Congratulation, Bitcoin has reached 500 GB size hard disk data

[franky1]

they do empty blocks. so they dont care for fees as much as you think
they actually like collating data with least sigops
as thats less time between block attempts wasted. and allowing more time to churn through nonce and extra nonce to win the actual large reward
6.25btc = $140k is alot more to worry about winning due to a speed race.. than a $1-$1k in deciding which tx to include/exclude

tx with many sigops takes more time in collating tx's in their mempools.
so they would prefer a mempool of least sigops. and blocks of least merkle tree hashing and sigop checking a data block of

and if they can fill a block that uses only 1 sigops.
but where added bonus for them pre-planning this, can cause a congestion where everyone else then increases their fee rate. then thats a game they can and do play..
also, later when there is not a ordinal to add in that block session. they can get everyone elses raised fee tx's thus they win that way..

its just the same business accounting decision as empty blocks..  where its done to cause congestion to force everyone to pay more, for later blocks

as for my attitude. seeing your silly game you play socially for years causes me to lose respect for you. this is not the first time we have talked and its not like your some newbie.

you spend soo much time analysing social data of forum posts i know your not dumb, so dont play dumb. dont act like you dont know how to research and analyse data from sources.
i know your agenda and what side you lean towards so dont play ignorant that your some unbiased unknown user that has no social club

[1714943362]

1714943362

[1714943362]

1714943362

[1714943362]

1714943362

[1714943362]

1714943362

[1714943362]

1714943362

[larry_vw_1955]

they do empty blocks. so they dont care for fees as much as you think
they actually like collating data with least sigops
as thats less time between block attempts wasted. and allowing more time to churn through nonce and extra nonce to win the actual large reward
6.25btc = $140k is alot more to worry about winning due to a speed race.. than a $1-$1k in deciding which tx to include/exclude

tx with many sigops takes more time in collating tx's in their mempools.
so they would prefer a memppol of least sigops. and blocks of least merkle tree hashing a data block of

this is genius stuff franky. you must be a miner or closely associated to them to know this kind of thing off the top of your head. 

[franky1]

years of research and running scenarios and learning.. plus a bit of economics common sense and math

the other thing is
in short and on topic
pools can fill their own blocks with >3.99mb of data per block~210gb a year.. at no cost. because the fee on the tx became the fee reward in their coinbase(no real cost) and other average joes cant compete against that

waffly explainer
when its the pool making its own meme(nft/ordinal)
it doesnt matter what fee they attach. 1sat for 3.9mb or 6btc for 3.9mb

by them putting it into THEIR block attempt template (not broadcast it if not a block solved win)
the fee amount goes back to them. so its a cancel out out the cost

money out as tx fee money in as coin reward=0 money really moved

so the average joe user cant really fight off these with a fee war.

those promoting the crap to want a fee war just want to punish everyone and make bitcoin less appealing to use(dead weight bloat, payment congestions, premium fee and such) so they can promote people to use other network as a payment rail. and make bitcoin a non main system for payments(their end goal)

[NotATether]

you know that a transaction spending 0.00001000
can just set itself up where the ordinal of 3.9mb utxo and the outputs being 0.00000999 to its own change address. meaning losing just 1 sat as a fee

I know nothing about "ordinals", but I do know miners love money. If someone pays them 1 sat to fill a block, why are they even accepted in their mempool? Drop them, and include my transaction that pays over 200 sat for just a few bytes!

High-fee transactions in the ballpark that you mentioned are a rarity, so that once all of them are included in a block there is ample room for transactions paying normal fees in a block.

I highly doubt that miners would do empty blocks if the mempool tip balloons to 100 vMB or even 30 vMB, for example.

[franky1]

pools can put in a deadweigtht tx (nft/ordinal) of 3.9Xmb
put in any fee they want even 1sat or 2btc. knowing its in THEIR blocktemplate so they get that fee back. meaning it costs them nothing to bloat a block with dead data(not broadcast unconfirmed tx for other pools to steal that tx fee, but only put into a malicious pools blocktemplate where, should it win the block solve attempt. the tx is locked to that block thus only the malicious pool gets its coin back in its-own coinbase reward.)

this is where the pool only needs 1sig-op and 1 merkle tree hash to create a template full of dead weight data. which is free(no cost) and fast(2 operations) so they can speedily begin their blockhash asic mining of said blocktemplate

where they are then advantaged to be ahead to mine a block due to lack of op's processing delays. to actually mine and thus win the main reward of 6.25btc before competing pools.

pools dont care about the small amount of tx fee bonus as that requires adding in alot of transactions with alot of sig-ops and needing alot of merkle tree operations to fit in many transactions.. which would delay them from starting a asic mining hash process on that template thus risking them winning the 6.25 main reward

to incentivise a pool to take time adding in many transactions of small amounts of data but many sig-ops and merkle tree operations requires said transactions to pay alot to bribe pools to take that risk of delay

if people are forced to "pay more" then transactions become to expensive to be useful for a payment system so people stop using bitcoin as a payment system. thus .. less transactions willing to be made. thus needing transactions to pay more to get a total worthy of being added

snowball effect. bitcoin stops having users making payments on the bitcoin network due to bloats and expense.
thus bitcoin loses its utility

..
bitcoin should not allow this game to be played as it does not help the community.
now with all that said
a block of proper payments tx's of average joe users is about 2000tx of about 1.3mb(it was before ordinal junk)
meaning average tx is about 650bytes

how much do you think 2000 tx of 650bytes needs to pay to incentivise a block to ignore its easy bloat 2operation template. to instead have a min 2000sigop+ and 2000 merkle tree ops+ delay risk of losing their 6.25 goal per 10min reward chance

for knitpickers
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/avg-block-size.png?timespan=1year&h=405&w=720
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=1year&h=405&w=720
time of post is 2292tx for 2.11mb = 918.bytes per tx due to ordinal junk

so how much do you think people should pay to fight the ordinals

[AverageGlabella]

If/When miners start creating empty blocks we can create a minimum fee that would not stop people using btc but would stop this kind of attack but I do not see the motivation for a pool or miners to do this. What would they gain from congesting the blockchain full of empty blocks? Miners have paid 1000 of dollars for their mining equipment and you think instead of earning money they are going to sabotage something that earns them money? The margins for profitability is low atm so they need to be generating profit when they can.

Pools do not guarantee to get the fee back they are competing against other pools unless all pools banded together and attacked the Blockchain this is unrealistic because they will never band together because there is no motivation for them to sabotage something that earns them money.

[franky1]

not all pools want to cause congestion to pressure users to pay more
but it does happen

and for everyone that makes a tx. they are always, at every payment they make, thinking "will my tx get into the next block, i hope it does"
so they pay a certain amount to ensure they are more of a priority

meaning each payment they are paying is not 1sat but more..
just to not think.. just to not be on edge with "hope" wondering.. but instead at peace confident..  and more likely to be in very next block, thus not thinking

instead of in a situation that they are more likely going to be left waiting upto a couple days
.....
this confident not concerned base rate. is at a current average of more than $1 a payment to be deemed next block priority BEFORE ordinals was an extra concern

these things like empty/ordinal filed. now adds another layer of pressure to pay a lil extra higher to bribe a pool to not even attempt a ordinal fill, meaning a payment delay for normal tx.

lets use an average example of a payment filled block
average tx per block is 2000 for 1.3mb = 650bytes

average person using bitcoin for a payment of goods or service is paying
a.@1 sat per byte = 650sat ($0.15) each  total $300 for block winning pool
b.@2 sat per byte = 650sat ($0.30) each  total $600 for block winning pool
c,@10 sat per byte = 650sat ($1.50) each  total $3k for block winning pool
and so on
d.@100 sat per byte =650sat ($15) each  total $30k for block winning pool

vs time to waste doing sig-ops and merkle ops
1. 1sig-op and 1merkle tree hash(ordinal) = filled block 3.9Xmb bloat
2. 0sig-op and 1merkle tree hash(coinbase) = empty block 0.001mb bloat
3. 2000+ sig-op and 2000+ merkle hash = block with 2000 payments

so that 3rd option
how much time risk vs reward would you want
to risk doing (3) to put at risk for not getting (6.25)$140k block reward prize

would $3k cover it(c) or $30k(d) to ensure the blocks are always prefered filled with payments and a continual bribe to pools to never be empty/ordinal filled

and how much would users put up with to pay for their payments to facilitate this constant bribe to never do a empty or ordinal filled block attempt again

no one can know when a pool is currently making a block template of ordinal fill or empty. so users have to be on the constant bride to deter them from trying

so how much would this base fee bribe need to be to make it a consideration to fill blocks with 2000 real payments

and not have a "dang it they are ordinal filling" reactive thing of dang my tx didnt get in this last block i must RBF my tx with new higher fee to get the next one

how much base fee do people need as a constant min to be just a simple i feel this is enough for us to pay to always be in the next one and not worry about empties or ordinals delaying us

.. because thats the game certain people want users to play
to fight off the risk of having their payments delayed by a block+ people have to pay a min base of X as a constant bribe to ensure pools dont do empty/ordinal so they dont ever have to worry about a possible wait for block+1 delay

so how much do you think pools would want to get as an assurance that blocks always stay at a leanish 1.3mb for average 2000 payments (lean ish 68gb a year)
without constant worry of "will it be this block, did i pay enough to mitigate risk of a ordinal/empty block) constant dilemma thought every payment

ill give you a hint (c) 10sat per byte is not enough bribe for all users to permanently bribe pools away from ever doing a empty/ordinal filled block again

because at 10sat per byte average.. pools still done ordinals..
so to have the confidence of next block. people will end up paying more as a average fee to regain confidence of no worry next block confidence

[larry_vw_1955]

if people are forced to "pay more" then transactions become to expensive to be useful for a payment system so people stop using bitcoin as a payment system. thus .. less transactions willing to be made. thus needing transactions to pay more to get a total worthy of being added

snowball effect. bitcoin stops having users making payments on the bitcoin network due to bloats and expense.
thus bitcoin loses its utility

..
bitcoin should not allow this game to be played as it does not help the community.

i couldn't agree more with this. it's cool that a technology could exists to store files on chain but that was never what bitcoin was meant for. and it shouldn't be turned into that while at the same time punishing people that want to use it for its original intent and purpose.  

they should make their own blockchain designed to store data on chain and leave bitcoin alone. i don't want bitcoin to end up like ethereum did with huge transaction fees. eth seems to have solved that issue to some degree with their upgrade but their fees are still high as in you could pay $5 to send eth. thats way too high still. 

[franky1]

bitcoin is a payment system and should remain so
its a payment system for the unbanked because a purpose for "banks" is to store value and save up accumilate value

so its also an investment in your future wealth
so being deflationary and a investment is also part of its function

..
as for things like scaling bitcoin to allow more people to do that. we have been discussing scaling solutions for years

its not about bloating up blocks with spam like a certain group think. and they pretend their opposition are the instigators of such false narrative(shifting the blame)
its about increasing the payment tx count per block for the unbanked to be more. (more transaction count of genuine people transfering value) and progressive expansion of the blocksize (not large leaps which certain group think scaling means)
EG the change from the 1mb to 4mb blockspace did not offer lean utility of a 4x tx count. it instead kept a cludgy code limit of payment data to stay below 1mb and offer 3mb for bloaty "witness" crap

removing the cludgy witness crap code that ihinders payment data from fuly utilising the 4mb block would allow more payment tx into a block, instead of only benefittig businesses that want bloaty complex or deadweight crap on a block

the solutions are in many area's, but are not what others call "bigger blocks"(of deadweight spam)

its things like
a fee formulae that charges spammers more(rather then everyone at same time)
lean transactions without excess wasted bytes
and a progressive block increase when demand needs it

fee formulae:
if someone is spamming by spending a utxo thats fresh(only a few confirms(less than an hour) they should be paying more then someone that only buys things once a day
this can be coded very easily to look at a UTXO blockheight vs current blockheight tip and charge accordingly
EG
144/age = sat per byte
so 1confirm is 144
144 confirms is 1sat per byte
and this can be enforced both at tx relay and at block verification to reject if rule is not followed
(some people pretend its impossible or shouldnt be allowed as they want spam, they want spam to be cheap.. they pretend its for "freedom" but whos freedom.. freedom of the spammer. well a spammers freedom ends up limiting genuine peoples freedoms due to the spam )

if someone is wanting to bloat up a tx with too many inputs/outputs. they are not a independent user, they are usually a business.(how often have you needed to pay 200+ people at once.. 144 times a day)
thus those types of large space taking up tx's should be disadvantages and should pay more

they already save money buy batching up outputs instead of doing 200+ '1in-2out'
so they dont need to also save more via other bad math trickery to get "discount"

instead those large tx already getting extra so called "discount" by certain things. need to be brought back inline where being an individual independent user is not paying excess for wanting to make a lean transaction
its not just a byte per sat thing.
its
a. counting bytes and sigops counts (signature operations) and not offering discount to signature operations as that only benefits the businesses that do complex batched payments. and not the individual who only wants to spend their funds from one address(1sigop)
b. counting outputs. where having more then XXX outputs adds a sat per byte multiplier

these things can then penalise those that want to make big transactions multiple blocks a day. while not penalising everyone to equally pay more to fight off the spammy bloaters

thus allow more space and freedom for individuals to put in more transactions of genuine spending/payments. compared to letting businesses take up all the space of a block with only a few of their transactions.

thus allowing more tx per block
other things like enforcing a bytes used per input/output. so that it stops an input having FREEability to load upto 3.99mb of bloat.

EG taproot promise was their 'witness' would look like a <80byte signature. even if they used multisig feature on taproot address

yet that rule has not been enforced.
each opcode can easily be seen as offering differing features and each opcode (tx format/feature) should have enforced rules which consensus checks and validates a tx meets its function

bitcoin needs to harden up its consensus rules again not soften the rules.
certain people think bitcoin has no true consensus, no rules and shouldnt have rules. but, code is rule and rule is code. consensus is where rules are set and then verified to meet the rules where by it keeps everyone happy and united in a common purpose and utility
consensus is not about letting everything through unchallenged/unverified and throw users off that disagree with a trojan being added. its about that new formats are not added until there is mass majority of nodes have the node ready with a certain ruleset so they can all verify the same rules, before a new format is activated

this then stops unreviewed bugs being added becasue it requires people to review new features and upgrade their fullnode to accept new formats. thus prevents bad crap just being added unchallenged

these things can be done but a certain group doesnt want them done

these things can be done and it will make it so there is less spammy deadweight tx so letting more normal user genuine payment tx per block thus adding utility without penalising each user. whereby more tx count without more bloat is thus efficient use of blockspace for payments

i would rather have the current 500gb and expanding by upto 210gb per year be of efficient payments of lots of people. rather than spam deadweight of a few people

500gb of 14 years of millions of peoples payments is a great achievement
we should not be thinking of letting the next 210gb be of just a dozen people throwing in a combined total of just 52k memes
but instead a year of an average tx of 650byte allowing for 323,076,923 payments per year for that same space, but instead of 52k memes

[larry_vw_1955]

bitcoin is a payment system and should remain so
its a payment system for the unbanked because a purpose for "banks" is to store value and save up accumilate value

so its also an investment in your future wealth
so being deflationary and a investment is also part of its function

..
500gb of 14 years of millions of peoples payments is a great achievement
we should not be thinking of letting the next 210gb be of just a dozen people throwing in a combined total of just 52k memes
but instead a year of an average tx of 650byte allowing for 323,076,923 payments per year for that same space, but instead of 52k memes

so why can't someone fork bitcoin and remove the ability to do this ordinals thing? i think that might be a successful fork. at least it would have a purpose. some people would move over to that chain, some maybe wouldn't. maybe a bit OT but still. interesting question.

[franky1]

majority of ful nodes are of the core brand
it requires convincing core devs to implement

hard to do this when certain core devs have moderation privileges and delete any posts speaking critically about ordinals or even offering a solution to it.
(they only want positive pandering)

just read all those that call ordinals a feature in the different technical discussion parts and the lack of discussion of fixes

even in places like IRC, the mailing list and github they are ramping up moderation to more higher levels to remove any core roadmap critiquers

the only option the core devs and their fans(of the dev-gods) want to offer is people to create a altcoin fork and see who follows the altcoin(facepalm) which is not a 'option to fix something on bitcoin' its a go away and let core do as they please unscrutinised, non-independently reviewed. un-critiqued

[BlackHatCoiner]

it's cool that a technology could exists to store files on chain but that was never what bitcoin was meant for.

What's bad with BitTorrent?

so why can't someone fork bitcoin and remove the ability to do this ordinals thing?

Anybody can. There is just no point in doing it. First and foremost, for Bitcoin to be censorship resistant nobody can practice censorship; you do the moment you fork with that new rule. Second, you don't solve the problem with junk data, because there are nearly infinite manners to store junk on-chain, unless you give up forward compatibility (even that won't make it impossible though).

[franky1]

it's cool that a technology could exists to store files on chain but that was never what bitcoin was meant for.

What's bad with BitTorrent?

so why can't someone fork bitcoin and remove the ability to do this ordinals thing?

Anybody can. There is just no point in doing it. First and foremost, for Bitcoin to be censorship resistant nobody can practice censorship; you do the moment you fork with that new rule. Second, you don't solve the problem with junk data, because there are nearly infinite manners to store junk on-chain, unless you give up forward compatibility (even that won't make it impossible though).

blackhat your using too many of doomads scripts
you are also sounding more of an idiot the more often you talk like him

try and break away from his scripts and think for yourself more often

consensus is about rules that nodes verify. where transactions that fit the rules have no obstruction..
EG rules like a transaction must spend value where there is a signature signing a message of tx data of the funding key
the value being spent must be the value that is associated to the funding key(utxo). these rules are important because it stops people just randomly spending other peoples funds and stops random coinis from just being made

consensus is the consent of mass survey(consent-census). meaning they meet the rules of the majority which the majority are consenting to uphold
thus its not a permissionless system in the way doomad thinks
its a permissionless system in regards to the ownership of the funds of the key you hold the key to that does not require someone elses signature be default (unlike your favoured subnetwork bridge)
in short only you can move the value you own.
and as long as you meet the rules you can spend your funds without needing anyone elses signature

have you maybe in your wild teenage years of exploring relationships. learned terms like consent. and how its different from permission

[Flexystar]

Damn isn’t that is one of the concerning issue over the period of time? I mean though I can read through some posts which states 2 tb is enough for next decade to come but it is still huge disk space and not everyone is able to buy SSD and maintain it that way over the time. Devices get corrupted, they need to be upgraded all the time. Also, no one is just going to use it for bitcoin core, there would be other stuff too! So how developers are overcoming this issue in the future? Do we have technical plans for this or it’s just gonna be same way?
Also, how does wallets like mycelium etc work on the smartphone with little space? Is the data always on the servers or something?

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

Watch your manners. This is an adults' discussion.

So how developers are overcoming this issue in the future? Do we have technical plans for this or it’s just gonna be same way?

Every 2 years or so, we frequently notice serious drop in the prices of a gigabyte. According to backblaze, the cost of 1 GB dropped from around $0.033 in early 2017 to $0.015 in late 2022. That's about 50% within 6 years. I don't believe the cost of storing the blockchain will be less or equal with the current state, but I do think it will be cheap enough for a decade. In the end, for regular users, pruning if acquiring the disk is not possible, can provide the same benefit (but it will cost in time, due to future resyncs).

[franky1]

having a soft consensus where nodes are no longer needed to be responsible to verify everything .. BAD
(secure blockchain policy, made insecure)

having pruning where nodes are no longer having to archive full blockchain.. BAD
(decentralised and distributed blockchain les decentralised/distributed)

seem idiots have no clue what the bitcoin principles are.. or they do know but too busy paraphrasing scrips of their colleagues to think about what they are endorsing

idiots wanting to say that nodes that do not have strong hard rules to verify and dont archive are still deemed in their eyes "full nodes".
are just childish idiots pretending they are having adult conversation but still get upset when anyone dares say anything bad against them

if you like having a node that prunes and also doesnt have strong consensus rules to verify everything. then you are running a FOOL node not a FULL node

[DooMAD]

childish idiots pretending they are having adult conversation

In adult conversations, people don't just repeat their empty wishlist over and over for years on end, like a gormless toddler at Christmas.  You keep asking for things that are not possible.  Tell us how you achieve the goal of having no softforks at any point in future.  You've had since 2017 to come up with something.  Surely you have an idea by now?  Is your best answer still "be a nazi piece of shit and dictate what devs are and aren't permitted to code"?  I'm guessing your primitive brain still hasn't progressed beyond authoritarianism.  You are the child.  A whiny, petulant one, at that.

[larry_vw_1955]

if you like having a node that prunes and also doesnt have strong consensus rules to verify everything. then you are running a FOOL node not a FULL node

if we leave out the "that prunes" part then it reads like this:


if you like having a node and also doesnt have strong consensus rules to verify everything. then you are running a FOOL node not a FULL node


i assume that statement is still true. thing is, it's not like an individual running a node has any control over the consensus rules. how does someone running an individual node make their node have "strong consensus rules"? i don't think they can. they have to just obey what the developers put into those rules. so i don't see why we can really find fault with someone like that. as far as pruned nodes, i thought they still can verify transactions and have the full list of consensus rules too. maybe i'm wrong.

but in this day and age, if a serious bitcoin user can't afford a big enough hard drive to store the blockchain then maybe it's time to sell some btc and get one. right? we're talking 2TB should be good for another few years!   6 or maybe even 7 to be exact.

[DooMAD]

how does someone running an individual node make their node have "strong consensus rules"? i don't think they can. they have to just obey what the developers put into those rules.

If Bitcoin was closed-source and the wallet software had automatic updates which can't be disabled, then you would have to "obey developers".  But that's clearly not the system we have here.

Devs can propose new rules and then users/miners make a conscious decision as to whether or not they choose to download and install an update containing any new rules.  New rules don't take effect until users and miners are running the code.  As an individual, it may be problematic to enforce your will.  But as a collective, we have the final say.  Not Developers.

[franky1]

childish idiots pretending they are having adult conversation

In adult conversations, people don't just repeat their empty wishlist over and over for years on end, like a gormless toddler at Christmas.  You keep asking for things that are not possible.  Tell us how you achieve the goal of having no softforks at any point in future.  You've had since 2017 to come up with something.  Surely you have an idea by now?  Is your best answer still "be a nazi piece of shit and dictate what devs are and aren't permitted to code"?  I'm guessing your primitive brain still hasn't progressed beyond authoritarianism.  You are the child.  A whiny, petulant one, at that.

im not dictating anything because as you admit. i have not released code to control the network.
so that proves you are wrong about me being the network dictator
but who's code is the solo code reference client everyone else follows.. oh yea core.
so what does that make core

how can i be (your words) "irrelevant" and "dictator" at the same time
im not a leader, i dont want ass kissers i dont want to recruit people nor have folowers i have not obtained control..

do you even understand the word dictator
or did no one buy you a dictionary at christmas like some may have suggested you needed

its funny how your narrative changes to shift blame or deflect who is doing what

those that say the truth only have one narrative that sticks.. those that cant decide what to say each week. are the ones that either dont know or are lying

devs can code what they like but what the network decides should be decided by majority, as was the case 2009-2016
you love the idea that the majority does not decide anymore 2017+ and instead allow core devs to be the ones that slide things in without a consensus (consent by majority)

your ok with core throwing things in without needing the majority ready to verify whatever core slide in

you are ignorant to history and facts and ability when it suits you. but then twist it to fit your defense league team motto when it suits you

consensus was strong until it went soft

again funny part is your narratives change depending on which one fits some core defense narrative
EG you forgetting that things went soft,, yet then pretend core are the trusted group because you then pretend the majority consented to core.. (you pretending consensus is hard majority)
but then say the majority didnt need to consent because the network is now permissionless and soft(backward compatible) to not need consent to allow core updates and you are happy core can throw things in via soft (abstinence)

you pretend the network never was hard and cant go hard again
even though it can
but you dont want that to happen
you are willing to REKT anyone that tries
the reason you get emotional about my opinions and suggestions is because they contain truths and idea's that can harm cores central power if the majority listened to it. so you want me to shut off, f^^K off get banned.
you fear the majority going against core control. and thats what you are afraid of
so answer one question
did core get to do taproot due to majority consent of the masses to cause a consensus activation of majority of nodes all ready, as a majority collective to fully verify taproot
or
did core get to do taproot due to soft abstinence let a (trojan)new format in.. where there was no majority of nodes ready to fully verify taproot when it was let in, thus causing issues the network cannot undo due to lack of ability to have ruled it out or object to it in the first place