What are your thoughts?

Great idea but why not directly embed a *solid* language in your few transaction-bytes instead, like c++ for example.
Jokes aside, as already pointed out as long as which-ever-language is not part of the Bitcoin protocol, nothing will happen.  

And hopefully onchain program code (aside from the few op-return commands) will never be a thing with Bitcoin. No need for another turing-complete megachain. Just sidechain that shit or use a normal centralized server, which is probably the better solution in 99.9% of cases anyway.

Wait.... Just bought a Ledger wallet a week ago. I have some ETh inside. Should i take them off? Is it unsafe ?

It would be fool to think that they don't understand the basic. Question is why they are pretending that the don't have the basic understanding. Who is behind all these?
Let me guess, it's those who are printing notes and doing everything from the tax payers money.

Question remains.
The device is not an offline device then?
Someone please answer it.

Yeah but its not though.

Its literally just a bunch of degens who are using Bitcoin blockspace for their latest round of Ponzi hot potato passing. Once they grow bored of it, and they will, they'll simply move on to the next thing and fees will go back to normal (or at least substantially lower). I have heard the conspiracy theory that BSV people are behind it, and there are indeed developers from there working on ordinals and BRC20 stuff, but that's simply because its more profitable to work on BTC than BSV.

Well the Bitcoin node doesn't have to execute the scripts. The people that care about the scripts would do that and they could easily verify the validity of the scripts. The effect would be something like a side chain, but embedded in the chain itself.

I don't know if it, or something similar, is a good idea or not, but if it valuable and economically viable, it will happen.

I agree with your point, OP.
This Ordinals BS being portrayed as some kind of attack over the Bitcoin Core blockchain is something that annoys me.
It's not an attack. It's just a bunch of NFT holders, who don't care about congesting the blockchain with transactions and paying higher transaction fees. I'm not blockchain developer or expert, but my proposal is to impose a high minimum fee for the Ordinals transactions.
Let's see if those NFT holders will be so happy to pay 100-200 or 300 USD fee per transaction and keep congesting the blockchain.

It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog.

What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture?

I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally?

Technically it should be blockchain which is getting used here and not the bitcoin. Blockchain is the real highway and other coins or tokens are just the vehicle riding on them. In similar fashion Ordinals NFT is using branch on the blockchain.

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.
 

you do realise POOL MANAGERS take most the fee's not the asic owners(most pools share payments are the main reward not the fee element)

you do realise POOL MANAGERS can spend their own income in their own block templates(not zero confirm relay) where they give themselves a high fee(returning funds to themselves AT NO COST) but causing the crappy fee estimator of EVERYONE ELSE to be high

Upgrades and development of the Bitcoin blockchain can be implemented even without Hardfork.  Softfork is enough since Segwit and Taproot had been implemented through soft-fork.  So I do not think that there is a need for Hardfork in order to solve the current problem.

I think removing Bitcoin Ordinals in the blockchain does not need hardfork, the developer just needs to disable the feature that allows it and it can be done without hardforking the network.

I hope to add the source and modify the images so that we can follow them with you. Reading the topic now is almost impossible.

I don't know where you got the data that the unemployment rate is so high, but I will use this source as a reference for the discussion.

Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

It is true that the rate of 3.4% is a little high, but it is much lower than the rates for the year 2022, when inflation was high, which means that the Federal Reserve’s policy of raising interest rates, which started from the same period, had a positive effect on reducing the number of unemployment.

I agree that the data still needs more months to judge its accuracy, but it is good compared to the state of the economy.

I think unemployment is just one of the factor from many which is either indirect symptom of inflation. Unemployment will only reduce the burden from industrialist shoulders to minimise the investment done on cost to company. This indirectly increases the revenue and profitability so that they could pay higher taxes. That’s how whole thing works in corporate sector.

However this is just one factor we are discussing here. It does not fully contribute to the enigma. From small business owner to farmer or from car dealer to manufacturer everything pushes the market demand up and down resulting into adjusted economic cycle and inflation fluctuates accordingly.

Right now demand is disturbed due to hiked interest rates and its not other way round tbh.

Do we all want censorship from Bitcoin full node operators and miners on our transactions?

I believe that if they filter and censor transactions from Ordinals, they will be able to do the same for coins related to CoinJoin transactions or any reason they think is bad, serious and should be censored.

It is not what Satoshi Nakamoto designed for Bitcoin and it is not what the Bitcoin community have tried to maintain since 2009.

Should we break it because of Ordinals?

My answer is very strong, No, I don't want it and I don't think we should have it.

Nah, although the fees is still high as compare before wherein we can pay 1 sat/vByte, now the fees is between 16 - 35 sat/vByte, and I think that is manageable, still less than 2$.


Depends on the nodes if they will eventually reject Ordinals, the point of contention is that it's business and they are making big money because we try to outbid each other to get our transaction to get into the next block, so that debate is going on right now.

For all we know, those entities spamming bitcoin's network right now are the same individuals back in 2017 wherein we have a debate whether to increase block or not.

From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression."

This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.

Being permissionless and censorship resistant are features of this payment system.

Now that payment system is being halted by a bug that was introduced.

The CPI results are out and it's not too shabby. It's come in at 4.9% instead of the 5.0% that was expected. The core readings stayed put where they were predicted to be, so that's pretty much on par with what everyone was thinking.

But what does that mean for us? Well, the price is currently hovering around the first resistance level, so it's not really time to jump in just yet. We don't wanna risk getting burned, especially when we're still waiting to see how things will develop.

That being said, my prediction of an uptrend formation is still looking pretty good. I need more confirmations on the short term charts, and then start looking for some long setups. If we can develop a good uptrend here, then we definitely wanna ride that wave and make some gains.  

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.