again lets ignore that some sats are lost as fees .. and just follow the output taint(lets pretend the theory had economic logic(it doesnt but lets pretend.)

so now the "block reward first sat" is in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
which nutildah thinks now strangely moved to 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

however.. reading the actual data
the majority of the 5btc moves to ITSELF (1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW again)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd

yep the majority of the 5btc (which includes the funds of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og go straight back to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW ,, not 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

then
that spend
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/f6a0b019ee7bfaf05fc76de299cce67bb3438fb8a9a5e6ffbd4a2ae84cc483ef
does not give the value to 1AEX2g1o1z9yzqsNfwamcktVCdTgfvTThb because that first output has not spent more then 0.16738313 to reach the 0.16738314th sat to be the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount
so the first sat of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/6399520d225392af07662472b5ed33d07f46b8a244b878f16cb664b84b6948a4
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/7f11edada5069a03e3d430a0c64f2ecf10b422909f302a8c81b8614dfdc21917
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again

and this continues for many many taint hops wher the "first sat" remains according to casey theory.. in the !GQ address
..
so while the person who is key owner of 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ multisig thinks he owns the first sat of a blockreward
the theory of taint following would actually show after many hops that 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW has kept that 'first sat'
according to the ordinal theory.
..
but hey nutildah seems to forget the other facts of math logic and economics that further broke the theory.. but if you ignore math, logic, economics. and just follow the theory. even the theory shows that 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  doesnt own the valued "first sat" of a block reward

Nope, because the output in question is a change output, not a spend output, so they're considered to be secondary according to "first in, first out." Think about when you purchase something for £3 with a £10 note. What happens first: do you make the payment first or do you get your change first? Like miner fees, change outputs always follow spend outputs, regardless of their positioning in the construction of the transaction.


Of course it does. You just fail to sufficiently understand the theory. And BTW, 3M4B... doesn't own the "first sat" anymore, it got sent several more times before arriving at its present location, all of which I laid out and provided an explanation for in the post you quoted.

https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki

Regardless of your personal interpretation of things, if you were correct and I was incorrect, the "uncommon sat" wouldn't be where the ordinals explorer (https://ordinals.com/sat/1932164375000000) shows it to currently be.

nutty

the THEORY and the EXPLORER
are not proving real math/economics. logic..

its as you say a THEORY
and that THEORY has been busted/debunked proved wrong

because of many factors..

you want to ignore reality, math, economics/ logic. and instead just "beleive" in human description of a project developer
even though that developer can change his theory.

again look les at the kiss assing a dev approach you apply and instead actually use logic math and blockdata.. not some lame project developers "special explorer" that doesnt even follow its own theory to the letter

All I did was offer you information to better your understanding of how ordinal transfers work, straight from the horse's mouth, and you once again ignored it in favor of continuing to be mad and confused. If that's the way you want to live your life, so be it, just don't expect your misinformation to go unchallenged.

But it's no mere personality attack from me, no? You actually gaslighted me, and many other newbies/plebs into believing that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right way to scale Bitcoin. You also were pushing on the narrative that Bitcoin "split into two into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", and you were trying to make everyone believe that the altcoin "Bitcoin Cash" has as much right to claim to be "the Real Bitcoin" as "Bitcoin Core".

You brought it on yourself, and that's a fact.

windfury.. you think you were made to go insane because your forum daddy said that bigger blocks didnt happen and instead that pushing people off the network over to another network is how to "scale bitcoin"

ok heres a lesson. imagine a grocery store wants more customers to scale his business,.. do you think that the solution is to tell customer to go to another store that sells different things is a way to scale his business. or a way to lose customers..

so when doomad, your forum daddy is telling you to tell bitcoiners to not want a supermarket to expand into a hyper market, but instead tell customers to go elsewhere if they dont like that the produce in the store has become a premium of 4x-100x higher. you have failed economics of scaling a system

anyways..

well a hard fork did occur.. even ythough your forum daddy wants to call it a UASF .. yep a hard fork occured on august 1st. but not the way that many wanted.. (including me) becasue it was done via a mandatory blackmail of censoring blocks.. (yep block rejecting any block that didnt flag segwit)(kinda funny your forum daddy loved the idea of censoring blocks..

you pretend it was just me that was against the mandated blackmail.... HA i laugh.. thousands of people wanting BITCOIN scaling via a fair true super majority activation without the mandated blackmail. where if the core devs could not reach true decentalised super majority then core would have to go back to the drawing book, compromise some of their crap and actually provide something that the community would accept..

people wanted bitcoin scaling. meaning more affordable transaction space.
(dont confuse bitcoin with other networks pretending to be bitcoin)
people did want transactions to be miscounted and then premium rated with 4x fee. nor have the space jammed up with junk limiting real bitcoin utility..

anyways
well even with a hard fork.. and a 4mb block.. the devs did not allow SCALING of tx count. because their agenda was to pretend to satisfy the masses with "bigger blocks"(false narrative of the purpose of the 4mb) but still hold up the tx data to a 1mb limit. where only junk witness crap gets to use up the other 3mb

yep they thought that signatures (or junk) should take up 3x more space than lean bitcoin txdata.. which is their first ill conception and the start of the crud thats now escalated

the debate was not "bigger blocks"(made for bloating) it was more space to allow more transactions(bitcoin scaling).. which you still seem to not understand the difference.. which is where you think you are going insane

so they have not helped with scaling by not doing a straight forward block scaling of true 4mb of tx data space.

but hey. you instead suckered up to doomad who hates more transactions on the blockchain he wants people to move to other networks.. as do you.. and you think that its the only solution becasue its the only story you have been told..  so you think "scaling" is to just chuck people off the network

if you have gone insane over the years with your thoughts. thats on you and your forum daddy's echoed scripts you follow

bigger blocks filled with junk dead jpeg data is not scaling bitcoin. even if you want to call it "bigger blocks"

the actual bitcoin scaling was about ability to fit MORE transactions per block.
learn the difference. stop listening to your forum daddy and do some independent research

you half a dozen lemmings that love this cludgy stuff occurring in recent years are all singing from the same stupid hymn sheet where you trust project managers comments more then block data and rules

try to escape the echo chamber and learn about whats been changed and its effects. because yep CORE changed the rules and softened alot of things to cause these issues.

No franky101, I'm talking about the gaslighting that you and jonald_fyookball did during the scaling debate. Plus your trust page has two negative ratings from gmaxwell and achow, two of the most trusted members of BitcoinTalk. Why should everyone trust you? I believe the only reason why you're not banned in the forum is because the mods know you'll just make another account.

the trust rating by the MODERATORS. is due to the MODERATORS receiving cries from YOUR CLAN of idiots..
where YOU lot were telling gmax that you have been gaslit and crying about multiple things where he got annoyed with all the crying

grow up stop crying and instead do some research. stop trusting personalities and stop thinking anything that goes against your forum daddies script is wrong becasue it makes you feel insane to contradict your forum daddy..
instead take a few months away from your forum daddy. try to learn bitcoin from the code itself and the blockchain data. and actually learn whats really happening to bitcoin.

take the chance of yourself to grow a backbone and some confidence to not need ass kissing influencers to tell you what to say. for once actually say something different to their script

learn bitcoin. not sales tactics to tell people to use another network if they dont like the authoritarian god complex messing with bitcoin


try to look at the block data. look at the flags of the activations of certain things. look at what rules have got softened. what formats no longer are checked what limits have been removed. then look at your forum daddies scripts he was telling you. and realise he was the one in the wrong.
he for years said there was not a mandatory activation that caused a fork. even though he then mis spoke and said that a super majority is not natural and near impossible to happen where he is against super majority activations. yet to explain how segwit reached unnatural 100% was him admitting to the mandatory censorship of non segwit blocks to then be able to show a unnatural 100%

also he pretended there was not hard fork. and yet anyone can see BCH exists.
yes he spend years denying the existing of a hard fork denying the existence of BCH. pretending that segwit activated as a consensual non controversial user soft activation.. even when funnily enough not many user nodes were ready to support segwit. nor were many merchants. heck even blockchain.info didnt support segwit until a year later

the whole segwit promises never manifested. doomads mantra's to you that segwit was the solution for scaling.. yet for years after the average tx per day stayed the same or less than the summer pre segwit

so stop being a blind obedient follower of doomads mantra. and dont think he is right because his forum wife echos doomads sentiments. and instead do your own research away from influencers comments. and instead read actual bitcoin data and code.

Wait a minute, this is all getting very confusing. I thought WindFury and Blackhatcoiner were forum-sisters, but now you're saying Blackhatcoiner is DooMAD's forum wife? So Blackhatcoiner is actually his own mother, that's interesting.

My apologies to @NotATether but I asked ChatGPT to write me a story about this relationship (in the form of a medieval knight's tale).

I'm titling it Bitcoin Civil War

funny story nutty..
well when i imagine what they are like.. they sound like the hill billy hicks so yea the step-mother can be the sister at the same time.. if you get my drift after all the daddy doesnt believe in consent

but im not the beacon of hope. i just speak frank about things other idiots are too afraid to think about or admit to themselves or others.. i do it without ass kissing princesses. however you do have the other characters personalities displayed well

they are stuck in a fairy tale

as for you..
i hope you have atleast spend some time counting sats via blockchain data of inputs and outputs instead of just trusting caseys "special software"..  and noted that your exampled demonstration of blockreward shows the "first sat" stays in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW  for many taint hops.. and never went to the 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  address..

please dont just double check caseys special display.. actually use real blockchain data (the source) and count sats the proper way. then you will see caseys theory is broke

Actually, there is a third group too, which has the characteristics of both groups, they are against these ordinals tokens as this will affect the reputation of BTC but on the other hand, they are they included in the second group of shit-token traders means they have made hell lot of profit in these BRC-20 tokens that they do not want to take any sides here in this civil war. They just want to observe it.

But i am with you dear OP, well, i have not bought any BRC-20 tokens yet and not planning to i wish all of these tokens comes to an end so that these shit traders learn their lesson about playing with BTC.
Yes, I think you are talking about Binance halts on withdrawals, which will really affect the market as a whole, as it counts into the top 10 exchanges and covers a hell lot of trading volume in crypto. But what i think is they are not trying to create fud as they were only trying to reduce the transaction fees which were skyrocketing. As, no access to trade BTC will decrease the transactions and fewer transactions means less load/congestion on the network which as a result, impacts the BTC TC fee.
How? i mean i am not a dev or any expert then how can i contribute in this civil war against ordinals, well, if this current problem of congestion on the network solves then i have no issue with the existence of BRC-20 tokens as still as of today (21 May) meme pool is showing that there are more than 277,155 TXs which will take further 12 days to be processed and fee are still high for small transactions no wonder its nothing in front of big transactions. All i can say talk about its cons and pros but how is that going to solve this issue because it can only be solved by the dev o BTC and if they come up with new release or any other solution so that this solves the issue.

 ::)

Stop being a drama-queen.

Achow and gmaxwell will never give anyone a negative trust rating if truly there wasn't a reason to do it. Plus gmaxwell literally banned you from posting in Development & Technical subforum.

It was something you did, franky101. You're not the victim here, and no one is crying. We're actually laughing.

I can't refuse I always have a good time while I read his posts, but only to realise "a phew moments later" that it was a waste of time. But I think this is exactly what he looks for. Attention!

By supporting the BRC20 spam by minting their own tokens, they are supporting the token. It doesn't matter how much money they make, so nobody can feign abstinence here unless they do not use these tokens at all.


Exactly.



The BRC-20 war cries are centered around one platform: Twitter. The average dude can tweet against them as much as he likes, and also report some BRC20 accounts as being harmful, in particular if they are initiating rugpulls of BRC20 tokens as well.

I still prefer trading on Brc-20. The cost is cheaper than btc and other networks. Popularity used by many people. Btc is the cryptocurrency with the highest capitalization, but because of its rarity, the fee is higher.

In this case the left-wing and right-wing groups certainly present with different perspectives. Anyone can contribute to the conversation by engaging in crossword puzzles on platforms like Twitter like you say with different opinions and I think that's normal. Ultimately it is the developer who can apply the changes to solve the problem.