funny.. coming from the guy that adores cludgy large transactions of upto 3.96mb to continue...

funny.. coming from the guy that wants people to prune thus no longer be full nodes.. both by not requiring to need to fully validate transactions (your love of backward compatibility of telling people they dont need to upgrade their node when new features arrive) and your adoration of pruning data thus not having FULL data to analyse or pass to other peers.

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cores centralist authoritarian principles..

funny how you pretend to want to make bitcoin affordable. whilst being a hypocrite by celebrating when fee's go high

you really are the biggest bullsh*tter and hypocrite in this forum right now. way above some of the ICO scammers

you dont want these crappy deadweight memes and useless json data to stop. which reveals that you dont care about bitcoins security or economy or ethics or morality. all you care about is promoting whatever crap thing might cause people to want to jump over to your favoured sponsored subnetwork, even if that subnetwork is broke and flawed

as for derailing. i have constantly talked about WHO and WHAT caused the junk of ordinals to occur and everything i said is related to what caused it and whats preventing it from being undone and what ways it can be undone ..

you however want to avoid the topic and make it "all about franky" trying to avoid any negative speak of the actual developers that caused this fiasco and continued softening of the rules that lead to these annoyances that have affected many hundreds of thousands of bitcoiners

the most power ethereum ever managed was 800peta.. which is not even 0.25% of the bitcoin network

we have moved far passed GPU days
an average asic these days can do 200,000 more hashes than a gpu
heck you can get USB miners that do more than a GPU

you dont need to clog the mempool of users to cause fee mania. as proven dozens of times over the years.. the mempool clog of users nodes is the reaction not the cause.
the cause is what pools allow into their blocks

and by the way.. 32,000tx of tx that are ~250bytes. meaning 0.25btc a tx meaning 8000BTC for a 2 hour non event that dissipates after two hors thus wasted 8k btc for a non event..

unlike other fee mania methods involving transactions that do get into blocks. thus can cost a pool nothing if organised right. and can sustain for far far longer

mining pools dont need to first attack users mempools to cause fee mania

however if the topic was "what if core try to maximize fees by congesting the network?!"
then the answer would be doing what they are already doing by messing with the users mempool and relay limits to reject/prune cheap fee's to never reach a pool, causing everyone to pay more just to get seen by a pool

many years ago (before the fee wars priced out utility) i visited some 3rd world countries and they loved having EASY access to an international currency that were offering remote working opportunities where the average wage was paid in 1st world countries wage amounts. it allowed them to take the small jobs 1st worlders thought were minimum wage and impractical but were luxury wages for the 3rd worlders

usually with fiat. to get a fiat paid job usually requires people having bank accounts and social security numbers and proof of residency and tax ID and such. meaning there was a barrier of entry for foreign workers getting a job hosted by a 1st world nation.. or if the 1st world nation were paying a 3rd world nation in fiat. they would under pay them far far far below 1st world nations minimum wage.

but bitcoin cut through that red tape. and did allow alot of opportunity for 3rd world nations to work for 1st world nations and get wages at the equivalent of 1st world nations

ive seen it happen less and less now. not just where bitcoin tx fee's have turned into multiple hours of 3rd world nations minimum wage .. but also with new regulations about taxing bitcoin and businesses needing to be audited and show accounts meaning they are starting to play the fiat rules when using bitcoin..

..but with that said. there are still alot of opportunities around

the obvious way. by pools not including your transaction unless your fee meets their desired minimum..
isnt this the whole point of your topic. trying to think of ways to cause fee mania again.. via pools

seems you dont know the basics of most things. because you think its a users mempool that does transaction selections for blocks. maybe you need to realise its actually pools that select the transactions that go into blocks. not users nodes.

but i did find it funny how your scenario in this topic is you trying to mess TEMPORARILY with users mempool of zero-confirm transactions and cancelling them before they get into a block. thus have nothing to do with fees of transaction that pools select of what they want to see in a block.. you know, blocks.. you know the block data where real estimate of priority are found.. you know blocks created by pools.. (or maybe you dont know these things)

but anyway you have much to learn so ill give you a break and give you some time to learn. try not to waste it on social drama. and instead actually learn some stuff

"someone better suited" = you are falling yet again for the mindset of the need of singular maintainer

you then after the snip speak of groups.. but ignoring the singular brand that does all the maintaining that does not listen to the community that does not pay them.. but listens to its corporate sistership that does sponsor them

you try to use plural here. but again core is not a plural is it a singular union.. nor one that is on the side of the wide  community, but instead onside with the corporations they work for. and are sponsored by..

whats happening is core are not a "union" but a corporate advisory board and management team, benefiting the corporations not the users/community/customers


again "someone" singular.. you are escaping the conversations of the possibility of decentralised diverse groups..
there are thousands of developers out there that would love to make reference clients for bitcoin which are allowed to make upgrade proposals.. problem is years of REKT campaigns have made those groups move to altcoins or just not even bother coding anymore.. this is even as far back as ethereums main dev(before ethereum was a thing) being pushed out of proposing stuff for bitcoin and instead deciding to move away from the centralised group club house and just make something different(ethereum)

years ago gmaxwell said that scrutiny and critiquing devs would be the reason why talent would leave bitcoin.. however the actual reason talent left bitcoin is the centralised clubhouse mentality and REKT campaigns against anyone having idea's that dont follow the core roadmap.. you know the script "F**k off" where ** can be 'UC' or 'OR', but mean the same think in your script masters mind, becasue thats the only option.. "disagree with core, go make an altcoin" is now the only "choice" in your scriptmasters mind

atleast now you are starting to see that yes money motivates their politics.. and what you next have to learn is these sponsors are not paying out with no plans of ROI.. those sponsors do want to get paid back for their sponsorship investment.. which is where the campaigns of " dont use bitcoin fir daily living, dont use bitcoin, use this subnetwork where router get fee's" stuff plays in
they want to create factories/hubs(custodians) so that they can hold users funds and lock them in until the user has nothing left then close out their account. while charging them fee's per payment that seem cheaper then bitcoin fee's but thats because they are spending years trying to push bitcoin fee's to make their subnetwork fund syphoning game seem attractive

and then when you dare to do some research to see who their sponsors are..
you wil see the altnet adoration brigade(blockstream) and the hyperledger(CBDC) groups are paying the core maintainers
yep when you start following the money you then see who core politics belong to. and it certainly (as you admit) is not the wider community of bitcoiners.. but those that want to put up barriers of entry into bitcoin to promote other networks and systems as solutions

the sponsors know they cant make ROI on their sponsorships via for instance bitcoin fee's because bitcoin does not pay relay nodes. so they want their ROI from other systems that do have routing fee's and processing fees and custodian 'renting channels/ renting inbound balance' fee's

i hope it does not take you 7 years to escape the cult mindset. and instead takes you less time to realise the whole big picture situation of the "offramping" game.. which is a game of pushing people out of bitcoin via halting tx count scaling onchain.. also premiumising the fee's to annoy bitcoiners into using bitcoin less, or using other systems instead to save on fee's... aswell as the games of "pruning" to have less decentralised blockchain full archiving nodes to secure the network. and all the other games of allowing junk into the blockchain while rejecting users who just want to pay a fair fee for a normal bitcoin use tx

because when pools force thousands of users to pay more. the pools can ramp down their own high fee tx's to themselves and and instead let high fee users fill the gap. thus making the users then persist the fee mania

EG
imagine the next 18 blocks are transactions of high fee's of pools sending transactions to themselves in their own block templates thus paying the fees back to themselves.. causing fees to show as 60sat/byte minimum.. without costiong the pools anything..

then users will see a 60sat/byte minimum for last 3 hours and so realise if they want to get a tx to confirm within 3 hours(3x(6blocks/hour)=18) then they need to pay that minimum

then when the pools see normal users paying 60sat/byte minimum they allow those transactions in and not include one of their own. ramping fown their own tx involvement becasue now the users tx start to persist the attack for them.. thus they continue letting in users transactions as long as users pay 60sat/byte min

again by pools not zero-confirm relaying their own tx and only including them in their own block template. it stops competing pools stealing their fee's and thus costs the attacker pools nothing to do this, with just a 3 hour of no external fee income until they can push the fee estimates up to the min amount for users to then pay the pools this higher fee consistantly

its simple
if you read "onesignatures" alt accounts post history (casinotester0001 mainly) you will see he is a guy that buys prominent legendary private keys even if they have no funds in them. he was more interested in owning keys that used to be of some social importance so he can then sell some scammy scheme

ok lets concentrate on ethereums worth
a. its ether creation(reward)cost is super low (calculated at under $40 to collectively mine an eth) yet is speculating an premiums of over $1700 meaning its not a store of value with such high speculation amount above base cost value

b. if ethereum really had its own "mold" and its own "corner" and its own "sector" and its own major community. then it would have its own price discovery, which if you concentrate on its worth you would(if it was independent sector) have its own market wiggles that look absolutely nothing like bitcoins market changes..

c. however 9% of the time ethereum doesnt have its own market price discovery. it just shadow traces bitcoins movements at a 1:14 ratio. because its actually bitcoins community that moves ethereums price 90% of the time. where its bitcoiners keeping ethereums speculation stuck at such a premium

d. yes ethereum community looks big in conversations about projects. but when you actually look at real economic activity. there is not much real world usage. its just hype of small project managers self broadcasting their own transactions back to themselves faking interest in their projects in the hope of getting some idiot victims to buy into their "contracted" tokens of worthless value

a. even doomad liked "emerging consensus" before he went full core cult in 2017
b. bitcoin unlimited is one project of many projects back then(before the REKT campaigns). with many wanting independence and multiple brands on the same level of all being proposals "generals" instead of 1 "major general" running on the bitcoin network.
i was not advocating certain brands like bitcoin unlimited i was and still am not advertising or promoting any brand. its more about the ethos of the network not anything to do with brand advertising.. (try to learn this it will help you)
but in 2017+ it was doomad that flipped his script and started trying to pigeon hole me as if i was against cores roadmap then in his mind i must be part of "that group" (because he thinks that everyone was/should be filtered into groups/loyalty cults)
and he tried to pigeon hole me as if i was part of another group when he failed to poke the bear of saying i was in unlimited group...

i do laugh that you think if i am against core authoritarianism i must be part of some other branded group..
you really are falling into doomads echo chamber mindset

have you ever realised in your own mind(without seeking advice from your cult) that you do not need to be part of a group, and where independence is an option.. you know(well maybe you dont) that decentralisation and lack of central points of failure is an option that should be explored..

im sure you are going to reply asserting your obedience and adoration of cores continued control and spout alot more scripted blubber ive heard from the same echo chamber of halve a dozen authoritarian loving group minded idiots

so take a chance on yourself. take some time to really think for yourself and come back with a reply that doesnt sound like the usual dreams and wishes and echos of doomads cult

escape the group speak narrative where you think the only option is for users to need to be loyal to one brand

last thing to note
unlike doomad (and his cult that love to sell their soul to advertise brands for penny scraping income or hopes of being hired if they show loyalty to a brand.. )
i have never advertised promoted or ass kissed any brand. even before i became self sufficiently able to retire young thanks to bitcoin i did run businesses and do things bitcoin related professionally and i did code things, but even so i never advertised them on this forum. and before you ask non of my business interests in my real life were any of the silly pigeon hole brands doomad pretended i existed in.
i never needed to sell my soul by promoting brands..

by doing the unconfirmed mess with mempool game.. does not cause fee congestion.
the games of cancelling out transactions before the 31% get to add them just makes blackhatcoiners whole game just a temporary distraction none event of a few minutes if seeing a transaction clump in mempool.. then not.

this playing with mempool and cancelling transactions does not cause any fee mania

the real method to cause fee mania is if the majority pools did include high fee transactions into their own blocks but not pre-relay those transactions to others before their block is solved. that way it costs them nothing but ramps up the fee statistics for other users to need to pay more to tempt a pool to accept them

as for blackhats other scenario vector of using CPFP to swap transactions around at unconfirmed status. again. a temporary none event of messing with mempool that lasts only a few minutes

...
it really would have helped blackhat if he spent the last few years learning how bitcoin works instead of trusting his buddy about how features are explained to him

messing with unconfirmed mempool is just small temporary non event that does not result in high fee confirmations. especially if blackhat is trying to avoid having high fee transactions confirmed in a attacker majority pools scheme. which in of itself would be some basic self enlighting answer to his own question about confirmed fees
yep not including high fees in your own block results in no high fees seen in the blockchain

messing with unconfirmed transactions to cancel high fees before confirmation also makes no high fees appear in the blockchain

and broadcasting unconfirmed high fee's to other pools giving them a chance for the minority pools to add them(in a scenario of not cancelling the high fee/high size transaction). just means the attacker pool(majority) loses value by paying its competitor(minority). which wont be sustainable, so again not going to cause a long term viable fee mania game
so again if blackhat broadcasts unconfirmed transactions and then cancels them to prevent competitor pools adding it. would mean it only sits in a mempool for a few seconds thus causes no fee drama.

firstly..
pools dont need to broadcast unconfirmed tx to a network but then not include them in their own block template.. you have it the wrong way around

a productive method of fee mania is the opposite.. its to not broadcast unconfirmed transactions to the network. so that other pools dont add an attacker pools tx to their block.. but only include high fee tx in their own blocktemplate.. that way the transactions dont end up in a competitors block and only be in the creators block thus whatever fee the pool puts into its own transaction it gets back . thus no loss no cost.

if you did do things your way to broadcast unconfirmed to network but refuse to put your own transactions into your own block template.. then you wont get your fees back and you instead would pay some other pool when they include your transactions in their block. thus cost you alot to do it for "thousands of transactions"

secondly pools dont need to use ordinals to set high fee rates. pools can just put their own transactions into their own blocks (not relayed before block solve.
there is no need for ordinals at all to be used for fee mania..

the only purpose of ordinals is data bloat by putting in stupid 3.96mb meme images to stop normal users transactions from fitting into blockspace because its used up

lastly.. many fee estimators base it on a recent set of confirmed blocks fee amounts. so its more about the fee of the last few blocks. rather than whatever transactions are being relayed around which you hope will never get into a block.
so again if you want to cause a fee mania you have to put transactions with high fees into a block

@jayjuangee

funny part is i am saying that bitcoin should stick to what it did best.. you seem to be siding with the cult that want bitcoin to go into a different direction of making people not use the bitcoin network and instead be pushed over to other networks.. where said other networks have been proven by the el salvadorians to not be fit for purpose

im not promoting something different. im for fixing bitcoin and evolving bitcoin.. not some other network.

seems you are stuck to much in being spoonfed into the social diatribe of a certain few idiots that love altnets,  rather than actually look at the real stuff thats been happening and the real stuff i have mentioned people should really look into.

but hey.. seems you want to not mention that the screw ups were LN related by you diverting the attention away by not mentioning LNs involvement via your "variety of ways" and your "whatever system that El Salvador put into place"

might be worth you actually reading what actually occurred and what networks were actually involved and start to have the confidence to actually mention the other networks by name to actually highlight their flaws and real world limitations and failures. instead of being soo excited to keep promoting LN as a solution..

LN gave bitcoin a bad name to el salvadorians. even when el salvadorians troubles were nothing to do with the bitcoin network at all.. nor were the el salvadorians even making payments on the bitcoin network.. the LN experiment failed el salvador but it seems the LN lemmings want to push a narrative that bitcoin failed el salvador..
shameful misrepresentation yet again from the LN cult

yep they snake oil sold their LN scheme to EL salvador as "bitcoin" (facepalm)
and when it went wrong they then pretended the LN experiment didnt happen and that it was the bitcoin network that failed el salvador.. (facepalm)

..
what makes it worse is the CEO of strike is trying to do it once again. but this time coming with bitfinex as a partner to be a custodian/(hub factory) for users LN inbound balance
again falsely promoting it as "bitcoin".. even though the el salvadorians yet again wont own any private keys to any real bitcoin network UTXO funds

..
ofcourse there will be a future of subnetworks for "circular economy" of closed systems to keep value within a smaller niche community.
but if people ignore the fact that LN is not fit for purpose, many years will be wasted promoting broken crap and nothing real actually changes for the actual bitcoin network to grow. or for better subnetwork options to come about

its like flogging a dead horse repeatedly. LN has had 6 years of chances to fix their screw ups and instead they just keep repeating their screw ups.. so its time we highlight their screwups especially ones that occur on a national scale of a country

most CBDC work like this

they generate their reserves(mint) value via transaction between a central bank and a dozen commercial banks

central $1.2trillion  -> commbankA $100b
                         -> commbankB $100b
                         -> commbankC $100b
and so on (for commercial banks efghijkl)

this is signed by all. and becomes the reserve. completely agreed by all parties involved
much like how blockstreams liquid uses "federations" to create its assets

with each commercial bank knowing the value (funding lock) they can then use their output as a UTXO for their own payments between each other

these commercial banks acting as part of the "federation" are also acting as the "factories"(hubs) in a system similar to blockstreams Lightning

where by the commercial banks have channels(accounts) with customers where the commercial bank gives users inbound balance which users can request can be handed back to the commercial bank and the bank then pass to another bank that then pass to the other banks customer (like how Lightning routing works)

its no surprise that blockstream done a few changes to bitcoin to emulate what the central banks sponsored them to do as part of the CBDC foundation known as hyperledger.

yep bitcoin has become the sandbox test of possible plans for a CBDC with the systems like liquid and lightning being the prototypes

..
as for user access.. these inbound channels come in 3 varieties(levels)
most CBDC agree that there are 3 levels
level 0 is a max inbound balance that can be of a months salary.. with little to no KYC to act as 'digital cash'
level 1 is a middle class/small business upto 100k with standard KYC
level 2 is the pro/elite account/channel for higher amounts. with full KYC

if people want to send or receive more then a months salary they would have to upgrade(provide Id) to get access to the next level.

there are many CBDC's yep even the chinese one it set up in this manner and so are many other countries set up in this manner.

they only work on the system of LN payment routing style by ensuring they set the limits of users amount they can spend. thus controlling the liquidity of payments.

EG

commbankA $100b  -> commbankB $4b
                                  commbankC $4b
                                  commbankD $4b
                             and so on (for efghijkl at $4b each = $48b for all 12 combined)
                                 commbankA Level two service $25b
                                 commbankA Level one service $15b
                                 commbankA Level zero service $10b

and then the factory(hub) of inbound value to customers
commbankA Level zero service $10b -> commbankA Level zero hubA $100m
                                                          commbankA Level zero hubB $100m
                                                          and so on

commbankA Level zero hubA $100m -> customer00001 $1k
where this is the value that the customer negotiates(co-signs) with the commercial bank of value customer has vs set aside for bank after a payment is made

where by the 'balance' of signed transactions change to offset who has balance or not which is like how lightning route payments

---

now you know how its all laid out. you can look into many CBDC examples and also see the blockstream owned liquid and lightning networks as case scenarios they ran for the hyperledger sponsors

but here is the reason why governments are doing CBDC
previously it was difficult for governments to self manage their own currency. so they delegated that to banks. however with Visa and Mastercard the governments were not getting as much income from deposits/withdrawals (burning banknotes on deposit. the requiring banks to buy new bank notes at face value for withdrawals) like they did back in the 1900-1970's. because plastic debit cards reduced the ned of bank notes

and with commercial banks failing, needing bailing out. governments want to take back some control aswell as the mentioned income from payments of deposits and withdrawals again,
..and of course loans.
yep they dont want to give commercial banks bonds just to create money. they prefer to be able to create money themselves to then get interest returns on those loans direct back to the treasury

the whole fee market is not about pros and cons.. its about a divergence of poor vs wealthy
the big businesses moving large amounts dont care about fee's because they push their customers to pay fees on withdrawals. however users in 3rd world countries wont like using bitcoin and will instead be pushed into using insecure centralised services/systems..

and yes subnetworks are less secure and more centralised. even now certain ones are starting to require "federations" and "factories" (custodians) to manage users funds of small payments.. pretending these other networks "are bitcoin" when clearly they are not becasue they dont even use the bitcoin blockchain for day to day stuff. heck they dont even want people to close their account channel daily/weekly. the average channel/account lifetime is well over a year on these subnetworks.

actually i was not in group unlimited.. and it was doomad that was the one telling people to not be full nodes..
you cant even get your own story straight let alone the scripts your forum daddy tells you

no wonder doomads clan are so dumb.. their memory lasts about 2 weeks and they forget anything they learned and need forum daddy to hand them a script to recite

if you ever want to try learning. actually look at the block data and code.. dont rely on your forum daddy's scripts

the problem with el salvador in 2021. is when they legalised bitcoin.. they consulted with an idiot who was not promoting bitcoin but promoting another network pretending it was bitcoin..
yep the owner of "strike" was promoting that el salvador should not use bitcoin network but instead his software gateway into LN.
and so el salvador did trial this, to use LN as the payment routing. promising citizens bitcoin but giving them LN msats..
within 3 months el salvador experienced the flaws of LN in regards to liquidity issues of payment amount limits(it didnt 100% process payments successes above $100).. also when trying to close channels to get thier "free $30" of value. they hit the other LN problem of the channel owners not wanting to close the channels of the customers.

thus el salvadorians gave up using the chivo wallet that was using LN as the payment rail..

el salavador by january 2022 swapped out the LN function and instead relied on a CEX as a bank manager of custodian value. but it was too late the citizens already had a bad experience and so the damage was done

all because el salvador was told LN was bitcoin. even though the 2 networks are very very different

nutildah you may pretend to be against ordinals in other topics.. i call that your recruitment campaign by trying to be onside to the majority to make some friends to then try to convert them to your cult leaders scriptures

but when it actually comes to conversations about stopping it.. you defend ordinals(as seen in this topic). you even go full on idiot trying to falsely prove that they work. you keep failing to prove it. even in the examples you gave. all you can do is ignore math, ignore economics and ignore block data and just quote the project manager as your proof of theory.. you cant prove a theory by just reading a theory.. you have to test it out using actual data and maths(which you ignore doing)

so its you that digs your own hole. you cant even stick to one narrative of for or against.
so yes i ignore your fake pretence of you occasionally pretending to be against ordinals and pretend to  be not using them.. because you are soo deep in your hole of defending the (false) utility of ordinals for you to want to have it continue.. that i keep mentioning the parts where you idolise this crap

its too obvious in this topic that you must be financially motivated to want ordinals continuation.. because the lame occasional times you pretend to be against it. seems just empty comments made to try to make friends with others who are against it.. you sound more like those cult people that find a popular topic and you pretend to be like minded with people.. and then convert them to your religion

i simply tell people to think for themselves, and do their own research.. im not looking for friends, or ass kissers or loyalty. i just would prefer to see less idiots falling into centralised authoritarian cults that promote scams, illicit services, exploits and altnets as (pretend) bitcoin features

10% inflation. is a meaningless number.. unless you can work out how that 10% is represented

if its +1% of house prices and 30% of food prices.. to average out as 10%
then it hurts the poor more and doesnt benefit house sellers

if its +12% of house prices and 2% of food prices
then it hurts house buyers more. but benefits the house sellers

if its 50% of car fuel/electric, 50% food and -1% house prices
hurts the working class
then it hurts the house sellers
benefits house buyers

..
bitcoin does not fix fiat inflation.. bitcoin offers another choice of where to store your savings/value to hedge against fiat inflation

before anyone asks. no this is not one of satoshis addresses

looking at the satoshi analysis
https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

you can see the charts of the nonces of miners are in the chart as
l = satoshi
/ = others

the block noted here

is in one of the / = others line not the satoshi line

....
its also worth noting that none of the 50btc amounts moved straight from 2009 to today..
they were all actually moved in from 2009 into 2013.. thus its a 2013 holder that moved today not a 2009 holder

im going to have a guess and say that someone put his mined coins into mtgox. and those coins have been stuck at the MTGox stash of cold wallets until this year, whereby the administrators of mtgox are now shifting mtgox stash this year