That's not fear of missing out if you didn't buy any PEPE coin after the pump. FOMO becomes much more meaningful if a trader rushes to buy a coin at the top after the pump and then, shortly afterward, the coins dumps.

But then, there are still more opportunities out there, don't focus and regret on the missed opportunities. Always look forward 

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so you not realise your about 12 years out of date of blaming solo miners..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

And how people can fly today? Do they have biologically attached wings all the time? No, they use vehicles with wings, that can carry many people at the same time, in the same direction. You don't have to put any physical wings on your body, and fly in the same way as birds. Also, releasing a plane does not mean that you have to take down some birds to start your flight.

The same here: the situation is not that such ideas are wrong on principle. What makes them wrong, is trying to put all of them directly on Bitcoin, using on-chain transactions, and using transaction data directly (instead of using for example commitments, that would be sufficient, and would require no additional on-chain data, then your transaction would be indistinguishable from the regular one).

What are your thoughts?

Great idea but why not directly embed a *solid* language in your few transaction-bytes instead, like c++ for example.
Jokes aside, as already pointed out as long as which-ever-language is not part of the Bitcoin protocol, nothing will happen.  

And hopefully onchain program code (aside from the few op-return commands) will never be a thing with Bitcoin. No need for another turing-complete megachain. Just sidechain that shit or use a normal centralized server, which is probably the better solution in 99.9% of cases anyway.

Wait.... Just bought a Ledger wallet a week ago. I have some ETh inside. Should i take them off? Is it unsafe ?

It would be fool to think that they don't understand the basic. Question is why they are pretending that the don't have the basic understanding. Who is behind all these?
Let me guess, it's those who are printing notes and doing everything from the tax payers money.

Question remains.
The device is not an offline device then?
Someone please answer it.

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.

Well the Bitcoin node doesn't have to execute the scripts. The people that care about the scripts would do that and they could easily verify the validity of the scripts. The effect would be something like a side chain, but embedded in the chain itself.

I don't know if it, or something similar, is a good idea or not, but if it valuable and economically viable, it will happen.

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.

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?

Technically it should be blockchain which is getting used here and not the bitcoin. Blockchain is the real highway and other coins or tokens are just the vehicle riding on them. In similar fashion Ordinals NFT is using branch on the blockchain.

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.
 

you do realise POOL MANAGERS take most the fee's not the asic owners(most pools share payments are the main reward not the fee element)

you do realise POOL MANAGERS can spend their own income in their own block templates(not zero confirm relay) where they give themselves a high fee(returning funds to themselves AT NO COST) but causing the crappy fee estimator of EVERYONE ELSE to be high

Upgrades and development of the Bitcoin blockchain can be implemented even without Hardfork.  Softfork is enough since Segwit and Taproot had been implemented through soft-fork.  So I do not think that there is a need for Hardfork in order to solve the current problem.

I think removing Bitcoin Ordinals in the blockchain does not need hardfork, the developer just needs to disable the feature that allows it and it can be done without hardforking the network.

I hope to add the source and modify the images so that we can follow them with you. Reading the topic now is almost impossible.

I don't know where you got the data that the unemployment rate is so high, but I will use this source as a reference for the discussion.

Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

It is true that the rate of 3.4% is a little high, but it is much lower than the rates for the year 2022, when inflation was high, which means that the Federal Reserve’s policy of raising interest rates, which started from the same period, had a positive effect on reducing the number of unemployment.

I agree that the data still needs more months to judge its accuracy, but it is good compared to the state of the economy.

I think unemployment is just one of the factor from many which is either indirect symptom of inflation. Unemployment will only reduce the burden from industrialist shoulders to minimise the investment done on cost to company. This indirectly increases the revenue and profitability so that they could pay higher taxes. That’s how whole thing works in corporate sector.

However this is just one factor we are discussing here. It does not fully contribute to the enigma. From small business owner to farmer or from car dealer to manufacturer everything pushes the market demand up and down resulting into adjusted economic cycle and inflation fluctuates accordingly.

Right now demand is disturbed due to hiked interest rates and its not other way round tbh.

Do we all want censorship from Bitcoin full node operators and miners on our transactions?

I believe that if they filter and censor transactions from Ordinals, they will be able to do the same for coins related to CoinJoin transactions or any reason they think is bad, serious and should be censored.

It is not what Satoshi Nakamoto designed for Bitcoin and it is not what the Bitcoin community have tried to maintain since 2009.

Should we break it because of Ordinals?

My answer is very strong, No, I don't want it and I don't think we should have it.

Nah, although the fees is still high as compare before wherein we can pay 1 sat/vByte, now the fees is between 16 - 35 sat/vByte, and I think that is manageable, still less than 2$.


Depends on the nodes if they will eventually reject Ordinals, the point of contention is that it's business and they are making big money because we try to outbid each other to get our transaction to get into the next block, so that debate is going on right now.

For all we know, those entities spamming bitcoin's network right now are the same individuals back in 2017 wherein we have a debate whether to increase block or not.