@Ralle14 has deployed #16 id hard to catch up with him. Lol I'm still waiting for some matches later tonight hopefully no misses and chase higher maybe.  Now it's 19 in total, thanks to the lenient rules this round. I wanted to hit at least 20, but I lost way too many bets in the NBA and other football matches yesterday. It looks like i'm going to finish third place since Woodie and Gennady went ham in their final post.  Gennady the whale casino player from BlackJack.Fun? He will probably make 1,000 sports bets for mere fun with $3.00 each just to win $200?  I may need the names of the best gamblers in the forum to assist me. Little Mouse, when will the next round start? Plus can we use multi-bets to qualify as long as the odds are more than 1.50? It will be counted as one bet, obviously. |
|
|
|
Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network.
Almost 2 months is more than temporary inconvenience[1]. [1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usdTwo months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money. |
|
|
|
Oof-topic, but that's an unexpected policy change from the United States. Tin-foil hats on, but OPEC might have taken their supply cuts because they probably had already known that the U.S. will start increased production of their own Crude Oil again. That could also indicate that a war is coming? 🤔 That's precisely my point. The Energy Crisis isn't what should be concerning. It's the fact that there's low demand from large oil consumers like China. Why? A Great Recession should probably be more concerning? |
|
|
|
In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse  frankandbeans, you're making it sound as if there's truly an "exploit" that "hackers" could covertly use to break the consensus rules. Laughable. you do realise that this junk is causing a form of DDoS attack. "DDOS Attack". The network congestion IS TRULY annoying, but there isn't anything like what you're making everyone believe that there's an "exploit" that "hackers" have been using covertly to break the consensus rules. The high fees are simply the product of increased demand for having their transactions to the next block + the fee market. Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network. In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
We've already established this a long time ago. I believe it was in spring! Everyone who disagreed with me calling it "Attack" agreed that Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol to spam the chain ergo it is an exploit itself. Keep in mind that saying "it is functioning within the consensus rules" doesn't change the fact that it is an exploit. Consensus rules can be broken and in need of a fix too. Sometimes it is a very severe case like the value overflow incident[1], sometimes it is less severe like the countless number of cases being patched by standard rules. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incidentBut if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable. |
|
|
|
I believe your reason why might be different from my reason. Because of the design decisions made by the Core Developers, there's a higher probability that the Bitcoin blockchain will exist and continue chugging along longer than all of other blockchains. It's not designed to be fast, it's designed to be robust.
In 10 years, there might only be Bitcoin and maybe two or three altcoins in existence.
I still think that you are wrong on the number of altcoins. The reality is that, with what you said, you are right about the fact that bitcoin was made for lasting and that means it will outlast every other blockchain and of course that means every other altcoin as well. But, there are two reasons why alts will survive as well, in 10 years there will be some alts who have changed their blockchain and they will last because of that as well and also there will be new ones as well which will be created around that time. So thousands of alts will always be there, not because they have lasted for a decade, but because there will be new thousands of coins every single year as well, specially on bull years they get a lot more. This is why bitcoin will always stay at the number one position, and all other coins could always switch their position, but we need to accept the fact that altcoin world is not going anywhere, they will continue to exist in some form. That's true, I might be wrong. But name an altcoin that would exist for as long as Bitcoin exists, and I'm very confident that that altcoin would have a high probability of not existing as long as Bitcoin. But there might be two or three blockchains co-exisiting with Bitcoin in 10 years, maybe longer than that. Everything we're currently experiencing is part of one giant cycle that will not keep surging forever. I believe everyone should read this book to understand my viewpoint, https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/91360 There's a free audio-book in YouTube. Each chapter tells a different story of the same phenomenon and it's also happening in the cryptocurrency "industry". |
|
|
|
In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse frankandbeans, you're making it sound as if there's truly an "exploit" that "hackers" could covertly use to break the consensus rules. Laughable. |
|
|
|
|
Taken in another context, isn't it more concerning that the price of Crude Oil is still low despite the supply cuts? Because that illustrates that demand is low, and if the demand is low, then that could indicate that a worldwide recession is coming. Plus you're right, it's probably not going to be an "Energy Crisis" like the Oil shocks of the 1970s, but there could still be something, another sort of economic crisis that will bring everything down.
|
|
|
|
It appears the writer of this news article does not read between the lines hehehee. Luke Dashjr did not capitulate on his criticism on Ordinals. What Ocean Mining is only doing is it will recommend 3 block templates for their miners and let them decide what they want to use. I speculate that this is only the beginning. Luke Dashjr might have a roadmap already created to minimize Ordinals' effect on fees.  Sarcastic LukeBitcoin developer Luke Dashjr fought the rise of Ordinals, which he called "spam," but now his mining pool is allowing them.
A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.
With the update, Ocean says, miners can choose from three block template policy options: Ocean Recommended, focusing on what the company calls “real” financial transactions with minimal spam; Bitcoin Core with the “Ordisrespector” spam filter; and the unmodified Bitcoin Core, mirroring other pools with fewer financial transactions but more “spam”—meaning Ordinals and BRC-20 token transactions.Source https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptionsBitcoin mining company Ocean has announced a change in its stance on Ordinals inscriptions, allowing miners to decide whether to process Bitcoin blocks containing non-financial transactions. Previously, the company prohibited such actions. This move comes as a surprise to many, given the company’s and Luke Dashjr’s hardline stance against Ordinals in the past. dude he caved! now even lass hashing power is filtering Ordinals... there will be Ordinals in every block forever  I feel bad for the "developers" and the investors of those BRC-20 tokens. They will learn, the hard way, that they were merely pretending/deceiving themselves that those tokens have utility. It's good to invest into now while there's money coming in, but what would happen when everyone learns, the hard way, that "BRC-20" is an inefficient, impractical way to issue and trade tokens? |
|
|
|
But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future?
I still don't get why some people insist of using the false term "censorship" when referring to an " exploit fix". But as I've said a million times, we've been "censoring" a lot of abusing transactions that would fall under similar protocol exploits for as long as Bitcoin has existed so I don't see how things would be any different if we fix this newest exploit in the protocol! In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion, - Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain. |
|
|
|
The Union Bank of Switzerland broke up its entire asset management team in China, and has let go of their plans of becoming one of the leading/largest foreign asset managers in the country.
I believe that illustrates that the worst is about to come in the Chinese economy. U.B.S. is just one of the foreign asset managers in China. Some of the other asset managers will definitely follow.
A little earlier, another similar event occurred under the headline "China no longer promising" " ....Vanguard Group Inc. announced the sale of its stake in Ant Group Co. The agreement was made with the support of Jack Ma. The company is thus exiting the $4 trillion Chinese mutual fund market. Vanguard's share will be acquired by Ant. The asset management giant has decided to close its business in China. The sale of a stake in the advisory firm was another step in its complete exit from the world's second richest economy. The giant no longer sees potential in that direction..." Not the best of developments for the Chinese economy..... But like all economies around different regions of the world, an economy can't expand forever, and not especially China's economy for the zoomed out long term. Why? Because currently their population is getting older. They're slowly not having enough young people to support the older generation = China's population is dying. Currently, I have been reading that China's five largest state-owned banks have cut deposit interest rates to discourage people from saving and stimulate spending. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ China should learn from the Federal Reserve and turn on their money-printer. |
|
|
|
Many newbies that wanted to "trade" because they wanted to be a "millionaire" would have been in a better position financially today if they merely saved and HODLed Bitcoin.
That's quite true for any alt, not merely for Bitcoin, but yeah it's quite hard to find right alts sometimes. One of my friend did lots of trades of Matic back when it was few satoshi, had he just purchased and held, he would be having more money than however much he made by trading it. I believe your reason why might be different from my reason. Because of the design decisions made by the Core Developers, there's a higher probability that the Bitcoin blockchain will exist and continue chugging along longer than all of other blockchains. It's not designed to be fast, it's designed to be robust. In 10 years, there might only be Bitcoin and maybe two or three altcoins in existence. |
|
|
|
At least he was not afraid to use the word "Bitcoin" in the main title, but then still devolved into putting that dumb-ass meaningless term into the subtitle. The title itself must be worth something in terms of showing how scared "they" are. Pardon those people. Because they are economists and "scholars" of an old system, for them it will probably take 10 more years before they could finally accept Bitcoin in its totality as the next evolutionary step for money. They might also say that it's "our" Tour De Force, and how it was ahead of its time. But was it? Plebs have already known that it would be so, not because they were HODLing/using the asset, but because the common, Bitcoin pleb today had already a basic, fundamental understanding of the network, of the incentive structure - what makes everything stick together, and of the importance of censorship-resistance - Bitcoin's main value proposition. |
|
|
|
Even better advice would be: <beginning>Ledger users should stay alert and STOP using your Ledger hardware wallets <end>
To fix the damage made on their reputation, Ledger has decided to pay their drained assets back for them and make them whole again. https://twitter.com/ledger/status/1737457365526470665But will that truly help restore their users' trust for their hardware products, and software apps? I believe not. Plus it was not just Ledger users that were affected. The users of the DAPPs that used the ConnectKit Library were also at risk of having their wallets drained. |
|
|
|
I wanted to join the contest, but the fees are so high that I would be spending more than the amount I was planning to bet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I want to be in the next round.
Little Mouse, if the fees are still high during the next round, would it be OK/possible if I make a request to have my Shuffle account credited for $50.00 and have my campaign payment reduced by that amount?
Plus wouldn't it be better for the contest if the users post their bet slips only after they have already made ten winning bets? It wouldn't make a difference and I know I'm nitpicking. Haha. But it would make the thread look cleaner in my opinion.
Why don't you use any altcoin? I have not owned an altcoin since I believe 2020. But if the fees remain very high, I might be forced to use Litecoin temporarily. It's purpose and utility is starting to be truly noticed by the people like me who rejected it. Hahaha.
If you don't use them at all, I can send you the fund directly to your shuffle deposit address.
My Shuffle deposit address? Not my Shuffle deposit account? |
|
|
|
If it's truly a nefarious entity that's using Ordinals as an attack vector, then that entity will provide tools and apps for newbies to make it easier to send their Ordinals transactions to a miner.
We always make spam harder not impossible. Every single standard rule can be broken if you contact a miner. But mining pools aren't the most willing to become pariahs in the Bitcoin community by explicitly accepting something that is being rejected by majority of the network as non-standard (assuming it gets implemented for Ordinals Attack!) which means we make it "harder" to spam. Ser, what makes everything in the network stick together is the incentives. The Core Developers are more than welcome to find a technical solution to prevent the "feature" from being abused, but if you believe miners and mining pools will stop doing their jobs and start rejecting particular transactions, then you will be disappointed. You should also consider the pool owner's fear of having their mined block rejected. Take a look at this case here. A perfectly valid but non-standard transaction that they refused to include in their blocks regardless of its high reward. It took more than a year and an actual block being mined on testnet to show them it is valid to get it picked up. But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future? |
|
|
|
That gives bad actors the opportunity to build a months/years long sustainable ecosystem to price many users out from using the network. The "protocol" of Ordinals by itself is not the attack, but it could be used as an attack vector. It's going to be an annoying few months until the hype goes down, but it might not be the end of that. It goes, then it comes back.
No one is pushed out of using the network . Anyone has the right to increase the fee to a level that will make his transaction enter into the next block . Isn't that the purpose of the fee market , to make blockchain space as much valuable as possible ? Well , mission accomplished . To be honest , i see current fee market at a low level . As soon as more protocols start to create defi's etc on btc , fees will increase in thousands of dollars for a single tx . The unfortunate ones will be those that will have to exit from LN for whatever reason and those stacking sats . A new era is coming . Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees? No, we're not pushing anyone out, never. And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general... . they will charge a high fee to move it off the exchange. But technically in an exchange it's not actual Bitcoin that you're buying, but mere numbers in their ledger. It only become actual Bitcoin if those units are transferred in a public address with a private key that's under your custody. In the subject of Ordinals and transaction fees, have we seen the network maintain such high fees that users are willing to pay more than one month? I believe not, but if it does, wouldn't it make Bitcoin more profitable to mine that BCH and BSV miners would start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin? Governments have an huge incentive to not have people withdrawing bitcoin from exchanges and putting them into local wallets they can't control, so high fees play on their favor in this sense. At the same time, it limits the use of bitcoin as cash easily, or at least for now, when LN is not that mainstream and well understood. On the other hand, governments would like big blocks, since they could just control the nodes at will. They would be datacenters that are registered and basically would get told what to do and what software to run. So you have to factor in both. What is more important? I think it's clear, the second one is. Paying higher fees is worth avoiding datacenters as nodes scenario. From a long-term perspective and from the network's point of view, Bitcoin's survival depends on that it should be decentralized enough and that the blockchain should be redundant enough. But it will be at the cost of users being priced out, temporarily, from using the network for simple Bitcoin transfers.
Ordinals are a waste of block space but what can we do? miners just want profits and they'll mine blocks irrespective of what they contain.
Technically it isn't a waste in block space. It doesn't take the space from actual Bitcoin transactions. Ordinals NFTs reside in the part of the block where witness data resides. They are prunable. |
|
|
|
What's the "fix"? What I read is the "fix" is nodes won't broadcast Ordinals and BRC-20 transactions across the network. But can't Ordinals/BRC-20 users merely send their transactions directly to the miners and have them included in their blocks for confirmation?
There isn't a fix. Short of abandoning all pretense of permissionless freedom on the Bitcoin network (which is obviously an untenable position). Someone on GitHub referred to luke-jr's pull request as an: easily worked around hack. I'm in full agreement with that assessment. It doesn't "fix" anything. My instinct is to take the stance that many here in the community at the moment don't fully appreciate what we have. They've got Bitcoin, but they only deserve something like Ripple. That's a network where they prioritize fees over freedom. I want no part of networks like that and that's why I'm here. All the people whining about ordinals should ask themselves what they're still doing here. Ingrates. To put ourselves in their shoes, I believe they ARE actually asking themselves what are they still doing here. People who merely want to use Bitcoin to send small amounts of value across the network are priced out by users who think that they're dick pics and fart sounds have value. During the next cycle, the issue/debate might be who should now bear the cost of using the network. It will be another debate about the block size, because a mere block size increase will transfer the cost from the users to the node operators. What's the "fix"? What I read is the "fix" is nodes won't broadcast Ordinals and BRC-20 transactions across the network. But can't Ordinals/BRC-20 users merely send their transactions directly to the miners and have them included in their blocks for confirmation?
That's correct but lets first consider how this attack works and why. Unlike previous spam attacks when a centralized entity has to spend money out of pocket create large number of transactions paying increasing amount of fee to clog the network, this time it is regular users who are brainwashed into thinking what they are buying is an NFT token so they spam the chain themselves. If these abusive transactions become non-standard (nodes stop relaying them) it could potentially eliminate a large number of attackers (aka the regular brainwashed newbies I mentioned above) because for starters they don't even know how to use bitcoin. Additionally any kind of workaround with extra steps where they have to contact a miner covertly and have them mine their transaction is too complicated for them. Not to mention that it would be possible that the pool demands extra payments (fiat payment paid separately to the pool owner). This is my speculation but I'd say it has a good chance of being correct. If it's truly a nefarious entity that's using Ordinals as an attack vector, then that entity will provide tools and apps for newbies to make it easier to send their Ordinals transactions to a miner. |
|
|
|
People would perceived that BCH or BSV community acknowledge BTC is superior in some ways. There's no way BSV community and faketoshi would do that. There's no need to mention what they believe or if there's actually a need to acknowledge that Bitcoin is superior because it IS superior by all comparisons. People will know it, either the easy way or the hard way. But they will always claim that their network has higher transaction throughput and therefore "scales", but how do we define "scale". Higher throughput but sacrifices decentralization? That's not scaling. It actually scales the network down, reducing node count, and therefore centralizing the network. |
|
|
|
OP, welcome to the forum! I like the direction of what kind of site you're trying to build! It's more designed towards "gaming" that it is for "gambling". If I may give you a simple suggestion. I believe a site like yours should add Rock-Paper-Scissors, both player vs. player and play against the house. It probably could also help Wagabet build a community by using it for Rock-Paper-Scissors tournaments. Plus a feature that all gaming/gambling sites need would definitely be a community chat-box. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
