Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content

2009:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-10786874

2021:

If 1MB was not a global problem then I kind of doubt 10 or 25 MB would be a problem now!
Weid that Satoshi didn't have the same attitude, otherwise he would have made blocks 50kb! 

its not permissionless..  seriously stop using braindead buzzwords of your forum daddy.. he has no clue

consensus is CONSENT of the masses
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.

if it was permissionless blockdata would have no rules, no conditions, whereby litecoin, dogecoin and ethereum transactions would be on bitcoins blockchain and no one can stop it.. reality they are not because there are rules.. bitcoin does not give permission to create/settle altcoins

bitcoin is code. code creates rules.. conditions and policies.

LEARN BITCOIN not forum-daddy buzzwords .. he is gaslighting you and making you sound stupid

Welp, here we go...

Over half of bitcoin transactions are Ordinals:
https://geniidata.com/user/orddata/ordinals-transaction-share

This takes into account data from Yesterday. And to those saying that this will pass... Think again! Okcoin exchange literally integrated an embeded dashboard that users can utilize to create and mint ordinals as well as sell them all within their platform. They literally made ordinal inscriptions easier than they make it to withdraw BTC off their platform... Exchanges and "NFT Artists" don't care for the well being of the ecosystem.

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off because not only is this not the first time this happens, but this time also it seems bound to continue getting worse.

I guess this is a new approach that @OP is trying to develop. Instead of testing his level of addiction, we will be asked to test his level of happiness. And I tried the test to see what my level of happiness was.

But unfortunately, we have to register first to see the results. Maybe later, I will decide to register. But I think I can still handle gambling well so I'm not a serious gambling addict.

Thanks for sharing it with us @OP. Hopefully, your site can help people reduce their gambling addiction. They can use your site well and it can provide benefits for them.

I totally agree that bitcoin is not democratic , that's why i put quotes . In bitcoin you only vote with your associated hashpower as a mining pool . Full nodes don't vote/play part in consensus . They are just observers of the outcome ( block creation ) that mining nodes do . I think we agree on that ?

The article is based on one argument . That bigger blocks will create problem to propagation and decentralisation . What it should do is first define propagation and decentralisation .

Propagation with nodes that are on what bandwidth ? And with what specs ?

The average download speed globally is more than 50 Mbps and upload is close to 30 ( source https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/average-internet-speed-around-the-world ) .  Let's see how fast a 1 MB block is downloaded with 50 Mbps ( that's a speed an average user has currently ) . We will use https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/download-time .

So for 50 Mbps the time to download 1 MB blocks is under 1 sec ( website says 0 sec ) .
For 10 MB blocks download time is again under 1 sec ( website says 0 ) .
For 100 MB blocks download time is 2 sec .
Time to propagate these blocks to it's connected nodes will probably be the double . All that process is under 10 seconds for 100 MB blocks .

Offcourse nodes need time to validate blocks . If i try to do it with hand it will take much time , if i try with rapspi that's the most common for btc it will be faster , and if i do it with high end machines it will be really fast . The problem is that the author doesn't consider the third option at all . So does most of the btc community . The belief is that even a user with a low specs machine and an awful bandwidth should be able to validate transactions . And all the other users should suffer high fees , accept adoption limits , wait for years for L2 solutions that doesn't work etc because someone who might never use or use occasionally the network wants to validate it's own transactions .

Now let's get to decentralisation . Who defines what is decentralisation ? And how much decentralised or centralised a network is ? Common question i make , can a 5 nodes network be decentralised and a 10000 nodes network be centralised ?

Decentralisation doesn't come from the number of nodes . Decentralisation comes from the economic incentives participants have . Being an active node offers to that , and that's achieved only through PoW .
At some part the article says that soft forks are inclusive while hard forks are exclusive . Why ? Because he thinks so . That's the whole article , his opinion without any scientific facts .
Soft forks ( easy path ) makes certain that no one is out of the network , even if he doesn't update . Who do you think would be interested more than anyone to stay on the network ? Those who profit from it , not by speculation on prices but from providing real services . Miners would do it . Listening nodes that can profit would do it . But , we want to protect the most lazy , the most cheapskate user and i don't know what else definition i can give " because decentralisation " .

Decentralisation is not a new concept . Tocqueville wrote his book " Democracy in America " close to 1830 . In that book he writes about the importance of participation , voluntary structures , local government and more . If all these were done by following what the most weak person wanted then there couldn't be decentralisation ( and that's why current "democracy" sucks ) . This would be a race to the bottom as everyone should follow what the worst person wants and usually the worst person wants to do nothing and have anything . Bitcoin is a race to the top . If you want to be a participant in the network that provides work you have to learn to cooperate . Look how pools were created . You have to be honest . Look how many dishonest pools dissapeared . You gotta learn to trust . Look how miners get paid for their shares because pools earned their trust .

Listening nodes would be more expensive , yes . But that doesn't mean that there can be collaborative nodes . In an environment such as btc has become where no one trusts anyone that is a no option . And the fun part is that this forum has a trust evaluation system . And taking that a little further the one of the key elements in finance , trade and much more is trust .  

That article mentions about the internet rules and if you change the rules you create a new network , so no one would ever do a hard fork to change it's rules . Imagine an internet that only 7 users per second could use it . There would be no online commerce . There would be no fast innovation as information/knowledge would be limited . And i can't even think what else wouldn't be possible . In summary that author provides examples without any reasonable facts behind . He just express his opinion which is pure nonsense .

No need for me to organise anything , that will be a "democratic" decision of the btc community . If community thinks that the fee problem will disappear in a magic way then it doesn't see the future coming . As soon as BitVM starts to gain traction and DeFi enters the market a couple of thousand dollars per transaction will be the norm for a long time . It happened in eth with faster blocks , i can't even imagine the magnitude in btc .

As per the article , most of the things it mentions are nonsense . I would enter into greater detail but i would derail the thread entirely . In short , if you think that 1 MB limit is sensible in our times , then i don't know what to say . Even Back in 2016 was pro increasing the blocksize . Lopp too . If their "proposal" was accepted , blocksize today would be 16 MB at least . Community was pro a fee market and now takes a taste of it's own medicine .

It's not a "very grave accusation", it's simply how BIP32 hierarchical deterministic address generation works.  If you use the same seed on two devices, you will generate the exact same addresses: https://bips.xyz/32

It's fortunate we have Bitcoin experts like Peter Todd to prove custodial shills like o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner wrong about "flaws" they claim exist in Wasabi coinjoins.  The problem is that o_e_l_e_o and BlackHatCoiner are duplicating their lies on every topic about privacy they find on this forum, so I have to continually use Peter Todd's clip to expose them as frauds on multiple threads, which is why you must think I'm using it as "some sort of marketing material".

I have coordinated my own WabiSabi coinjoin before.

There is a very simple solution to this problem: Stop using services like Wasabi which utilize and fund blockchain analysis, and turn to one of the many much better alternatives which are not anti-privacy and pro-censorship.

The market is now bullish so many may be encouraged to invest in Bitcoin. But the lesson we get in this thread is that it should not be used as a tool for temporary gain. Bitcoin may go up for a while but there is no guarantee that it won't go down again. An investor should have a long-term plan when investing in Bitcoin to avoid short-term volatility. Moreover, long-term investment has the highest investment potential from Bitcoin.

It is definitely a good decision if you start accumulating bitcoins at this point , there is a higher chance of making profit. Since Bitcoin is a good medium for long-term investment, DCA is definitely a better decision to accumulate Bitcoins for the long-term which can be more effective in growing your portfolio.

With the current situation, having the ability to insert garbage into the blockchain, and then having greedy miners that don't care whether legitimate Bitcoin users are suffering or not from increased fees, then on top of that having different opinions about censorship etc, it seems such systems where any change is dependent on consensus is proving to be a failure, unless they wake up to see the consequences of not stopping these garbage transactions. BUT GREED, YOU KNOW?

As a normal ONLY BITCOIN user, when I see how banks/central dictators( dictators controlling central banks) are taking advantage of us, I can think of miners the same, so should we consider them to be the same only with different names? I guess Satoshi never thought about this, where ever is money, greed follows, whether it be governments, or miners.

The problem you mention isn't created by the design of the network but from the democratic decision to not increase the blocksize and have a fee market  . You can blame UASF if you want , it's more appropriate . If full nodes in btc made a decision to spend more money for data storage and bandwidth that problem wouldn't exist in that scale .
You use the term greedy . They are entities investing for profit , is that so strange ? And not expecting profit by just holding coins , but providing security to the network while continuously investing to stay in the game  . Isn't that the purpose of PoW ?

Satoshi thought exactly of that , how to make greed work for the whole . If community changed the rules of the game then community should take the blame .
 

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain.. where did your hard drive space preservation mindset go, oh wait you are just copying your forum families mindset even if its contradictory to your previous stories

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain and wait for them to run out of funds.
if they can scam one moron out of $1k for one meme that cost them $2 to make, they can then spam another 500x and scam more.. have you ever heard of exponential growth.. yep they wont run out of money as long as they keep scamming. its a self perpetuating scam

Mimblewimble has nothing to do with ordinals either.  Stop making shit up.

there are many ways,
they know how. but it involves closing the trojan horse open door that allows them to upgrade unhindered. meaning they have to relinquish power to fix their error.. yes it should be done but they dont want to

Well, of course, building and running a gambling casino is not easy, for if it was, i guess many of us here would already be managing our own private casinos. On the norm though, starting any business, most especially a business that has to run and operate online, is not easy, it requires a lot of money since one will be hiring not just developers, but very good ones who can sure deliver what they are expected to, one will also be hiring graphic designers who can oversee to the production of infographic materials that will be used for the casino's announcements and promotions.

I personally would say that, building an offline casino, like a physical casino with an real world address, sometimes may cost less, than building an online casino, one thing with online casinos is that, they need constant promotions and advertisements, else, before you know it, you would lose all your customers to another casino, something that is not really need for offline casinos.

U.S. banks have found a new way to unload risk as they scramble to adapt to tighter regulations and rising interest rates.

JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, U.S. Bank and others are selling complex debt instruments to private-fund managers as a way to reduce regulatory capital charges on the loans they make, people familiar with the transactions said.

These so-called synthetic risk transfers are expensive for banks but less costly than taking the full capital charges on the underlying assets. They are lucrative for the investors, who can typically get returns of around 15% or more, according to the people familiar with the transactions.

U.S. banks mostly stayed out of the market until this autumn, when they issued a record quantity as a way to ease their mounting regulatory burden.

https://www.livemint.com/companies/big-banks-cook-up-new-way-to-unload-risk-11699375225695.html

A look at the mempool as of about 3 hours ago demonstrating the BRC-20 takeover:



The little yellow blocks are the BRC-20 mint transactions, which occupy close to 50% of the total mempool space.


This is a great site for checking in on what's going on exactly. The minting services are making bank. I can't see how anyone else will make money... There's like 1 transfer for every 10 mints for each token on average.

Storing "Art on the Blockchain" as a method of achieving permanence is often a misnomer in the NFT world. Most NFTs are merely image pointers to centralized hosting or stored on-chain in prunable witness data. We propose a method of embedding base64-formatted image data using transaction outputs in a novel fashion.

The means by which this is achieved is encoding an image's binary content to a base64 string, placing this string as a suffix to STAMP: in a transaction's description key, and then broadcasting it using the Counterparty protocol onto the Bitcoin ledger. The length of the string means that Counterparty defaults to bare multisig, thereby chunking the data into outputs rather than using the limited (and prunable) OP_RETURN. By doing so, the data is preserved in such a manner that is impossible to prune from a fullnode, preserving the data immutably forever.

Yeah. This is a fair point. I have only ever watched horse racing events in movies and shows, but I never watched them in real life primarily because it's not really accessible as you mentioned.

I checked them and greyhound events as a gambler and ended up losing constantly since I am an amateur in these particular markets.