leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)?
We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks. Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules. 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 was merely saying, if everyone went into consensus for a hard fork, the communuty shouldn't waste the opportunity to include more important changes in the code? Changes like to make the network running a full node more efficient perhaps? Or anything to improve scaling. REAL SCALING, not the one the big blockers sell. Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?
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. Get the context of my posts, I never said that it needed a hard fork ser. |
|
|
|
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.
It's actually VERY low. The data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rateIt 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. And for some context, Low Unemployment data = High Demand, High Demand = High Inflation, High Inflation = Federal Reserve needs rate hikes to lower inflation, which needs lower demand, which also needs HIGH unemployment - a recession. They wouldn't tell you that, but that needs to happen and it has always happened a majority of the time when the economy has "over-heated". The Federal Reserve might start to pivot when they recognize that Unemployment is starting to surge. |
|
|
|
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.
But it's the most important, highest one that has a direct impact on demand, and therefore has the most direct impact on inflation. I don't want to make any predictions/forecasts, BUT I believe the Federal Reserve will only start cutting rates aggressively IF the unemployment rate starts surging, causing a recession. |
|
|
|
Full node operators can filter Ordinals from their mempool using Ordisrespector, but it won't make a difference because not the whole network would be doing it. Those transactions would still propagate.
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's not what I personally want, but their full node, their mempool.
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.
Satoshi technically designed a permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant network, if we start calling for censorship for their use case of the blockchain, they might start calling for censorship for our use case of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have been on the rise ever since Ordinals became a big hit. There's a lot of NFT inscriptions that's making BTC slower and expensive to use. We've already seen some criticism by Bitcoin users all across social networks (Twitter). Last time I've checked, TX fees were as high as $30. It's insane!
Nah, although the fees is still high as compare before wherein we can pay 1 sat/vByte, now the fees is between 16 - 35 sat/vByte, and I think that is manageable, still less than 2$. I'm beginning to wonder if nodes will eventually reject Ordinals transactions, leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)? If that happens, we'll be heading back towards the era of the scaling debate which lead to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Do you think the new hard fork will be a success? Will it destroy/ruin Bitcoin? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.  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. Full node operators can filter Ordinals from their mempool using Ordisrespector, but it won't make a difference because not the whole network would be doing it. Those transactions would still propagate.
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.
Possible, plausible, probable.  |
|
|
|
We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?
From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression." Please tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bitcoin always have the abiity to store arbitrary data pre-Taproot? Plus "Satoshi envisioned"? That's being ideological, no?
This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.
Technically it's a permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant ledger. Any user, technically, can use it in different ways as long as it follows the consensus rules.
Being permissionless and censorship resistant are features of this payment system.
Now that payment system is being halted by a bug that was introduced.
It's the feature of the network. |
|
|
|
|
I've read through the debates from both sides of the argument and played Devil's Advocate on one side, and then the other. After reading many opinions from early users, technical people, and fellow plebs, I agree with the argument that making an ideological debate out of this is a mistake.
We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?
|
|
|
|
The CPI results are out and it's not too shabby. It's come in at 4.9% instead of the 5.0% that was expected. The core readings stayed put where they were predicted to be, so that's pretty much on par with what everyone was thinking. But what does that mean for us? Well, the price is currently hovering around the first resistance level, so it's not really time to jump in just yet. We don't wanna risk getting burned, especially when we're still waiting to see how things will develop. That being said, my prediction of an uptrend formation is still looking pretty good. I need more confirmations on the short term charts, and then start looking for some long setups. If we can develop a good uptrend here, then we definitely wanna ride that wave and make some gains.  What's your projection for the U.S. CPI during the months coming ahead? Will it continue to go down and give the Federal Reserve an opportunity to "ease"/pause their rate hikes? Will the U.S. have a "soft landing"? Or will we see more 25 BPS hikes? The low unemployment data makes me believe that the Federal Reserve will not either ease or pause because doing it will definitely make inflation surge again. It happened during 1976 when Volcker, the Fed Chairman during that time, eased rates prematurely, then he was forced to raise rates more aggressively during 1977 to 1980 bringing recession in the country. I'm merely an arm chair economist who likes to discuss, debate, and learn about different topics about Economics and Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)?
We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks. Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules. Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty? |
|
|
|
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. 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.
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.
Like scammers? |
|
|
|
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. 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? |
|
|
|
Some people are calling it an "attack"? Thank the "attackers" for making Bitcoin more valuable from an economic perspective.
Im curious if this is really an attack like to fud on bitcoin but rather than an additional application of bitcoin through ordinals which is found by someone. However the utlity of those ordinals somehow vague and only for trading through their dapps. Unless someone could step up and make it more useful instead of an expensive jpeg. The creation of Ordinals itself, and as is constructed by Casey Rodarmor, isn't an attack. The ability to store data somewhere in the Taproot input script was always there, also the same during pre-Taproot. There was always an ability to store data onchain. But what Ordinals could be, is an attack vector.
Well still early maybe some satoshi like genius could fix the high rate fees and include those ordinals on bitcoin chain without affecting. I believe someone will solve this if not now maybe for quite sometime.
Real scaling? That would mean finding a way to make data that has to be processed by each node smaller and smaller, and therefore making what the network requires from full nodes lower and lower. |
|
|
|
Im afraid this will not go lower sooner or later, as long the main problem isn't solved or at least removed which i don't think it will possible in the next few months.
As for your problem, i'd better use another altcoin available temporarily for deposits to avoid higher fee and longer time of confirmation.
It will go lower. Demand has ALWAYS been variable, and users will either start waiting for cheaper fees to save their coins or simply run out of coins first if they continue paying for high fees. High fees might also be a blessing. It forces people with paper-hands to HODL while demand for Bitcoin goes higher. Who would pay exorbitant fee-rates unless there was high demand for block space. High demand for block space = high demand for Bitcoin to pay for fees = eventually higher price for Bitcoin. Some people are calling it an "attack"? Thank the "attackers" for making Bitcoin more valuable from an economic perspective. |
|
|
|
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
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Will there be a fork? No.
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". |
|
|
|
@OP I don't think the transaction fees will be cheap in very soon because there's no implementation yet to stop BRC-20 or maybe it's impossible to stop. I think the current fee will become a new normal, just like Ethereum network. Or ask your favorite casino to accept deposits/withdrawals through the Lightning Network. I believe it's not just the best time to start asking, it has now become absolutely very necessary as a Bitcoin-only user.
Usually a casino is really slow to updating a new development, this because they're either focus to other sectors e.g. promotion, gambling provider etc. I can't remember which casino have adopt lightning network from someone in recommend it in this forum, I only know the casino was already accept lightning network from the beginning. I believe they will have no choice. They either accept that they ignore their share of the Bitcoin user market, or implement Lightning as soon as possible. Because if some casinos decide that they won't onboard users through Lightning, there are other casinos that definitely will, THEN they get a bigger slice in the Bitcoin user market/become more competitive. |
|
|
|
The unemployment rate is not a condition, but rather one of the indicators. It is difficult to be effective in the fight against inflation with a low level of unemployment, because, experiencing a shortage of free personnel, enterprises are forced to fight for them by raising wages, and this, in turn, continues to spin the flywheel of inflationary expectations. So yes, you're right - as long as US unemployment remains low, you can continue to expect interest rates to rise or stay the same until enough businesses fail or go through massive layoffs.
You are correct that unemployment rate is an indicator which reflects the overall health of economy, how lower unemployment rate rate can directly impact inflation as it can create upwards pressure on wages as employers complete for a smaller pools of available workers. Someone has been learning! You're just one of the very few in the forum who truly got the concept. The majority of people have been gaslighted by the misinformation and gaslighting being spread in the media.
Inflation is a complex economic phenomenon, that can be influenced by many factors, but I think oil price play main role in its escalation. therefore, if oil prices were start to falling significantly, it could potentially ease inflationary pressure and lead to a pause in interest rates increase.
It's a MONETARY phenomenon. The "supply side inflation" narrative doesn't explain why inflation is sticky. Simple good sense will tell us that if there's too much money in circulation = more demand. |
|
|
|
Remember when Bitcoin could still be used to pay and be paid with? Those were the days...
I'm afraid those days are over. With Bitcoin getting spammed like crazy with Ordinals transactions, fees will only get worse over time. Not even the LN will do any help (it requires an on-chain TX to open/close a channel, after all). Either the majortiy pays a low fee, or developers increase on-chain TX capacity to solve this dilemma. Ser, with all due respect, that won't solve the problem. Because increasing the block size limit will just make the attack vector through Ordinals bigger. You know what they will do? Inscribe high definition videos of their dicks and doing farts, instead of just static dick pics and fart sounds. Until then, we'll have no choice but to pay a high fee for each BTC transaction. There always the option of using an alternative cryptocurrency with low fees such as LTC and TRX. The NFT hype won't last forever, so BTC network fees should decline sooner or later. Just my opinion Or the Lightning Network for those people like us who want to use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Apparently Satoshi had never read page 35 of the Standards for efficient cryptography, SEC 1: Elliptic Curve Cryptography published on 2009 on Symmetric Encryption Schemes before writing this wrong reply  Unfortunately, ECDSA can only sign signatures, it can't encrypt messages
Post #15 is a better fit response to the Ordinals Attack (slightly modified below) It could use a separate infrastructure to pass messages, maybe just put a hash of the message in the transaction to prove that the transaction is for the order described in the message.
I.E. Side Chain. . I'm very confused why they're forcing themselves to use the Bitcoin blockchain, with its inefficiencies, and inconveniences for NFTs and their BRC-20 tokens. Tokens which are also forced to be NOT truly fungible, NOT divisible, and NOT trustless because Bitcoin itself is very limited for what they want to build. UNLESS, Ordinals is being used as an attack vector. The name Casey Rodarmor will always be remembered everytime Ordinals is being used as an attack vector. The unlucky guy to have discovered and introduce the Taproot feature. |
|
|
|
High unemployment. I'm talking about high unemployment in the United States, and a recession there has always caused a contagion across the world.
It's not merely an opinion that the reason why Jerome Powell can't stop raising rates because of "sticky inflation", and "sticky inflation" will only go down if consumer demand goes down. But how does it go down? It will only go down if people lose their jobs, symptom of a recession. BUT unemployment is still very low, which means Jerome Powell will keep raising rates until there isn't enough money in circulation for companies to pay the wage-earners their salaries.
The unemployment rate is not a condition, but rather one of the indicators. It is difficult to be effective in the fight against inflation with a low level of unemployment, because, experiencing a shortage of free personnel, enterprises are forced to fight for them by raising wages, and this, in turn, continues to spin the flywheel of inflationary expectations. So yes, you're right - as long as US unemployment remains low, you can continue to expect interest rates to rise or stay the same until enough businesses fail or go through massive layoffs. But it's the primary indicator, and it's actually common sense, and it's the reason why the Federal Reserve is tightening the money supply. The other two posters don't get it, but I'm very confident they will when everything starts to unwind. The Federal Reserve won't say it out loud in public, but what do rate hikes' actually do? Kill demand and it cannot be achieved without a high unemployment rate. Check these charts. Teal = Fed Funds Rate, Orange = CPI, Blue = Unemployment Level. Observe that after the Federal Reserve's rate hikes, high unemployment peak followed a year at least later. It happened during Volker's time during 1983 and Bernake's time during 2009/2010. Powell's time is coming, let's observe what happens for the rest of 2023.    |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
