doomad says permission is not required
dang only a few months and he again forgets what consent is

id say give it 2 months and he will go full CSW wanting transactions to not even require permission via signatures. where anyone can move other peoples value into each others transactions without that person even being online

doomad you want to pretend that there was never any consensus activations that had a majority threshold for activation of certain things
yes its NOW softened and junk can be put in without consent. but thats not how things were done.
seems you forget anything beyond a few months ago

i know you LOVE that consensus has been softened and you dont want consensus hardened again. and you want all people who want bitcoin rules to be fixed and enforced again to run over to other networks.. yes we all know you want everyone to move away from bitcoin. we know you very well.

stop pretending you know more then the last script you read, because history, memory and real hard data is not your strong point.

again we know you ant to get people off the network we know you dont want bitcoin rules to be enforced, we know you idolise devs that want to break down the rules and let junk in. we know you dont want the junk to stop.
now get this hint

you are not a bitcoiner. you admit to such by your motives any motivations.. however bitcoiners who actually do care do want things fixed

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


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

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

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

that mempool dead zone around april 22nd just goes to show:
1. this spam is orchestrated by just a small group that collude and were told to stop all at once
2. normal users stopped transacting whilst the spam was happening near completely, which is why when the spam stopped there was a dead zone because no one was really doing much normal stuff to make mempool drop to near zero

i do laugh at the alt-net promoters saying "dont worry it will die down"

imagine if fiat pulled this crap
"for next 4+ months it will cost you upto $70 to do a ATM/bank account withdrawal"
"dont do wire transfers for 1 week-4 months due to delays"
"sorry we cannot offer wire transfers in 10 minutes, please try again on a saturday, when the sun is at the horizon and jupiter is in the astro planes of virgo"
"we promise to offer you cheap paypal system to replace wire transfers, please wait and be patient for 7 years+ for us to try and get it to work for all"
"our paypal side hustle service only has a 100% payment success rates for payments under $50, if you would like to move $1k+ please be aware you may have to close your account and rebalance another account with another paypal partner"
"its been 7 years we wont fix the wire transfer scaling, nor current issues impeading normal flows, please be patient and try paypals limited function system until we can bother "
"we are sorry you are having issues with wire and paypal, this is a recorded message we do not respond to, please hang up and try again "

i mentioned 3 breeds of bitcoiners
investors throw more then small amounts in one go..accumulators put in small amounts regularly..

so the accumulator people will be hit by fee's each week/month
imagine it like throwing in $400 a month where fees were $40.. 10% fee is rediculous
now imagine third world countries like the unbanked. wher $40 is their entire months wage where they only want to put in $10 .. but fee's are $40

where as investors(not only whales) will have more coin but even if a whale, they will not want to keep withdrawing and depositing daily so end up using exchanges as custodians to keep profits

years ago i used to day trade a non-insignificant amount so i would withdrawal at night and deposit again the next day. but if fee's were this high then. i would not even bother depositing.
right now im just hoarding. i dont move my main stash for years. but my spending stash. well im giving that a rest too.. which is kind of a ridiculous thing to be doing on what was promised to be a payment system. and not im not going to shift value over to another network. i just find it stupid that we should put up with this crap when CODE can be wrote to make the system better. because thats what code can and should do. not the opposite

even if he did return he couldnt do anything. there is no back door or anything he can just take control of
he would have to appeal to core dev moderators to be allowed to enter code into the reference client everyone relies on. and right now they are very close minded
their opinions of open source is like a open newspaper, open to read by anyone that wants to look, but trying to get a job as a news editor is not the same ease as being a reader.. you might get lucky being a grammar checker of the notes/comment sections as a volunteer contributor but to be a proper writer.. well not that easy

even a few core devs that had maintainer status get ignored by the current team.

consensus is consent of the masses..

bitcoin was consensus based. but now its more meritocracy based.

economic nodes have more sway than user nodes.
devs nodes reign higher. and devs+economic nodes get to blackmail mining pool nodes.

there is a hierarchy system now. unlike 2009-2010

on the BITCOIN network you can lock value.. and with enough confirmations. its immutable thus very strong..  where locktime is still workable.. and that lock does follow rules. (not sure how long that lasts before core devs soften that rule too.)

however on LN.. which you must treat as a separate network.. when creating channels where a SUPPOSED uxto is used to then create a child transaction that is then called a commitment. the rules on the LN side are WEAK AS F**K and not really rules at all. and yes the LN devs blame user error for accepting a channel open session with zero confirm txid as the funding. and close session with bad unlocks as user error, even though its devs fault for making such a crappy project with such lack of rules, lack of auditing, lack of controls. lack of checks

the reason i bring it up is becasue you seem to care less that bitcoin devs already did mess with bitcoin transactions. but dont want them to mess with things that can affect a broke OTHER network.. which i found amusing and strange, ..and after soo many months/years of chances you have yet to learn how broke LN is to realise its not worth caring about as something that does not securely secure/hold value. but just presumes to

just skip a few months/years and come to the realisation that LN is broke and a completely new subnetwork bridge needs to be created from scratch to service bitcoiners. rather then waste months trying to hope bitcoin does things to entertain and recruit lightning lemmings

LN has many many issues which is why more people have decided to avoid LN and use other subnetwork bridges to lock their bitcoin value to.

anyway. back to the topic.

what bitcoin devs need to do is stop with the radicalisation of sponsorship deals to just make bitcoin messy to promote corporate patented subnetworks as the saviour. and actually get back to making bitcoin efficient. where every byte of a tx counts and has purpose where actual checks are done. as was the case years ago

idea's such has messing just with difficulty lasts 2 weeks.
idea's like messing with block per adjustment and thus reward amounts per block to compensate to try to force it to last..  overall messes with too many other things including the scarcity and value proposition. thus not the fix

the real fix is to get code to actually check tx data like it suppose to do. as that was the integrity promise of blockchains. to have data which all fullnodes fully verify and meet standards

the major problem is this

when for instance you have a 2in-2out payments (norm) where the byte data of just ins and outs is under 200bytes. but where a couple signatures of ~145byte total. is not more bytes then the value moved. things seem reasonable..
the proofs bytes dont outweigh the value bytes moved. things seem good and lean and efficient

however when devs proposes the actual value data should be 25% of a transaction(txdata vs witness area segregation). and hinder utility of blockspace with cludgy math, miscounting bytes, making certain bytes a premium.. and then turning off validity checking of each bytes purpose to be in a transaction.. things go wrong

to then not want to employ rules to make bitcoin lean and efficient again, where every byte should have an assigned purpose.. is bad..  but to then instead cause more issues that mess with things like rewards per hour. halving date changes, etc(such as this topics idea). that is not the way to solve things either

the solution is to employ rules where every byte of a transaction has to meet a format/purpose for being there that meets consensus rules. no 'isvalid' bypass. no activated by default opcodes that have no requirements assigned.

instead if opcodes exist but unassigned any rules. they should be disabled. and if/when needed, it is then for devs to PROPOSE utility, show the rules they want to add to a deactivated opcode... and consensus then, when majority has the code to enforce the rules. activates its utility

the thing is.
those wanting to accumilate bitcoin now fear using the bitcoin network due to high costs.

it costs less now to wire transfer via western union than it does to remit via bitcoin. so people wont want to remit via bitcoin

those investing via trading wont want to withdraw coins from exchanges due to losing profits via fees

bitcoiners being told 'nothing should be done' to make bitcoin better, mitigate costs, avoid exploits, etc are being told this by people that love to offer other networks as solutions. these preachers are not bitcoiners.

locking value in bitcoin network transactions is strong. once confirmed and usually best if high value to wait a few confirmations.. but on crappy networks like LN the requirement of locked value is weak and people can create channels even without confirmed locked value. so it actually does not matter to LN. they are broke to a point that a orphan event wont stop them making channels of msat balance.. yep its that bad that they dont have responsibility/restrictions on ensuring value is locked. so yea its not a problem because a bigger problem exists with LN


to break the units of measure is a big deal. its like breaking the main/first law of bitcoin that should not be broken. not only that it is not simple to achieve without alot of code re-writes and breaking some of the checks and audits of bitcoin data.. which come with their own consequences

bitcoin network is not measured in btc. its measured in sats. (the smallest unit)
a btc is only measured not in underlying code or blockdata. but only at surface GUI code(for display purposes of easy human reading/understanding)

satoshis first reward was not "50 btc" its actually 5,000,000,000 sats
or more simply
5,000,000,000 UNITS

to want to multiply units by 1000x requires messing with soo much code that it makes satoshis first reward be appearing as 0.05btc in the new paradigm

in short the scarcity of true numbers (the maximum count of 2,099,999,997,690,000 units) changing breaks scarcity/sharability promise.. which is the main law/rule of bitcoin

firstly mixing is a financial service. but it cannot register as a licenced money service because its a red flag service.
(catch 22 event)

...
mixing with no other users is not mixing.. because your coins are still yours so its all the same junk(you confuse mixing with tumbling.. and yet tumbling is also a red flag event with regulators).. heck even you know this when your sober.. .. thats the whole point of you wanting to recruit innocent people into mixing instead of just advertising tumblers. you NEED to recruit clean money people(innocents) so that you can get rid of your dirty coins onto such innocents to take their clean coins. because thats how it works.

if it was so simple for dirty money to be mixed with itself there would be no point in needing other people recruited and palmed off with the dirty money
..
also a few other hints about your so called privacy lack of knowledge
when you do wire transfer to some stranger(s). your bank knows who that money went to, so their bank could ask that person for more details about the purpose of that receipt and get your address they sent coins to.
becasue they as wire transfer recipients of alots of payments makes them a money service business. which if they are using a personal account instead of a licenced business can cause them to be pushed into court.. yep DEX is not a saviour just like localbitcoins was not for the popular providers .. learn from this

if all of your coins have information that links to you where you are, at the end points doing wire transfer in and out guess what.. they find you via the end points. then when those addresses are flagged as being mixed. your then highlighted and flagged. and further scrutiny is on you..
you are no longer a random gorilla in the mist, not thought about or seen. you are suddenly kingkong, seen as something that should get the authorities targetting

if you want to stay off authorities radar. dont be kingkong, dont popularise yourself or highlight yourself

..
as for the other points of your post.
again you make a statement then say the opposite after of the same post.
for instance

you just admitted chip mixer was braking the law [not just] for being an unregistered money transmitter service, [but also doing laundering.]
you then pretend to say you have never seen in any court mixing equated to some unlicensed money transmitting service product.. yet chip mixer (your own example you do know about) is in court for BOTH crimes

chip mixer got shut down because of laundering. the owner got slapped with a lawsuit due to financially gaining from it which is the test of being a payment facilitator/financial transmitter service (Money Service Business / Payment Facilitator)

if you want to set up a service. learn from these things. dont pretend they didnt happen(while foolishly mentioning them in the same breath)

just because you plead ignorant by not doing research or ignoring anything you have seen to pretend you did not see it. actually read stuff and learn from it.

regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
ill say it 5 more times
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.
regulations do mention that mixing is a red flag that will get you noticed.

let that thought rattle around in your head for a while


so one last time

when mixing is the bad word of regulation.. be smart.. invent something new that does not sound like the word mixer. offers a different feature as its advertised service. where the unspoken side effect is the taint of deposits is not the same as the taint of withdrawals..

get the hint yet?? or is your mixer advertising contract so strict that you cant escape just advertising mixers

and no i dont mean just rebrand the service "blender" or "shaker" or "stirrer" or "tumbler" and carry on as usual,
be smarter then that

---

screw it.. one more time. just for you becasue it takes a while for you to learn things

MIXERS. do appear in real world regulations(yep REAL legislation) that mixers are a red flag requiring more monitoring/scrutiny of users of such

if you dont want to be monitored scrutinised to a higher level than 99% of normal people. dont use something thats actually mentioned in regulations

i do hope you understand this simple hint.. or admit to it when your contract expires

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

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

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

ordinals is due to bitcoin core devs opening an exploit and casey(ordinals) then using the exploit
he is not a BSV.. bsv devs have no skill they are just copyright breakers then claim they own the copyright. they cant code even if they tried.
but casey is part of the sponsored devs of the corporate development of core and lightning community (not a bitcoin maxi)

anyone supporting making bitcoiners pay more fee's than fiat transfers cost. is not a bitcoiner nor a crypto supporter
bitcoin was suppose to be better then fiat

anyone supporting a subnetwork that doesnt even use blockchains has no clue of what blockchains enabled which cypherpunks/smart-contractors were unable to pre bitcoin

trying to scam people over to a insecure broken network has no clue about a real money system, especially if they want to price users out of utility

namecoin and counterparty are different to ordinals IN MANY WAYS

as for ordinals transfer. look at the blockchain data. take a real hard look
no  where in the ordinal data (the stuff in witness) does it actually state to link to only one output
the GUI interface of caseys explorers does the linking but thats something he can change. meaning the transfers are not LOCKED to an output. they are assumed by just GUI interfaces.

bitcoins yep real bitcoins lock inputs to outputs by many mechanisms.

learn the difference

ill make it simple
lets take any bitcoin explorer
no bitcoin explorer can change the destination of btc from a transaction when confirmed

but caseys explorer can change which output a witness bloat of data is presumed to follow
want to know why he chose the word THEORY instead of proof.. yep realise he called it theory instead of proof for a reason

funny part is there are actual ways/functions HE COULD use to create locked proofs. but he has not used them.

so take your eyes off the gaze of his ass while trying to pucker up your lips in admiration. and instead look at the block content and lack of proof/security of transfer of the actual block data.

in short dont take his words as gospel actually check and verify the claims
go look at the blockdata without the kiss ass mindset

im guessing your going two write two books
well if the first book is where you want to call it the rise and fall of bitcoin(your mindset)
then i suggest: compromise and fool of lightning

i know u only have notes to advertise lightning as "cheap fees" but never done the math..
how about do some research on the network liquidity issue of payment routing

LN is not the solution your told it is

they asked for YOUR opinion, yet your response was acting as if you speak for the entire devs and community.

and if you read not just twitter. but look at many many discussion platforms(non social drama types) you will see its not a one man army wanting to kill ordinals.

by the way. that super_testnet scam pretending to kill ordinal with the mis-count. is just another scam of requesting 10ksat be spent to spam the network.. so dont include that as a viable ordinal killer. its actually adding to the ordinal spam and fee mania

but hey your reverting to the old scripts of thinking "one man army", defend the devs, kiss ass, promote other networks

but how about look at the many topics of thousands of people peed off by the shit
the many discussions of many people wanting devs to get off their ass
and as for LN
many people have moved off LN.. many more already see the flaws without using it.
in the last 3 month the liquidity of LN has not increased
yet other subnetwork bridges of locked btc value have more liquidity than LN. so stop trying to sell a broken system by saying no one wants to fix bitcoin

you are pretty much saying there is an exploit no one wants to fix.. and the only salvation is another system (thats also broke)..
im guessing within the next week you will be saying core devs had no influence, consequence, causation of this exploit and you will want to point blame at asic owners.. becasue that seems to be the next script your forum brotheren of the same mantra have got to so far

not good advice you are offering, but it does sound more like a paid saleman

ordinals are not even functional NFT. so stop describing them as such.. its just dead weight junk data

for those using clearnet (normal internet) sending upto 4mb around the entire network in 2minutes wont cause issues
however for those syncing blocks via TOR, their internet is slower so can cause orphan issues for blocks under 2 minutes

but here is the other thing
if blocks were changed, where difficulty adjusts from doing 2016 blocks per fortnight (the actual expectation) to being 8064 blocks per fortnight (2.5min average) then that makes the bitcoin halving happen yearly instead of every 4th year average.
it also makes the total coin supply not complete in 2140 but in the year 2060~
 - these means an even quicker rush to pressure fee's to overtake rewards even sooner. thus defeating your idea of countering this years spam fee mania, and instead causing the fee mania to want to persist due to the new fee:reward paradigm happening in years instead of decades

also more rewards per hours also means pools get a 4x increase in hourly rate. meaning they can sell their coins for 4x less because their cost/reward is 4x better. meaning bitcoins underlying "bottom" support drops by 4x.

need i go on?

it does feel like that. but its actually kiss ass hoping for a pay day. people with sig campaigns and promoters are paid to post crap. they end up saying crap to cause drama so they can reply in "relevant" replies and get more post counts up. they dont care about content they just care about post count

after all if they cant cause any controversy/debate to talk about they cant talk as much. because of their narrow minded opinion/knowledge

you notice its the same group of people not wanting bitcoin fixed. telling fullnoders to deactivate features and not be full noders. not wanting bitcoin exploits fixed, wanting fee's to rise where actual bitcoiners stop spending.. all to advertised some other network/scheme which these promoters are financially motivated to mention/post about

the whole sounding like each other is just bad training on their part. being dumb and docile to just reiterate what they heard without thinking about if it actually means anything

most mining pools have their shares set where the POOL MANAGER takes the fee's and the MINERS JUST SHARE THE 6.25 reward.. thus miners dont benefit from the fees.

yes miners will move to pools that do profit share the fee's but pool managers would just change their % cut.
all in all miners dont gain much either way.

miners make their profits not from tx fee's but by hoarding until the spot market is above their costs. yep miners help support the spot market.

also pools dont always care for fee's
antpool for instance done 3 empty blocks in the last couple days
789,121      789,145      788,886

also when most pools are collecting fee's of 2-6btc antpool was also filing block with less than 1btc of fees
789,174    789,165     789,163      789,162    789,149    789,093
foundry pool for instance has alot more instances of blocks with under 1btc in fees
binance pool, however, is lot more greedy, with less fees under 1btc
but no.. not all pools just collect the highest fee transactions.


let me cut straight to the depths of debunking your opinion
foundry has the highest hashrate but accepts transactions with less fee's. meaning people are not hopping away to other pools to grab fee's and foundry is not filling blocks with transactions to continually grab 4-6btc in fee's
also binance pool with only a 3rd the hashrate of foundry. is showing although they are greedy about fee's their hashrate/block solves over the last fortnight is DROPPING


as for this spam fee mania of ordinal kind:
remember. pools didnt write the code to exploit blockspace. core devs did. so when core devs say its not devs problem and not devs fault and say that its miners fault and miners greed.. well its not the asic owners greed of individuals because individual asic owners dont benefit from the fee war.

enjoy