Free market code selected transaction blocks is also perfect democracy, it's superior to human democracy, the code doesn't know who you are, whether you are sanctioned by the U.S, or anything about your transactions, it checks a set of rules to validate the transaction and if everything checks out -- you are in.

people-selected transaction blocks are subject to being biased because human beings are just emotionally driven creatures, a U.S based miners could ban all known Chinese addresses just for political bullshit, the Chinese miner could do the same to the American miner, and the list goes on, eventually, the nation/people with the most hashpower could end up censoring nations with less hash power or none at all, pretty much how the U.S sanctions other countries today.

Not saying they will always end up in a censorship -- but they can, unlike how things are with code based democracy.

Why replace code democracy with human democracy? any person who is rational enough and is driven by a business mentality would reject this, as a miner I want my pool to extract the most fees possible without being biased, I wouldn't give my hard-earned hashrate to someone with an unstable brain who would reject a transaction that pays 1000 sat per byte for whatever political reason while accepting other transactions with 1 sat/byte.

For a solo pool, it would work great, for PPLNS (bad idea) PPS+ (bad idea since the transaction fees are still going to be paid in PPLNS), and FPPS ( a bad idea for the pool -- miners won't be affected since fees are paid ).

Ban coffee transactions and you will be good to go. but ya all jokes aside, I have a very hard time believing that all these cries are actually related to the fact that they think "jpegs actually hurt bitcoin" because I am convinced that -- it's only because those jpegs are increasing the fees.

I mean two different scenarios with different outcomes. 

Scenario one: magically Ordis and BRC-20 transitions could actually reduce transaction fees for "normal transactions" would we get the same volume of complaints? sure not, most people don't even run their own node so they can't even be bettered with more disk space or anything of that nature, they just want to transact for cheap whenever possible, despite the fact that they very seldom use BTC anyway.

Scenario two: No ordis, no Apes, but we start writing news on the blockchain

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" X1000

Scnerio there: People have started to actually use Bitcoin, there are roughly 2 billion credit card transactions per day (no counting every other payment method on planet Earth), 1% of that would be 20,000,000, or 20M transactions, compare that to the current transactions of BTC which are roughly 0.5M transactions, that's 3900% more transactions, even with the assumption that all of these will be "normal transactions" with a single input and two outputs, the fee floor for such volume with probably be the 1k sat/ Vbye range, which is a lot worse than all these Ordis can do.

What is going to be the argument then? what is average Joe going to complain about in scnerio 3? You want adoption -- there you go, but now you have to compete with the rest of the world, so your 2 sat/ Vbyte transactions are something from the past, how are you going to solve it? what are you going to censor?

I have said this a dozen times, BTC will always be a store of value and not something fit for daily transactions, this is how the majority of people view it, nobody is willing to spend dear sats for a cup of coffee, they would always use their bad money and preserve their good bitcoins, I treat BTC as a store of value, I am not ashamed of saying it out loud, I know most people treat it as such but they just want to stir that "P2P e-cash" concept to attack everyone else who wants to use BTC differently.

People could keep on daydreaming about BTC being widely adopted, worth 10M$ / BTC while transaction fees are 1 sat per byte, but these three things can't happen together, you will have to least sacrifice one of your dreams, transactions can only be cheap if nobody uses BTC, if nobody uses it -- it can't be worth 10M.


I like these debates, and I do want the best for BTC, but it seems like in this forum, every time you raise a reasonable concern, you will be attacked and viewed as an enemy, look at the comment above "YOU BIG BLOCKERS DEVILS" , you can't even propose or support the idea of raising block size, I wonder -- what will these people do when core devs actually raise block size, are they going to insult them and call them big blockers scums?

Everyone has the freedom to block any transactions they want, but how does it not fit into censorship? it still does,  and nobody can stop you from doing so, but when you sell your mining pool as a saviour from censorship and still block certain transactions, it's normal for people to call you out.


How do you define spam? I could argue that transactions that pay high fees are not done to spam the blockchain, otherwise, if someone wants to "spam" the blockchain they can do so using only what you call "normal transactions".

Millions of $ were spent on ordinals and BRC-20 transactions, you could say they are worthless which I would agree with, but they sure are not the best definition of spam, but then let's just say that we all agree on calling them "spam", let's say they have been effectively blocked entirely, on a node level not just a few pools blocking them, something extreme that you would need to fork BTC to make such transactions valid.

What is going to happen next when those "spammers" start spending the same amount of $ on fees for actual spam transactions, i.e. transactions that are generated for the sole purpose of spam, what are you going to do about them? block any transactions that pay> x sat/vbyte? KYC all Bitcoin users to limit their transactions?

Transacting on the blockchain is not cheap, it's a fact we have to live with, if 1% of the world transactions start happening on BTC, you will miss the 500 sat/Vbyte era, so how are you going to solve this? what other types of transactions you are going to have to censor to save Bitcoin form failing?

Not at all, i do not think calling for larger blocks is a crime, and so i do not think of "big blockers' as an insult, i simply asked why would you call us as such in your response.

Now after a few posts back and forth i can see that you are not interested in having a constructive conversation, just name calling and drama, likely because you have zero clue on the actual subject.

I did not say he brings nothing but valid points, so not sure what are you trying to do here, there valid points, and I summarized some of them in my previous post, do you have any actual argument against them?

Can you you put HmmMAA on ignore so none of his posts show to you and then explain why you called us big blockers and how can you counter our arguments?

Yes indeed, I am indeed new here, 6 years in the mining section does not make me old by any measure, but then I don't care why HmmMAA or anyone else comes to post here, all I read is their "content", and he brings valid points which you need to counter with valid points instead of personal b.s, if your argument against HmmMAA is the fact that he is BSV supporter and supports bigger blocks bla bla(which I don't even know if they are valid accusations or not and honestly I don't care), then what's your argument against everyone else here who surely aren't buying Luke's pool bullshit?

I have nothing against Luke, his religion, his small block narrative or anything of that nature, my only concern is the fact that when you visit the pool website you see a bold statement with font size 36 or so saying


And then he goes to censorship transactions, in fact,  Ocean is the only pool now that practices non state-forced censorship, the other 1-2 pools who censor based on the OFAC list can argue that they are forced to by the government, Luke is practicing censorship without any sort of pressure, so what gives?

Then me and the other members commented on some false claims posted on their websites such as


first of all, the number 11 was pulled out of no where, and then that 100% success claim is false, so in a polite statement, Luke posts some wrong info there, in a not so polite manner, whatever he wrote there is just pure bullshit to promote his pool.

If you have any good arguments to defend him without targeting anyone who criticizes him -- go ahead.

اختلف معك اخي بشدة اخي, فعندما يكون هناك نظام ديموقراطي فأن عدم مشاركته فيه يتيح الفرصة للاخرين ان يستغلوك, وهدا مايحدث في الانتخبات مثلا في الدول المتخلفة, تجد شخص يترشح للبرلمان ب 500 صوت فقط في بلد عدد سكانه عشرين مليون, لان الاغلبية يقولون (لافائدة من تصويتنا, لانريد المشاكل و و و ) وهدا مايحدث هنا تماما, ان تجاهلنا جميعا مسؤولياتنا في التصويت للاشخاص الجيدين سوف نترك الساحة للاشخاص السيئين.

يجب ايضا ان تعي ان الابتعاد عن قوائم الثقة لايعني انك في مأمن, العديد من الاعضاء تحصلو على تقيمات سلبية من بعض اعضاء الثقة الافتراضية فقط لاسباب سياسية او بمجرد اختلاف راي في موضوع معين, لذلك الانخراط في هدا النظام واجب على كل الاعضاء خصوصا القداما الذين لديهم فعلا قائمة بالاشخاص الذين يثقون بتقيماتهم حتى وان كانت تلك القائمة في مخيلتهم ولم تجد طريقها للتبطيق الفعلي على المنتدى.

He brought his religion on the blockchain, I doubt anyone would have asked him about his religion if he did not do it, but then again, we are not debating religion, you need to

1- read things in their context
2- understand our sense of humor

Now ya, given that most of us miners are boring tech folks, our humor is probably terrible, but for real, we are not debating his religion, i could not care less about it.

The criticism is:

1-If Luke is allowed to put his religious prayers or scriptures on the blockchain, why can't I put my penis jpeg on the blockchain?

2- Luke sells his pool as the "anti-censorship" pool, it is almost the main feature the pool claims to have, so he does not censorship OFAC listed addresses, but goes to censor other transactions, censorship is censorship does not matter how you label it, is censorship good or bad for bitcoin?


You must be new here, big blockers are next door, in the altcoin section.

Ya I was talking about the general usage of it, not in regards to solo mining or this particular pool.


if 1 user gets lucky to hit a block that has a potential of 3 BTC in fee rewards but then because he is stupid or gets paid for doing so -- the other miners would end up losing profit, I mean if a single entity (a pool) can make you lose profit, it's only going to be worse when thousands of other users can do the same, I personally wouldn't use any pool that allows this -- I doubt anyone in their right mind would.

Transaction-biased blocks are only good for one purpose, the pool won't be able to censor certain transactions, but for this to actually work, other miners need to have a say in this, they need to accept the block template proposed by each other and to evaluate it otherwise, it will certainly fail and nobody would use them.

You are correct, but!!, This does not increase the profit for miners, in fact, it reduces it, only the pool would make more profit by scamming miners off their potential profit, the fact that Viabtc ignored my questions in the past shows that they do not share any of that profit with the miners, it's pretty much a scam if you ask me, which is one of the reasons why I stopped using them.

An example of using $ to keep things simple is if said pool charged $100 on a transaction that is paying $1 in fee on the blockchain while removing another transaction that was paying $50, you should pay the miners $49 out of that $100, otherwise the pool is stealing.

I have checked my daily payouts over and over again to see any mention of "acceleration profit", or at least an answer of some sort, I got none, so I could only assume that they keep all of it, so as far as miners are concerned any pool that doesn't use the default getblocktemplate is certainly paying them less.

Edit: to be even more fair to Viabtc i did contact them again asking the same question, this will be my last attempt.

Lol, i hope it stops there, what if we start actually censoring non-catholic prayers? Even better I suppose, but ya, fudge is all i can say.


Anything outside the ASCII code will require more space, so basically chars including all Latin letters, Arabic/Hindu letters ( which many people call English numbers for whatever reason) and a few other chars, so ya basically, any prayers that are not Latin are going to cost you at least double the price since unicode is 16 to 32 bits depending on the encoding while ASCI is just 7 or 8 bits (ASCII or Extended ASCII)

So you either pray in Latin letters or convert your religion, both should work.

I know how it feels having to flee your country just to survive, it's tragic at best, and what's worse than this is -- losing a family member when you are far away from home, my condolences to his daughter and the rest of his family.

it would be great if you could add a few more addresses like USDT on TRX or something, it would be easier for many people to donate that way especially that fees on BTC are high atm.

According to what I know, the main piece of info that is stored on the EEPROM is the voltage for all the hash boards, now with the claim that Vnish ignores those, I think it should work without a valid hex, unless there are other things that the software needs to read, anyway, send me the kernel log you got from Vnish and I will try to forward it to one of their devs to see if they have a clue.

A signed message would not prove anything, the "new owner" can request from the "original owner" to sign a message saying " the new owner is the same person as the "original owner", it's almost impossible to prove that something does not exist, if someone tells you that they a 12 bedroom apartment on Mercury, you would have no way to prove them wrong despite knowing for sure that they are.

As it stands right now, the accuser could just stay silent because "the burden of proof is on the accuser", however, given the account status and how many people are watching it -- it will be very difficult not to make a fatal mistake along the way that would expose him if the accusation is correct.

Abraham Lincoln

Seems like Luke was very specific on the type of arbitrary data, he wants Catholic data on blockchain , so, it is okay to put your own religion prayers on the blockchain but no for things that people view as an "art" of some nature?

The problem is not with Luke, it is all these selfish bitcoiners who want to transact for 2 sat / vbyte, if you tell them Luke is going to censorship 90% of transactions that isn't theirs -- they would probably accept it.

What some people do not understand is that this action (call it filtration or bug-fix or whatever) is going to be viewed as censorship by many people, and this is bad for bitcoin, probably worse than high fees.

Many of those people think that Core Devs can do whatever they want, they are the good guys, it is us the miners and regular users, it is always us causing all the problems which the devs need to fix.

So devs' censorship is viewed as "protection" for bitcoin.

Because it does not make sense, almost the whole world places the currency symbol after the number, exceptions would be Arabic and Hebrew since they are right to left, if it made any sense, you would not have needed to convince any one.

OP i have posted for too long without wearing anything (ok, maybe not during winter) but ya for real, without getting paid, and I will do so again anytime, in fact, I hardly hit my max quota, probably not even half of it, but I just love being around here.

I love talking about crypto in general and mainly BTC, in real life there are not many people who understand Bitcoin, most people around me don't know what it is, many who do think it is an online scam coin created by the state to steal people's money before shutting the Bitcoin website to run away with all the money.

Heck, I can't talk Bitcoin even with my wife, so this place is the only place I can express my awful love for bitcoin, what other place would you be able freely talk about crypto with people who actually share the same ambition?  And if you get some sats for doing something you love doing anyway, why not?

Anyway, many people probably post for the sole purpose of money, mixers are done with this year, so the majority of $$ for campaigns will be gone, sure thing many people will stop posting next year.

Indeed, many incredible events are going to unfold just in time for the halving, though I wonder why on Ocean's main page it says "Message from Luke"

"Bitcoin is no longer censorship-resistant, and mining centralisation endangers its security too. It's time to fix that."

And then Ocean is the first pool to censor certain types of transactions for something that has yet to reach consensus, wouldn't be wise to just sense what the other nodes would do and let his pool facilitate the transactions that are agreed upon by other nodes? in other words, let the filter/ban come from BTC itself rather than the pool code?
 


That is a reasonable answer, thanks for answering my question. although I think you should have kept your post debunking the other user's claim regarding certain miners can't use the pool, that topic will still be acceptable via the search engine, but ya, perhaps if Ocean folks create their own topic here, the discussion could move there instead.

How about all the negative attention and the people who are looking forward to disabling the filtering of Ordinals if it becomes the default setting for new core versions, I am sure you will find many of those in the same place you found all the positive attention.

Also, I would like to know the reason behind moving your other thread to archive, I believe it was an insertings discussion that should have stayed on the mining board.

I remember watching a debate with Saifedean Ammous, where the other person said that BTC was too slow and too expensive compared to the legacy payment methods, he did touch on a very important point that BTC transactions are final settlements, they should not be compared with your average credit card or Paypal payments because those are not final, and he makes a lot of sense because if you were to make a wire transfer from the U.S to Tanzania, the final settlement between your bank and the other person's bank and the dozen parties involved could take days if not weeks, and it's no where near cheap.

The same thing actually applies when you pay using your credit card, the shop gets its balance increased right away but for the value to be settled between the banks, the payment provider, and all parties involved it's going to take a lot and cost a lot, especially for cross-border transactions.

So on-chain transactions should be compared with central bank-level settlements since they are the textbook definition of final settlements, so it makes sense that they are expensive and somewhat slow, despite beating the legacy system in that regard, now, I for one would like to see fees increase because more people, companies or even banks are using BTC to settle transactions and not because of some worthless ' it's what I think about Ordinals' data stored on the blockchain.

However, it's only common sense for fees to go up with time, I mean if BTC was used by 1% of the population, nobody would get away with those 2 sat/Vbyte transactions even without Ordinals, I strongly believe the Brc-20 hype will fade and will be just history -- but it will still be a tough war for those  "let's do whatever it takes to keep my fee at 2 sats/ Vbyte" because sometime in the future they would be contesting against each other when Ordis are gone, many people will find something to blame for the high fees, I can't wait for things like "All these stupid folks spamming the blockchain to buy Starbucks coffee that tastes like shit", and ya, I would have to agree with them because Starbucks coffee really does taste like shit.