Are there any serious threats on Bitcoin with Ordinals/NFTs? anything vital? or it's just "No, I don't like them, kick them out of here"!
You bring up some good points, mikey. I'm honestly mostly worried about storing people's potential illegal files and serving them like a webserver to the public. The moral and legal aspects of it, both.
If that's what you want then there is a much simpler way without filling bitcoin with garbage and making it unusable which is to use a side-chain. There is already a couple of projects out there like RootStock that actually create real smart contracts and transfer actual tokens around instead of the fake thing in Ordinals that has no value.
don't you see that's the problem though? you can show them alternatives but they don't care. they just want larger transaction fees in their back pocket. anything that does that for them is welcomed with open arms. apparently. that shouldn't really be suprising to us though. that's how the world works. people with money are the ones that doors get opened for and welcomed in...people without the money they get the cold shoulder.
I mean, we do need miners to secure Bitcoin and make it the highly safe, secure payment method that it is now.
It's just that there needs to be a balance. If there is no money to be made from mining & they leave Bitcoin, the security of the network may suffer (someone could scoop up the old mining hardware and attack Bitcoin).
However if we allow people to use Bitcoin as a playground for 'everything freedom' for the sake of the highest possible fees, we will experience what Ethereum experienced a few years ago when developers jumped on the 'world computer' bandwagon and coded games e.g. chess, where every single move was an individual transaction (!!), collectable cat games (birth of NFTs?) and similar.
If anyone reading is rather new to Bitcoin and doesn't know what I'm talking about:
The game's popularity in December 2017 congested the Ethereum network, causing it to reach an all-time high in the number of transactions and slowing it down significantly
I remember vividly how frightened people were in that time that it got so unusable that it may die and lose any and all of its utility.
There is no use to have a payment network that is super secure by being overwhelmed in transaction count and crazy high fees, but at the same time gets unusable because of congestion.
which is to use a side-chain.
The NFT folks can tell you the same thing, you can use a side-chain for payments as well, LN works great.
Indeed, I am highly in favor of reducing someone's number of on-chain payments, especially low-value ones, and create a handful of Lightning channels once, instead. All for the sake of keeping the load on the blockchain low, IBD time fast, decentralization high and mempool congestion & on-chain fees manageable.
Are you being serious right now? The Bitcoin developers are not some kind of 'evil corporation' who we need to 'teach lessons' by threatening to destroy 'their product'; you don't seem to grasp this is an open-source project, where we as the users already have the power, especially through the decentralized nature of nodes as seen in
UASF.
We are all Bitcoin, there is no 'us against them'. We should aim to get the best outcome for it together and not by fighting each other or threatening Bitcoin's destruction.
most of what you are saying there is your opinion. but lets talk facts. none of the developers anticipated ordinals. enough said.
Actually, what I stated were public facts and logic, not personal opinions. If you can point out a flaw in my logic, please go ahead. Developers not anticipating Ordinals does not really answer my post at all.
I already said to use multiple backups. Do note that if you use the blockchain as your single backup, it will be a single point of failure, as well.
not in the same way that pcloud is a single point of failure though. for the bitcoin blockchain to go away, it would almost require the internet to go away. if that happened, what good would your data be anyway?
This is an opinion, on the other hand. There is no hard proof that the existence of some cloud provider's company in 50 years is more guaranteed than Bitcoin nodes still running. I personally
believe Bitcoin will stick around much longer, too, but I cannot prove it.
What we can agree on is that both are n=1, so redundancy is key. Anything more is subjective opinions.
i still have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the block reward needs to be halved every 4 years or however often it is...
Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.
Most people do not understand the issue of fees being too small that miners will say fuck it and switch to other algos.
Shouldn't difficulty adjustments take care of that, though? I.e. big miners go offline, difficulty goes down, home mining gets profitable again, and mining continues on.
big snip. i am quoting nonce.
The problem of big miners leaving btc and still have a secure network is at stake.
The first 100 or so blocks of this 1% jump the btc diff was down 28%.
we made about 70 and should have made about 98 blocks.
I see this as almost mathematically impossible odds with the amount of gear in the network.
So
a) someone really big had a power refit
b) someone really big is testing out how easy it is to do a low hash attack on the network.
c) unreal impossible variance.
d) an unknown.
a and b and d are most likely but b is terrible and possible.
So down the road if forced scarcity of coins due to rapid ½ ings continues a real attack on the net work is easy to do.
as I mentioned before having three algos worth of gear and being able to switch around is not too hard.
And it will devalue btc.
So btc needs to figure how to attract mining.
Another thing that fits this is that of how good can a piece of gear be.
Ie pc then gpu then fpga then asic
asics s1, s2 , s3 , s4, s5,s7,s9,s11, s15,s17, s19
we are pretty much done with effectively making gear save power.
So mothballing s19, L7, gpu is kind of easy to do.
Over the next year having 1 mw of three different algos should be cheap
and a neg hashrate attack cheaper if the coin/block reward sucks.
btc would need to alter diff adjustments if a negative hash rate attack happens.
Time will tell how this unfolds Most likely after 2040 it will become more of an issue as scrypt will look better to miners then btc.
Show Posts
