Probably Bitcoin itself seemed to be the same junk to an outside observer shortly after the launch of the network. I see the elegance of the ordinals idea in the fact that all satoshi in the block chain are initially implicitly numbered hard. It's just that ten years after the idea was formed, someone explicitly implemented it. Sooner or later it had to happen, and now it has.

No one promised that transactions would always be cheap. By itself, determining the actual price of a transaction on a competitive market basis explicitly implies that transactions are cheap only in conditions of low competition for a limited place in the block.

Please refrain from false generalizations. Personally, I find the central idea of ordinals quite elegant and true cypherpunk. It is somewhat lazy to evaluate the quality of the implementation, but the fact that this little project was implemented in the rust programming language and was able to compile is already a good recommendation for the quality of the implementation (if you know what I mean). I also understand the arguments against ordinals and some of them seem reasonable to me.

But I can't stop thinking that a large part of the source of the resentment on the forum is the selfish fear of losing signature revenue from all those many mixers and casinos that seem to be having problems operating normally in the face of increased transaction fees. Fear is a good motivator and a bad ally. I'd like to avoid splitting and not trying to fix what isn't broken, but if I have to choose sides, I guess I'll take the side without fear.

This means that your thesis about the political nature of Satoshi's message in the genesis block may be just mental speculation with no real ground. What if the date of a newspaper headline is more important than its content, which could be anything else by chance and the production editor? As Sigmund Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

It seems paradoxical to me that the idea of making the blockchain open, with the goal of increasing anonymity and privacy.

The reality is that the possibility of introducing arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain has existed since the launch of the network, it’s just that no one has tried to widely use this possibility before. Read the previous sentence again and try to understand that this is not a bug, but a feature. If you consider this a dramatic problem, then the whole bitcoin is a mistake, because the problem does not have an adequate technical solution, only palliatives with very unpleasant side effects that still do not solve the problem, because it is of a fundamental nature.

Further, if we call it a "fungibility attack", then we have to admit that the attack would have no chance of any kind of success if the fungibility of bitcoins existed in reality, and was not an illusion and a figment of the imagination of a limited view of the open blockchain.

Bitcoin is not broken and there is nothing to fix here, the system continues to work normally. But perhaps many of us will have to reconsider again (I think not for the first and not even the last time) our outdated stereotypes about what bitcoin is, what its role and place in the world is. If for someone this experience is disappointing - this is an individual problem of his personal expectations.

I do not consider this a serious problem that deserves an immediate search for ways to solve it. As well as the problem with Ordinals Attack.

But if you want to delve into this dialogue in more detail - first remove your commercial signature so that I stop thinking that you are not trying to earn another four dollars and for you this is a key driver for continuing the conversation.

Please lower your level of aggressiveness in your rhetoric, because I may qualify this as a verbal attack on the self-identity of bitcoin. Like any human creation, bitcoin was not perfect at the time of its creation and remains imperfect now. This leaves room for the development of bitcoin itself and also gives room in the sun for a thousand altcoins that may be faster than bitcoin, more private than bitcoin, but they are not bitcoin.

From a certain point of view, the mixed transactions from the mixer you advertise here are also spam on the open Bitcoin blockchain. Think about it at your leisure.

The unemployment rate is not a condition, but rather one of the indicators. It is difficult to be effective in the fight against inflation with a low level of unemployment, because, experiencing a shortage of free personnel, enterprises are forced to fight for them by raising wages, and this, in turn, continues to spin the flywheel of inflationary expectations. So yes, you're right - as long as US unemployment remains low, you can continue to expect interest rates to rise or stay the same until enough businesses fail or go through massive layoffs.

There are different jurisdictions with varying degrees of loyalty to cryptocurrencies, and the degree of loyalty may change over time depending on the efforts of regulators. Innovative areas of progress such as crypto are always associated with increased risks, including legal ones. And since different people have different levels of risk tolerance, it's hard to give a universally good answer to your question. If you are prone to increased anxiety and have a tendency to cultivate phantom phobias, you might be better off looking for a more conservative type of activity.

I'm not entirely sure if my sarcasm is too good, or my English is too bad, or both. In any case, I'm definitely not one of those narrow-minded fanatics who run around the section and spam about their jihad declared to spam. Although a mixed transaction in a public blockchain from some point of view also looks like spam. But you can expect me to be free of any kind of moral condemnation, no matter what purpose you use the mixer for. I am glad that sometimes we seem to understand each other quite well, although each of us is conducting a dialogue not in our native language.

“We will not increase the size of the national debt that every U.S. president has done for 6 million years,” Biden said.

After the imposition of the sanction, India began to buy a lot of oil from Russia and there was a strong imbalance in the trade balance. Under such conditions, interaction within the framework of a bilateral swap of national currencies has ceased to suit Russia, it simply does not need so many Indian rupees, and it also does not want to strengthen its ruble (for obvious reasons, for every export-oriented country). One possible solution is to increase the import of Indian goods to Russia in order to even out the imbalance in the trade balance. There are other options, such as gold. Judging by Bloomberg's weekly statistics, the supply of Russian oil to India has not stopped, which means that the parties have found a way to negotiate with each other.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but yours is quite interesting and I would take it much more lightly if a few previous conspiracy theories that I also found interesting didn't prove to be true. Thank you.

In general, the problem of malicious cooperation of managers of large pools is quite serious. It seems that Satoshi believed that malicious cooperation was not profitable because they were too financially interested in the overall success of bitcoin as a commercial enterprise to deliberately try to discredit it. But I believe that this is not a strong enough argument, because pool owners can receive material or non-material incentives from third parties that may outweigh their possible losses from actions aimed at discrediting Bitcoin.

Well, do it if you can - why scream then?

I don’t understand why I should go somewhere and organize something if I am quite satisfied with the current state of affairs. I'm not into memes, NFTs and other pederastic shit, I'm only advocating the right of idiots to freely fuck their money as long as it doesn't violate the rules of consensus.

The idea is interesting, but I do not quite understand the logic. Even if some dishonest mining pool manager artificially inflates the price of transactions, he has no guarantees that it is his pool that will catch the next block, which means there is a fairly high probability that his overpriced commission will go to another pool and he will simply lose his money. Or am I not understanding something?

Please try to be more tolerant of confirmed transactions with fees above your personal comfort level. You're pretty aggressive and obsessive about showing some sort of transactional racism, and it's exhausting.

Breathe deeply, you are excited.
link

Looks quite decentralized and resistant to censorship. Abusing such methods is a good way to turn bitcoin into a comfortable sofa dog.

Yes, I remember this muddy story with voting for Segwit. This seems to have been accompanied by a deep internal rift within the bitcoin community, a large part of which opposed any change. Then there was an equally deep disappointment among the miners, deceived by the fact that there was no increase in the block size, although this is in conjunction with the adoption of Segwit. This was soon followed by the bitcoin cash story and the hashrate war. Do you really want to repeat this success?

I think it is useless to appeal to the voice of reason when there are an abnormally large number of idiots in the market (in the sense of non-professional players). This seems to be a sure sign that we are now in the vicinity of the local maximum of the bitcoin market price and a crushing collapse will soon follow. Please do not take this as investment advice.

The good news is that after the crash, fee prices will be low again, without any soft fork.

The only existential threat to the network is its split into two competing branches with an inevitable hashrate war between them, which you are now calling for.

It is deeply erroneous and selfish to attempt to judge the validity of a transaction by the usefulness of its contents. Before the first bitcoin sold for fiat money, the entire bitcoin network was absolutely useless from the point of view of the layman, although by that time it had already functioned quite stably. The key to Bitcoin's anti-fragility is its architectural simplicity. The miners are not trying to evaluate the usefulness of the contents of the transaction, but for some reason you are trying to get them to start doing it.

That's how she already works. You can shake the air as much as you like that you do not like this way of using the network - it will not change anything. In the genesis block of bitcoin there is an encrypted text fragment of the headline from the newspaper, you can at the same time resent that this is also the misuse of a network intended only for the transfer of financial information. If some government wants to use the bitcoin network as a public distributed ledger, for example, to store all real estate transactions or educational diplomas in it - should we consider this a misuse of the network, while each transaction is properly paid and confirmed by miners? And if someone pays with bitcoin for the purchase of drugs, weapons or human organs - should we consider these confirmed transactions to be wrong, because we do not share the motives of the people who committed them for ethical reasons?