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"

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..

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

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

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

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

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

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.  

CORE WROTE THE CODE.. nearly every line today is different to the code of 2009
so yes their exploits are their fault
THEY MADE THE HOLE
oh and remember your REKT campaigns of wanting to destroy any other full node brand that was not core, that wanted to propose changes.. yep you love that core are the only rule change proposers..
so yea you evicting other potential proposer nodes off he network means you have no scapegoats left to blame..
.. and no.. an miner(ASIC) does not create code. nor does an asic choose transactions. it just SHA256 hashs a hash

as for the exploit..
YOU LOVE AND ADMIT THEY MADE THE HOLE 'coz freedom'

stop pretending that core has nothing to do with code changes of the bitcoin rules

by the way..
.. you are confused

DOGE was born as a meme
bitcoin was not.. bitcoin got turned into a meme library DUE TO CODE CHANGES DONE BY CORE DEVS that THEN spammers were able to use

i guarantee you that you were not able to put 0.5mb.. 1mb, 4mb of bloat inside one tx previous to the changes CORE DONE

yep years ago there was rules like a 520byte limit for signature space.. now gone
many other rules and checks.. gone

try to learn about bitcoin

stop pretending people always had the ability to put just 1tx with the size of upto 4mb since bitcoins genesis..

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.

you think code is magic?? dang you are in fantasy land thinking thats how bitcoin works
CODE makes bitcoin work. lack of coded rules is the problem. so CODE can fix the problems

and when you decide to not be a ignorant guy trying to push your adoration that everyone should try a different network if they choose not to pay high fee..(pretending thats the only option.. pay high or leave) you will learn many people do not like the fee mania caused by CHANGES TO THE CODE... or the holes made in the code that created it.

its about code. not magic.. so get out of fantasy land.

you support fee mania because it promotes the agenda of other networks you prefer people to use. but bitcoiners want fixes for bitcoin.. they want exploits closed on bitcoin. not told that the solution is another network or just put up with whatever corporate sponsored holes core devs put into bitcoin to make bitcoin less suitable for everyday usage

CODE fixes bugs, and CODE can do many things. your lack of wanting CODE to do its job is revealing. you prefer people be patient, hope, and trust.. that is not bitcoin principles. bitcoin relies and SHOULD rely on code to set rules. not "trust" that devs are going to do something sometime, you also dont want anyone but a sponsoring corporation to be allowed to ask what they will do or when. and where you think users should not be able to ask devs to change anything. where you only want corporations that bribe devs to be the only ones telling devs what to do

core have become too powerful. 6 main devs have ultimate control of the protocol and rules and changes. and this year they are pretending they are not responsible whilst everyone else is being told to wait and hope it will work itself out as if the code is some special self repairing AI. its not. core devs made the holes and now dont want the responsibility to patch the holes. blaming users for not wanting to "pay more" as the fault.. shamefull practice that is

telling people to use another network is not the solution to bitcoin
especially when said sub network they advertise is designed(flawed) to only accommodate small niche utility of small value crap. not actual amounts bitcoiners move

also those saying there is no onchain solution are the people that have no clue and are just reading scripts from altnet clan members that want to make bitcoin dysfunctional to recruit people over to other networks

there actually are fixes. re-enabling some of the old rules that existed before. rules that actually required signature space to be used for signatures. where it had length limits and expectations of content. not the current bypass opcodes that dont do checks on content
re-enabling or creating new fee formulae mechanisms that punish the spammers that spend every block/CPFP multiple ancestries in one block. whilst not charging other efficient users that dont spend as often

EG if the altnet clan think that spamming a block to a point of 1000sat/byte is acceptable ($70 average)
then make people spending a utxo with just a 1confirm age pay 144x more then someone that only spends once every 144 confirms

that way spammers wanting to appear in every block pay 144x higher then someone that just wants to make 1 tx a day

here is a big lesson about bitcoin.. it uses code.. and guess what. it should use code to actually set rules. because thats what code does

bitcoin was designed as a system of rules the entire network agreed on.. however rules have slackened, removed, softened where its become a system of disagreement and lack of unity. lack of procedure. lack of accounting lack of validity checking. where bytes dont get counted properly and fee's are not predictable measurable to any math accuracy.
heck they even made it where proper bitcoin valid data is treated as a premium and the cludgy nonsense data is miscounted to not pay as much. this makes junk spammers more incentivised to  use bitcoin than actual bitcoiners that want lean bitcoin transaction data

what people dont realise is although US "owes" other countries $30trillion+
other countries "owe" the us substantial amounts too

an easy option is 1-for-1 cancelation of linked debts between countries

EG if japan hold $1.1trill of US debt. but japan has more then $1trill separately owed TO the us.. they can cencel each others debt thus bring both sides debt totals down

take it one stage further
if japans high DEBT amount of $10trill is owed to multiple countries. the US can do a deal where if the UK cancels its debt with japan. the UK can cancel its loan to the US.
and the US can then further cancel its loan to japan. as a 3 way debt reduction

bitcoin had a fee formulae.
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

but was removed around the era when bitcoin-qt became "core" managed
heck core doesnt even count bytes as bytes anymore either. let alone not having rules for fee selection

so its not that core are plugging holes. its that CORE MADE HOLES and now widened the holes more over the years.
yep bitcoin USED to have rules where at the time of under 0.5mb of blockspace 0.05mb(10%) had a 'priority' where older coins would get priority even if they paid little to no fee..

there were other things too that helped keep fees low for the average users.. but that has all changed. and NOW its just a 100% bidding war with no controls, no formulae, no rules to keep fees low.. instead its the opposite

but hey it seems you have been suckered into the spoon feeds of an ass kisser lulling you to sleep with his fake charm..  rather then doing the research. well goodluck with that. doomad has a new clan member. enjoy it.

but i do hope one day you do try to do your research outside of the charm offensive clan

as for doomad pretending the new upgrades have helped..
check out the statistics of fee's before and after the upgrades.. they are up. not down.. even when there was/is a drop in mempool usage below last years average mempool levels..  the fee's are higher than last years levels

taproots upgrade promise was lean transactions which only required one signature length.. that was the promise. but reality is that they allowed upto 4mb of bloat instead

i guarantee you that in 2009. no single transaction could have been more then 0.5mb let alone 1mb let alone 4mb
so look how things changed and dont just take the spoonfeed of a altnet charmer pretending the situation now has always been this way since the start.. actually do the research and realise what rules have been weakened, softened, removed completely over the years. and see who made the holes.

doomad you forget history too much,. and just make up crap about how you like things now. not how things were and supposed to be

bitcoin had fee formulae. that was taken away.
bitcoin had rules limiting length of scripts. it also had rules to expect certain data after certain opcodes and sigops. those were taken away too
many "assume" code was added. many "is valid" replaced actual validation rules

thus it was not initially designed as a bidding system for any junk. it became that once the corporate paid devs took over the maintenance (slowly bating->simmering->boiling the frog instead of instantly throwing it in boiling water)

YOU KNOW THIS there have been many debates over the years about the fee formulae. and the many changes..  so dont play ignorant now pretending what is now was always that way

as for the space.. well you wanted to keep space limited. becasue you wanted a bidding system.. but over the years people wanted more space. yep 10 years ago bitcoin hit a 0.5mb limit and they fixed it to allow 1mb. then at 1mb they fake-promised 4mb but they put restrictions on how that 4mb should be used. with a 1mb txdata 3mb script cludge. with bad math of miscounting bytes.

then when they promised a new tx format which was promoted as using only one signature length.. the actual result was upto 4mb per tx of space waste

funny how you years ago wanted to restrict space and restrict how many people can enter a block but now pretend to be "censorship resistant"

you motives follow the capitalist mantra of corporate banking world. everyone reading your post history can see your morals and scripts are not to benefit the masses. you just want to kiss up to corporation hoping one day someone will hire you so that you dont have to penny pinch small income from sig campaigns.

if you are still after many years scraping by on small income from promoting scams and schemes maybe its time you choose a different career. because if they have not hired you yet for a proper job, its time to realise your not on the interview short list for a job with them.. kissing ass hasnt seemed to have made you rich thus far. so get the hint

its not a hack. its the US authorities moving around seized mtgox coins. .. gotta pay the lawyers afterall

confirmed
season 2 episode 6

soo to certain idiots.. all spam 2009-2020 was spam attacks even though those transactions didnt contained nonsense junk
but the junk of 2023 is not an attack nor spam..(in idiots minds)

seems someone lost the logic of their redefinitions

so to certain idiots.. transactions should be rejected if they dont pay enough fee.. did they not realise that more transactions are censored due to their "just pay more" theory

yep over the years more people have stopped using bitcoin and moved to other networks due to silly idea's like "just pay more"

bitcoin was invented to be a payment system for the unbanked. not a payment system just for the rich
there are more people in the world whos hourly wage is less than a bitcoin fee.

if you think a payment system should cost more than an hours wage to use. thats a failure of economics

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.

mixing has one function.. to mix. its not a retailer. its not a forex its not a fruit stall. its sole purpose is to mix.
its only advertised to mix, its promoted and used only to mix
regulations are clear that they MAKE regulated businesses monitor and scrutinise mixer users closely.

emphasis again
mixing is wrote into regulations to be watched more closely(= less privacy)

once more.. for luck
MIXING puts you on a watch list.

so the solution to privacy is not .. wait for it.. take a minute to breathe and let this settle in..
so the solution to privacy is not services advertised specifically as mixing

lets word it another way

imagine prostitution was being watched by the police.
would you name a business "prostitution house" or try something new like 'massage parlour' or 'escort service'
you know. just to make it a lil different and ambiguous to not be an instant knock at the door inspection of the premises