Show Posts
Every day I spend on this debate I keep thinking that those talking about censorship are either concern trolling (perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves even) or have a personal gripe with Luke for some reason.
Some people beef to put whatever beef with whatever Luke might have done to sadden them in the past aside for a second and consider some of the facts for once.
First of all, banning inscriptions from Bitcoin on a protocol level is not a Luke Dashjr issue. It's a Bitcoin Core issue.
There needs to be a discussion about this entirely independent of who Luke is and what he has done, because regardless of his opinions, this issue isn't concerning him. It's concerning everyone using Bitcoin.
Think about it, when SegWit and later Taproot were introduced, were Ordinals a use the developers had predicted?
Some examination of historical evidence leads to the contrary conclusion. SegWit developers probably had never predicted that certain OP_codes could have allowed for large data inclusions in transactions, and therefore hadn't considered the fee discounts would be getting abused to that extent.
Likewise for Taproot developers, who released OP_return without setting good spam limits.
Since these started getting abused, naturally developers of Bitcoin have become concerned and are now considering imposing some limits. This is only natural and follows the course that Satoshi set. Given the nuance of Bitcoin as a piece of software, many mistakes had to be corrected on the fly historically.
Now, what Luke is doing with OCEAN as a pool, is to merely offer miners a choise on what transactions they confirm.
Especially given that many pools openly receive off-band payments in a centralized way, only to confirm certain transactions... Payments that are more often than not not stared with miners, there are some very concerning trends on how pool operators have power over actual miners. OCEAN pool sets out to change that by eventually allowing people to pick their own block templates on how they confirm transactions.
So mining with ocean, arguably there will be absolutely not even a possibility for transaction censorship, as miners will be absolutely fee to pick what gets confirmed, as opposed to any other pool, where only the operator decides.
Edit: I am not affiliated with OCEAN in any way but from listening to the staff talks, I feel like they aren't even very fond of blocking ordinals at the protocol level. If you ACTUALLY pay attention to what Luke says, he has acknowledged multiple times that people can keep putting data in the Blockchain as they wish, he just says that they should be paying block fees for that space normally, without being allowed to abuse certain features to get discounts. And that's very likely to also end the ordinals craze.
Some people beef to put whatever beef with whatever Luke might have done to sadden them in the past aside for a second and consider some of the facts for once.
First of all, banning inscriptions from Bitcoin on a protocol level is not a Luke Dashjr issue. It's a Bitcoin Core issue.
There needs to be a discussion about this entirely independent of who Luke is and what he has done, because regardless of his opinions, this issue isn't concerning him. It's concerning everyone using Bitcoin.
Think about it, when SegWit and later Taproot were introduced, were Ordinals a use the developers had predicted?
Some examination of historical evidence leads to the contrary conclusion. SegWit developers probably had never predicted that certain OP_codes could have allowed for large data inclusions in transactions, and therefore hadn't considered the fee discounts would be getting abused to that extent.
Likewise for Taproot developers, who released OP_return without setting good spam limits.
Since these started getting abused, naturally developers of Bitcoin have become concerned and are now considering imposing some limits. This is only natural and follows the course that Satoshi set. Given the nuance of Bitcoin as a piece of software, many mistakes had to be corrected on the fly historically.
Now, what Luke is doing with OCEAN as a pool, is to merely offer miners a choise on what transactions they confirm.
Especially given that many pools openly receive off-band payments in a centralized way, only to confirm certain transactions... Payments that are more often than not not stared with miners, there are some very concerning trends on how pool operators have power over actual miners. OCEAN pool sets out to change that by eventually allowing people to pick their own block templates on how they confirm transactions.
So mining with ocean, arguably there will be absolutely not even a possibility for transaction censorship, as miners will be absolutely fee to pick what gets confirmed, as opposed to any other pool, where only the operator decides.
Edit: I am not affiliated with OCEAN in any way but from listening to the staff talks, I feel like they aren't even very fond of blocking ordinals at the protocol level. If you ACTUALLY pay attention to what Luke says, he has acknowledged multiple times that people can keep putting data in the Blockchain as they wish, he just says that they should be paying block fees for that space normally, without being allowed to abuse certain features to get discounts. And that's very likely to also end the ordinals craze.
you are missing the point completely if you think ordinals are the point.
LN is not easy peasy way to avoid high fees. . and the blockchain can be clogged in many ways.
Miners want higher fees as rewards shrink = fact this is what the battle is.
Miners are able to make fees higher in so many profitable ways Luke is playing whack a mole.
So the solution is not banning any transaction on the block in any manner except by value.
This will make it too costly to use the block chain for small sends.
do it for ½ ing while you make LN really work.
build an LN type address into core.
It pulls out 10% of your normal wallet. and you can do small sends with it.
And for the next 4 years develop the fuck out of scaling.
this is simple economics
scrypt has longer worth while ability to send small sends with ease.
banning select transactions like Luke wants to does not remove the economic desires by miners to clog the btc blockchain up.
here 148 blocks I am foundry.
I deliberately drop my hash rate on days 10 11 12 13 14 of a diff jump.
I can make on average 48 blocks a day if I mine one.
If I drop to 40 blocks a day right now I lose 8 x 6.25 = 50 coins
but I triple fees due to clogging the chain.
and the fee is 3 coins vs .5 coins. so 40 x 2.5 = 100 coins and I spend less power.
Lukes idea does not fix this.
and in the next ½ ing those raised fees would mean
8 x 3.125 coins lost or 25 coins lost.
and if they raise fees by .5 to just 2.5 40 x 2 = 80 coins
so this just gets worse with each ½ ing
and Lukes idea does not stop this.
I can know zero about code and zero about pc's.
I do know value. and if I can lose 50 coins to earn 100 coins plus cut power costs by 16% I am doing it.
or after the ½ ing if I can lose 25 coins to earn 80 coins plus cost my power costs by 16% I am doing it.
I have been talking about fee issues for over 5 years no make it 6 years
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0
this issue ain't getting fixed by Lukes idea.
I can demonstrate many ways big pools can clog the main chain.
I can also tell you Lukes idea is a fail. as pools will do shit like I am describing and they are too big .
Developers need to make it too costly for the pool to be clogged by the ones that want it clogged.
Good luck with it.
BTW
ltc makes 288 blocks today value of 1800 LTC about $140,400>> ½ ing is done
doge makes 1440 blocks today value of 1,440,000 >>>>>>>>> no ½ ing at all
total value of 1,580,400 a day
btc made 144 blocks at 7.25 coins = 1044 coins = 43,000,000
nice edge for btc but ½ ing drops it to 21,500,000 a day if fees remain at a coin
edge is greatly lowered. big miners will do every trick they can to boost fees. to make that edge up.
and it will be worse in 2028
