On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

lets actually test the cult members of "DOOM-ADvertising"

blockrock filed for an ETF and made this statement about how they see bitcoins consensus

The governance of decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, is by voluntary consensus and open competition. As a result, there may be a lack of consensus or clarity on the governance of any particular decentralized digital asset network, which may stymie such network’s utility and ability to grow and face challenges. The foregoing notwithstanding, the protocols for some decentralized networks, such as the Bitcoin network, are informally managed by a group of core developers that propose amendments to the relevant network’s source code. Core developers’ roles evolve over time, largely based on self‑determined participation.

do you agree or disagree that core manage bitcoin protocol(rules) decisions? yes or no.

do you agree or disagree that core self determine who gets to participate in code/proposals?

If a significant majority of users and miners adopt amendments to a decentralized network based on the proposals of such core developers, such network will be subject to new protocols that may adversely affect the value of the relevant digital asset.

do you agree or disagree that it requires a super majority adoption of the proposals to subject to new protocol amendments? yes or no

do you agree or disagree that the bitcoin network has amendments based on proposals of core? yes or no

[1714492374]

1714492374

[larry_vw_1955]

do you agree or disagree that core manage bitcoin protocol(rules) decisions? yes or no.

do you agree or disagree that core self determine who gets to participate in code/proposals?

do you agree or disagree that it requires a super majority adoption of the proposals to subject to new protocol amendments? yes or no

do you agree or disagree that the bitcoin network has amendments based on proposals of core? yes or no

do you agree that you have more than 50 bitcoin franky? yes or no.

i'm not sure i can agree with all of those statements you posted above though. not everything is black or white. in this world. but you definitely either have greater than or less than 50 btc. there's no doubt about that.

obviously you are really wanting people to answer "agree" and "yes" so you're not fooling anyone.   but it seems like you have some ulterior motive in that 3rd question. someone says "yes" and you say "wrong, core shortcutted that process they are dictators blah blah blah" but if they say "no" then you say "thanks for agreeing with me".

[franky1]

i have more then you think but it doesnt matter how many i have because its none of your business.
and my hoard has no impact on code or features or this topic.
so waste months playing guess the number if thats what entertains your distracting mind, but it will just make you look more stupid
or
concentrate on the topic of ordinals and how to fix it(code) and why its not technically difficult to fix(code) but it is politically difficult to fix(core)

i know you and your cult clan dont want me to talk about cores political challenge against change to fix it.. but thats the stumbling block of why the fix has not occured.

i know you want to pretend code has nothing to do with it and somehow you think coins has something to do with it. but your wrong. its all about the code and politics

[Wind_FURY]

i have more then you think but it doesnt matter how many i have because its none of your business.
and my hoard has no impact on code or features or this topic.
so waste months playing guess the number if thats what entertains your distracting mind, but it will just make you look more stupid
or
concentrate on the topic of ordinals and how to fix it(code) and why its not technically difficult to fix(code) but it is politically difficult to fix(core)

i know you and your cult clan dont want me to talk about cores political challenge against change to fix it.. but thats the stumbling block of why the fix has not occured.

i know you want to pretend code has nothing to do with it and somehow you think coins has something to do with it. but your wrong. its all about the code and politics

What's there to fix if nothing is technically broken? The network is working as it should, all the transactions follow the consensus rules, the fee market is working, so what's their to fix? Your debate is more of an ideological one than a technical one, plus you're merely dragging the issue to give you an opportunity to say something against the Core Developers.

OK franknbeans, we know you hate Core. Now stop it, maybe go look for another issue.

[franky1]

you do realise the name of this topic..

i know you love ordinals and dont want it to stop.. but there are many people that see it as junk that should not be in the blockchain and should be fixed

i know you dont want it stopped(cult narrative) but others do want to discuss it being stopped and want to know about whats preventing the fix. so yes core authority and code is part of the topic

there are other topics for other things to be talked about but this discussion in this topic is very well about dealing with the ordinal problem and the other problems preventing the ordinals problem from being dealt with

everything i have said in this topic(apart from poking at your social drama derailments about your secret crush on frankfurters and baked beans) has been about how they were caused, what they affected, how they can be stopped and whats preventing them from being stopped.. although your cult doesnt like that being talked about

[nutildah]

What's there to fix if nothing is technically broken? The network is working as it should, all the transactions follow the consensus rules, the fee market is working, so what's their to fix? Your debate is more of an ideological one than a technical one, plus you're merely dragging the issue to give you an opportunity to say something against the Core Developers.

He doesn't actually want to fix anything, he just wants to be mad at the world. I have a suspicion that even if we lived in the World According To Franknbeans where everything went the way he thinks it should, he would still find something to gripe about.

OK franknbeans, we know you hate Core. Now stop it, maybe go look for another issue.

Apparently he prefers it when you refer to him by his full name, Frankfurters N. Bakedbeans.

social drama derailments

A forum is a part of social media. It literally has "social" in the name. This isn't some roundtable for scientific discussion or an academic debate club, although if it was you'd have been booted a long time ago. It's an online forum in which any idiot can join, and that's why you're here in the first place.

[DooMAD]

A forum is a part of social media. It literally has "social" in the name. This isn't some roundtable for scientific discussion or an academic debate club, although if it was you'd have been booted a long time ago.

Indeed.  Like how he's not permitted to post in Development & Technical Discussion.  Banned due to his 'technobabble' and disruptive nature.  I suggest people head there if they want a sensible discussion about technical matters.  This thread is a lost cause and has been for some time.

do you agree or disagree that it requires a super majority adoption of the proposals to subject to new protocol amendments? yes or no

You're not fooling anyone.  I see exactly what you're doing.  Once again attempting to deny the existence of opt-in features via manipulative use of language.  I'll explain it again, like I'm sure I must have explained 100 times by now:

A group of 10 people decide what to eat.  8 out of the 10 people decide to go for Fish & Chips.  A majority have decided and 8 are definitely going.  The remaining 2 can either tag along, despite it not really being what they wanted, or they can break with the consensus and go off to get food somewhere else by themselves (hardfork).  

The consensus is for Fish & Chips.  However, this does not necessarily mean just Fish and just Chips.  Some members of the group can add salt & vinegar, others might prefer tartar sauce.  Some might add a cheeky pickled onion, others might even add a saveloy or battered sausage (opt-in softfork).  They do not require permission from a majority of the members in the group to customise their own meal in this way.  The consensus is still for Fish & Chips.  But people can add other things if they want.  Because individual freedom is a thing that exists here in the real world.

But since you are apparently reading from Josef Stalin's playbook and in the franky1-wonderful-world-of-make-believe Bitcoin appears to be some sort of totalitarian police state, you can't comprehend any of this.  You honestly believe the consensus only allows for plain fish and plain chips.  You think people need your consent to add things.  You then start screeching about "fake consensus" and "softened rules", claiming it's somehow immoral that people are adding what they want.  You despise individual freedoms.  But everyone else just sees an absolute freak-of-nature ranting about nonsense while they're all getting on with eating their meals.  

Why do you keep trying to deny that opt-in features are permitted?  Why is your brain so unbelievably broken?  You can take your perverted misinterpretation of permission and cram it up your arse, you Stalinist pig.

[franky1]

individual freedom?
HA

you want CORE to have the individual(centralised) freedom to add trojans without the community choice.
or to put it into your words shuv picked onions down peoples throats without their consent

again you dont care about network security where community choose to opt-in and then the feature activates when the community are ready to eat onions. you want to have core shuv onions down the communities throat without the community's consent

yes consensus is about consent of the masses.. get a dictionary. its not about your silly rhetoric of throw anything in via a central political party(stalin-core) and let everything be random chaos under stalin-core rule. where there is no vote or democracy..
yep you want totalitarian authoritarianism.. you dont believe in community vote... but it is funny how you think im the rule making authority even when i am not the one releasing code publicly to make rules...

this topic is about crap memes being shuved into the blockchain bloating up all the blockchains on all full node users which was done via a feature that the supermajority were not even ready to securely test and validate.
where the memes are just junk, serves no purpose to bitcoiners and disrupts actual bitcoins utility of actual bitcoin usage

i know you want the bitcoin network to not have a majority of nodes validating the blockchain data fully, because you want bitcoin to break because you idolise another network which you think users should use instead

[BlackHatCoiner]

you want CORE to have the individual(centralised) freedom to add trojans without the community choice.

The community are the users. Users run full nodes. There very much exist a choice. Either not to run Core's software, or to run it with all the potential drawbacks.

or to put it into your words shuv picked onions down peoples throats without their consent

Again, there very much exists consent, choice, user responsibility. It's just you who's incapable of noticing it. You're trapped in an imaginary dystopia where Internet strangers can somehow have individual freedom only if there is no freedom to encroach. And the problem is that you're so sure you're correct, that you're subconsciously refusing to accept the truth. Your ego is so big; so prioritized in your mind, that accepting the truth, and that you're wrong would put your psychological well-beingness in danger.

But your biological defenses are merely to protect this little, still properly working part of your brain. They are not designed to make you write good answers. That's why your entire post history is filled with garbage.

You're not very different than him:

(Shutter Island, IMDB)

[franky1]

blackhat. try not to recite doomad.. instead LEARN WHAT CONSENSUS IS AND HOW IT SOLVES THE BYZANTINE GENERALS problem to ensure that there WASNT a central point of failure(until core changed it and became the central point of failure)

there are actual discussion between the core devs of not wanting to rely on super majority activations
thers actual code that they made to bypass super majority

doomad escapes wanting to understand actual code and what core did. to instead pretend core deserve to be a central point of failure even though bitcoin is not suppose to have one

understand that having super majority readines of a upcoming feature before it activates is extra network security to actually have super majority of nodes ready to validate new features..

unlike the crap cludge of nodes that are "backward compatible" that just "isvalid" bypass checks to just let anything pass

[larry_vw_1955]

i have more then you think but it doesnt matter how many i have because its none of your business.

then why is it any of your business what other people are using bitcoin for?

and my hoard has no impact on code or features or this topic.

i wouldn't like it if lets say i minted a monkey using my own money onto the blockchain and then you found out about it and complained. that's really none of your business! but you want to make it your business. so why can't i know how many btc you have? maybe i need to check and make sure you're not abusing the network in some way with all your billions and trillions of satoshis.  

so waste months playing guess the number if thats what entertains your distracting mind, but it will just make you look more stupid
or
concentrate on the topic of ordinals and how to fix it(code) and why its not technically difficult to fix(code) but it is politically difficult to fix(core)

it's really not politically difficult to fix franky. you're just using that terminology as an excuse to be able to complain and bad mouth the bitcoin developers in some cases, i really think. if you would lay off your criticism of them and just focus on the technical issues you would probably win more converts. but no one is going to believe you when you have this huge conspiracy theory about the bitcoin devs being "bad".

i know you and your cult clan dont want me to talk about cores political challenge against change to fix it.. but thats the stumbling block of why the fix has not occured.

conspiracy theory...

i know you want to pretend code has nothing to do with it and somehow you think coins has something to do with it. but your wrong. its all about the code and politics

well, it doesn't have to be about the people, it could just be about the code but if you want a situation like that then it has to be an immutable smart contract or something of that nature. then we wouldn't be having this discussion and you wouldn't have anyone to be critical of. you  would have 2 choices: use it or not but nothing can ever be changed. that's just how you want it though. i think that's how you want it. but then you'll deny that. so you're confusing.

[franky1]

well, it doesn't have to be about the people, it could just be about the code but if you want a situation like that then it has to be an immutable smart contract or something of that nature. then we wouldn't be having this discussion and you wouldn't have anyone to be critical of. you  would have 2 choices: use it or not but nothing can ever be changed. that's just how you want it though. i think that's how you want it. but then you'll deny that. so you're confusing.

its not about never changing. its about changes made when the super majority have become ready to securely validate a change. to ensure no trojan junk gets added without supermajority recognition
then the change activates once majority of full nodes are accepting of a change.. rather then changes happening and full nodes need to play catch-up

. its about network security, using consensus in the way it has done before. it is about going back to the decentralised zero central point of failure system. where the network needs supermajority readiness to fully validate new features/functions(or prevent junk)

i know your mentor has not taught you about decentralised proposals, decentralised consensus, the byzantine generals problem nor super majority requirements for network security. so learn it..

but not from him because he will confuse you, as already proven.. he will tell you that consensus is not real, that network dont need to vote in a change and should not vote in a change. he will say blockchain data is not inportant and people should prune it. and all the other garbage he spouts of dismantling decentralisation so that only core get to control things

but take a few months to learn it for yourself from proper sources. the internet is your friend go search. code can be useful to learn. so learn it

[nutildah]

Hey OP, @Darker45:

Would you mind locking this thread? It jumped the shark about 30 pages ago. It has devolved into pointless bickering and there's nothing new under the sun left to be said here. Thanks for your consideration.

[Wind_FURY]

you do realise the name of this topic..

I understand the topic, "Where do you stand"? What I'm saying is stop spreading misinformation that something needs "fixing" in Bitcoin because there's nothing broken. You're pushing your opinion as fact, and taking it as another opportunity to criticize and attack the Core Developers.

i know you love ordinals and dont want it to stop.. but there are many people that see it as junk that should not be in the blockchain and should be fixed

Wrong, read my post history.

 

Although, what my opinion of Ordinals might become is as a "necessary evil" for the network's survival. Perhaps 50 years from now?

[franky1]

still laugh that the cult clan are against anyone doing a sub 300byte tx to spend coffee/pizza amounts and want them to stop and want them to only happen on other networks

yet they flip the script by saying dont stop 1sat being spend to add 3960000bytes of useless data that has no value and is not actually buying any real world product

and think this junk deadweight meme/json data will be the saviour of the network in 50 years.... their words

[Darker45]

Hey OP, @Darker45:

Would you mind locking this thread? It jumped the shark about 30 pages ago. It has devolved into pointless bickering and there's nothing new under the sun left to be said here. Thanks for your consideration.

DooMAD has actually PMed me about locking this thread. I didn't reply because I would've wanted this to die a natural death. That would hopefully mean this whole Ordinal thing has already gone past its short-lived hype and that it isn't worth discussing anymore. Also, I somehow wanted to defer to the moderators as to whether or not this whole discussion has gone pointless already and should be locked. After all, despite the request, even DooMAD himself/herself continued to clarify certain points.

I don't anymore check this discussion as often as before, but whenever I read the new replies, it seems they're still largely relevant and interesting, and even amusing, although I admittedly don't understand most of the technical points. So, notwithstanding the bickering and the off-topic ad hominems and even name calling, it seems this is still a nice discussion to follow.  

However, you're probably right that at this point the discussion is already going around in circles. There's probably nothing left to add. Perhaps it's indeed time to close this thread, and focus your attention somewhere else.

On a side note, first, my sincere apologies to DooMAD for not responding to his/her message. Second, this isn't the first time that you guys (franky1, DooMAD, nutildah, BlackHatCoiner, and others) went into a heated head-to-head discussion. In fairness, it seems it's enriching. It's very much unlike the personal and political kind of feud that we used to witness here.

Finally, thanks everybody for taking part in the discussion. I should've added a poll to this.