On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[Wind_FURY]

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

nutildah loves it and thinks its a real NFT that has value and is trying his hardest to say it is real with his silly
"read casey, look at casey, trust casey" crap

I hate to agree with franky but he is right. There are people in this topic and elsewhere that for different reasons refuse to acknowledge the scam nature of this whole thing. Ordinals is not part of or enforced by bitcoin consensus rules or any other consensus rules, it is basically an illusion created and controlled by a centralized authority and is sold to people who are unknowingly attacking bitcoin.

Are you talking about how "Ordinals" are making Satoshi No. "XXXXXX" = Level "X" in Rarity? I would have to agree with franky1 too if it's that. It's not real, it's merely a made up concept, although I would have to also admit that it's remarkable.

[1714478341]

1714478341

[1714478341]

1714478341

[1714478341]

1714478341

[larry_vw_1955]

And IMO those data you mentioned usually could be obtained by other means, so it's more likely government would go after centralized website/organization first.

obviously because those are easier to take down than something stored on the blockchain. what if those orginization are using bitcoin as a backup? they'll just redownload it and reupload it somewhere else.

[d5000]

its just code he wrote which he can change

Ordinals is not part of or enforced by bitcoin consensus rules or any other consensus rules, it is basically an illusion created and controlled by a centralized authority and is sold to people who are unknowingly attacking bitcoin.

Well I remain skeptical about Ordinals (on BTC), but that is not entirely correct. The Ordinals software is open source (it's even CC0), so if Casey changed his rules, everybody could continue with the old ord software, or fork it and make an improved client based on the old rules. As the inscriptions "obey" the current Bitcoin consensus the inscriptions themselves are sort of "enforced" by the protocol.

The only way Casey could try to make old inscriptions invalid is trying to use his ordinals.com domain to claim some sort of "authority" on the Ordinals protocol "extension". But I think he would not be successful. That would be very much suicide for the concept, old ordinals owners would become enraged and fund an alternative platform.

Omni, Counterparty and other "extension" providers are similar. Of course they have parts of a kind of an own consensus which is not identical to the Bitcoin consensus, but there is no centralized authority which can control the way it is used. (Ethereum, for example, is much more centralized than any of these "extension providers" due to the premine, the ETH foundation/founders can simply threaten to dump any fork-coins which result in a protocol upgrade not wanted by them like they did in the TheDAO fiasco, even if the majority of the nodes support it.)

BTW, looking at inscriptions like this one: are they now trying to replicate Namecoin on BTC?  

[nutildah]

yeah but it's not in bitcoin core. and it requires an "add-on" to function. whether that is acceptable or not i guess is up to each individual person.

Yep. Glad we're finally on the same page.

[pooya87]

Omni, Counterparty and other "extension" providers are similar.

True but at least in Omni and similar protocols there is an actual script or an actual smart contract being used not arbitrary data turning bitcoin to a cloud storage then selling it to gullible people. Not to mention that Omni is as small as possible and wastes a tiny amount of block space (and this is a key difference).
For example the smart contract inside this Omni transaction is:

Code:

6f6d6e69 (Omni protocol indicator)
0000 (tx version)
0000 (tx type -> simple send)
0000001f (token name/type -> Tether)
00000009e7972fac (amount -> 425.401507)

However there isn't really any smart contract in Ordinals attack. They are basically just pushing the raw bytes and a hash in a simple PushData abusing the loose witness version 1 verification rules.

[DooMAD]

the memes dont move
a reference of the meme does not move

there is no proof of transfer. its just lame human agreement of transfer
a problem the cypherpunks had before bitcoin came along

yes they  can agree value transfered but none of the cypherpunks pre2009 came up with a system that showed a reference item move in data format that could not be edited/changed later

its also a problem why non blockchain "smart contract" subnetworks dont pass certain tests of pre bitcoin solving "digital money" isssues. the lack of proof of transfer that cant be edited/revoked/rejected

i still find it funny how nutildah does not know basic bitcoin stuff.. after soo many years in the community
even funnier is how passionate and argumentative he gets about wanting this meme crap dead weight to continue and be scam sold to victims. even though he pretends he never had owned any

my reason for trying to show the scam is that if it was fiat company trying to sell penny shares to victims where its later found out the victims never actually owned the shares. that company should be stopped as they are scamming people

In the spirit of attempting to maintain a civilised discussion, rather than making the accusation that Nutildah "doesn't understand", could you perhaps say that they "have different priorities"?  Clearly you feel more strongly about this issue than Nutildah does, so for that reason, you're never going to see eye-to-eye.  They understand the issue, but they don't understand your insistence to frame the discussion in the manner you are.  They aren't going to perceive things the way you do, so it's futile to keep badgering them.

I'm going to make an effort on this front as well.  Since you and I seem to have different priorities when it comes to freedom, we often clash.  Given the choice between "you have total freedom, but there's a cost to pay" versus "you have less freedom, but it's cheaper", I'm always going to opt for the former.  That's something we're never going to agree on.  So, rather than dismiss you as authoritarian, I'll simply try to acknowledge that we both want different things.

Would you find this agreeable moving forward?

[franky1]

in the spirit of civility. without insult lets clarify your mindset

Given the choice between "you have total freedom, but there's a cost to pay" versus "you have less freedom, but it's cheaper", I'm always going to opt for the former.  

firstly
you do not want freedom. because one persons freedom is another persons invasion, trespass, theft, harm, displacement.

you cannot tell the difference between freedom vs right of consent
YOU dont beleive in consent and think it does not/should not exist.
(your "permissionless" mantra)

you say you do not prefer 'less freedom but cheaper'?.. yet
how come you prefer a subnetwork that is based on partnership signing and middlemen routing for "cheap"... meaning more permissions required(signatures, liquidity borrowing and availability for routing)
this is not censorship. this is consent.(a word you plead ignorance of understanding)

bitcoin has more freedom of payment transfer than your favoured subnetwork YOU prefer/promote to want people to use

so you are promoting a subnetwork that has 'less freedom for cheap'

you are the one telling people to go use other networks and certain services
you are telling people to do things that costs others extra on bitcoin or promote them to use other things that are not bitcoin. (making you the authoritarian)
you want a small dozen group to be free to reign control of the masses, where you want the masses to have no chance of consent/choice.

that said
bitcoin is a consent network
majority nodes cannot move value without the utxo owners consent(signed tx)
individuals didnot(past tense) have ability to change/edit bitcoin protocol/data without majority consent(consensus 2009-2016)

bitcoin is a consent network but you do not like this
you want the consent process weakened/removed (you love the soft consensus of 'backward compatible' false description.. which in reality is the abuse to not require majority consent to activate new rules)

you say you love freedom but you are not telling people to independently learn and research. but instead you are trying to ban users and get their posts deleted if they disagree with you

even things like mixers. knowing that exchanges treat mixers and your favoured subnetworks and altcoins as red flags, you try to push people into using them, which has consequences

not for their benefit but so you can gain from your victim recruits that follow your advise

yes you want freedom to be an outlaw and rule breaker. i get that. but you dont care about the freedom or consent of the masses

so until you can find one narrative that can clarify your mindset that does not go back and forth contradicting itself. (your current motives shows absolute malicious intent on other users and the network). i will continue to call you an idiot. .. but realise it is civil because i can think of hundreds of other uncivilised words to describe you

..
so
until you can understand consent. proof of ownership, proof of transfer.
(consensus payment network)

until you can understand the BIG difference between consent vs censor

until you can understand the BIG difference between the consent system of 2009-2016 vs 2017-now
where by now nodes no longer need to be ready to verify new rules for new rules to activate, which is bad security

i will until you can understand basic things.. will continue to be civil by describing people like you as idiots. because its describing you, not insulting you. its more civil then some hundreds of other things i could be using to insult you

you plead ignorant at times and refuse to want to learn. thus the description is accurate

if you were a newbie making the mistakes you make. so be it.. but you have been around bitcoin concepts long enough to know better. so showing ignorance. earns you the idiot tag

when you advertise things that harm others. note that i can call you many harsher things.
and me calling you an idiot is civil in comparison to what you really sound like

if you do not want to be tagged as an idiot.
stop sounding like one by
learning actual bitcoin concepts(do your own research),
admit to the flaws. faults, bugs, harms on others, which things can cause others

not the ill-conceived concepts your buddy group prefer to push onto the network/community

if i was uncivilised you would receive proper insulting words to be called

oh..
and before responding.
you might want to do some research on your post history vs my post history
by doing a word count of the library of insulting words.(real insulting words)
and see exactly who is more harsher to who

then do a search on who makes more demands on who, about their access/involvement of the network
by counting which are civilised (learn/research) vs uncivilised (F**K off)

you may learn it is you trying to make more people leave the bitcoin network, not be involved in securing the network via harsh insults if they dont want to leave bitcoin, or if they do not want bad flaws, bugs be trojaned in by a central group(s)

[Artemis3]

However there isn't really any smart contract in Ordinals attack. They are basically just pushing the raw bytes and a hash in a simple PushData abusing the loose witness version 1 verification rules.

Yeah this is the big problem that some people want to pretend its nothing.

Ordinals as a project, i don't know why waste time discussing it. It can be perfect, doesn't matter. The problem is Bitcoin letting the spam in, not Ordinals being great or trash, the quality of the spam doesn't matter just the fact that it found an exploit to get in.

And this harms Bitcoin, not Ordinals, they can move anywhere else anyway. Besides the spam is not just Ordinals, that's the other thing some are not seeing (or pretend its nothing). Ordinals merely showed the way and other spammers are following.

[franky1]

However there isn't really any smart contract in Ordinals attack. They are basically just pushing the raw bytes and a hash in a simple PushData abusing the loose witness version 1 verification rules.

Yeah this is the big problem that some people want to pretend its nothing.

Ordinals as a project, i don't know why waste time discussing it. It can be perfect, doesn't matter. The problem is Bitcoin letting the spam in, not Ordinals being great or trash, the quality of the spam doesn't matter just the fact that it found an exploit to get in.

And this harms Bitcoin, not Ordinals, they can move anywhere else anyway. Besides the spam is not just Ordinals, that's the other thing some are not seeing (or pretend its nothing). Ordinals merely showed the way and other spammers are following.

agree with both

there is actually a very simple way to have a proof of transfer and a proof of ownership that can happen in bitcoin using a feature that is a decade old. which would be far better than the ordinals scheme. without needing to turn bitcoin into a meme library of dead weight data(cloud storage of memes)

[DooMAD]

in the spirit of civility. without insult lets clarify your mindset

Given the choice between "you have total freedom, but there's a cost to pay" versus "you have less freedom, but it's cheaper", I'm always going to opt for the former.  

firstly
you do not want freedom. because one persons freedom is another persons invasion, trespass, theft, harm, displacement.

you cannot tell the difference between freedom vs right of consent
YOU dont beleive in consent and think it does not/should not exist.
(your "permissionless" mantra)

you say you do not prefer 'less freedom but cheaper'?.. yet
how come you prefer a subnetwork that is based on partnership signing and middlemen routing for "cheap"... meaning more permissions required(signatures, liquidity borrowing and availability for routing)
this is not censorship. this is consent.(a word you plead ignorance of understanding)

bitcoin has more freedom of payment transfer than your favoured subnetwork YOU prefer/promote to want people to use

so you are promoting a subnetwork that has 'less freedom for cheap'

you are the one telling people to go use other networks and certain services
you are telling people to do things that costs others extra on bitcoin or promote them to use other things that are not bitcoin. (making you the authoritarian)
you want a small dozen group to be free to reign control of the masses, where you want the masses to have no chance of consent/choice.

that said
bitcoin is a consent network
majority nodes cannot move value without the utxo owners consent(signed tx)
individuals didnot(past tense) have ability to change/edit bitcoin protocol/data without majority consent(consensus 2009-2016)

bitcoin is a consent network but you do not like this
you want the consent process weakened/removed (you love the soft consensus of 'backward compatible' false description.. which in reality is the abuse to not require majority consent to activate new rules)

you say you love freedom but you are not telling people to independently learn and research. but instead you are trying to ban users and get their posts deleted if they disagree with you

even things like mixers. knowing that exchanges treat mixers and your favoured subnetworks and altcoins as red flags, you try to push people into using them, which has consequences

not for their benefit but so you can gain from your victim recruits that follow your advise

yes you want freedom to be an outlaw and rule breaker. i get that. but you dont care about the freedom or consent of the masses

so until you can find one narrative that can clarify your mindset that does not go back and forth contradicting itself. (your current motives shows absolute malicious intent on other users and the network). i will continue to call you an idiot. .. but realise it is civil because i can think of hundreds of other uncivilised words to describe you

..
so
until you can understand consent. proof of ownership, proof of transfer.
(consensus payment network)

until you can understand the BIG difference between consent vs censor

until you can understand the BIG difference between the consent system of 2009-2016 vs 2017-now
where by now nodes no longer need to be ready to verify new rules for new rules to activate, which is bad security

i will until you can understand basic things.. will continue to be civil by describing people like you as idiots. because its describing you, not insulting you. its more civil then some hundreds of other things i could be using to insult you

you plead ignorant at times and refuse to want to learn. thus the description is accurate

if you were a newbie making the mistakes you make. so be it.. but you have been around bitcoin concepts long enough to know better. so showing ignorance. earns you the idiot tag

when you advertise things that harm others. note that i can call you many harsher things.
and me calling you an idiot is civil in comparison to what you really sound like

if you do not want to be tagged as an idiot.
stop sounding like one by
learning actual bitcoin concepts(do your own research),
admit to the flaws. faults, bugs, harms on others, which things can cause others

not the ill-conceived concepts your buddy group prefer to push onto the network/community

if i was uncivilised you would receive proper insulting words to be called

oh..
and before responding.
you might want to do some research on your post history vs my post history
by doing a word count of the library of insulting words.(real insulting words)
and see exactly who is more harsher to who

then do a search on who makes more demands on who, about their access/involvement of the network
by counting which are civilised (learn/research) vs uncivilised (F**K off)

you may learn it is you trying to make more people leave the bitcoin network, not be involved in securing the network via harsh insults if they dont want to leave bitcoin, or if they do not want bad flaws, bugs be trojaned in by a central group(s)

Well, no one can say I didn't try.  If you want to keep believing your rules can be enforced by social contract and the verbal diarrhoea you spout, I'll go back to calling you a deluded imbecile.  If you think your participation in a group means that everyone in that group requires your permission before others in the group can choose to do things that you have made the decision not to be a part of (and then comparing it to an act of rape, like only a complete sociopath would conceive of doing) I'll go back to calling you a fascist monster.

Give a twat an inch and he takes a mile.  

[franky1]

note how i only used "idiot" today
and in other posts over the years "fangirl" "social drama queen"


 then note doomads insult slurry, all in one post today. yep the day he supposed to be civil

verbal diarrhoea  
deluded imbecile.
sociopath
fascist monster
twat

by the way
i made no rules. there is no code forcing users.. no code you can find made by me that sets rules i am not telling the world to 'abide by my rules or else'

core however is the central point of failure(core devs admit they are) and they do make the rules and are allowing breaks of the rules if it fits their desires. even if it harms the majority of users value.. . they(and you as a fan) dont want independent critique or critical thinking

you want core to be free to harm majority. but you dont want majority to be free to say no(consent)

(core have the right to write anything they want into github.. but the majority should have the right to say no to code that can harm bitcoin on the active network..
learn the difference)

you dont like the majority to have consensus to prevent core additions. you want core additions without majority consensus

i simple ask people to do their own research instead of blind sheep following your narrative

you however tell people to STFU, F**K off, move to an altcoin, and request forum posts to be deleted. and forum users to be banned if they dont follow you

[BlackHatCoiner]

i made no rules. there is no code forcing users.. no code you can find made by me that sets rules i am not telling the world to 'abide by my rules or else'

Because you're apparently unable to code, for if you weren't, this board would be floated with your code. Hell, you barely even know your mother tongue.

(core have the right to write anything they want into github.. but the majority should have the right to say no to code that can harm bitcoin on the active network..

Core has every right to write and publish anything they want in their repository, because it's theirs. You, me, and every other Bitcoin user has every right to reject the change by denying to run their software. You can't dictate what a developer can do, and neither can they to you. It doesn't go more freer than that. The more you talk, the more it seems that you want the devs to not have the freedom to code whatever they want.

[franky1]

i made no rules. there is no code forcing users.. no code you can find made by me that sets rules i am not telling the world to 'abide by my rules or else'

Because you're apparently unable to code, for if you weren't, this board would be floated with your code. Hell, you barely even know your mother tongue.

(core have the right to write anything they want into github.. but the majority should have the right to say no to code that can harm bitcoin on the active network..

Core has every right to write and publish anything they want in their repository, because it's theirs. You, me, and every other Bitcoin user has every right to reject the change by denying to run their software. You can't dictate what a developer can do, and neither can they to you. It doesn't go more freer than that. The more you talk, the more it seems that you want the devs to not have the freedom to code whatever they want.

1. you dont know english

ill say something in perfect english acceptable to english people

drop the dog and bone, because your trouble and strife is a basin of gravy, making a box of toys for bees and honey

translation just for you
put down your phone, because your wife is a baby making noise for money

cockney rhyming slang is a dialect of english. and something you dont understand
yes its a form of english.
there are many other forms.
if you cant understand english.. go learn

it is not my fault that google translate is a poor tool you use.

there are many dialects of english
your not a native so YOU have the issues understanding english. because of YOUR limited understanding of english

here is a simple example
tom@o tom8o.. sc-on  sc-own
if you want to just cry and argue about english then thats on you.. not me

secondly
core have put stuff into the network protocol.. that now allows them to put more things into protocol without needing users to opt-in
thus you pretending users can simple decide to not upgrade = no core activation is you and doomad yet again lying about how the bitcoin works now

its funny how in some topics:
A. you love promoting that it doesnt require users to upgrade..
then today in this topic
B. you say it requires users to upgrade to accept change.. or not upgrade to "reject change"
(you cant even stick to one narrative A or B.. pick one)

you are instead promoting how core can throw things into bitcoin network protocol where users cannot vote, decide if its suitable for the network

you dont want a decentralised network of consensus. you want core central authority

and by the way
THIS IS A DISCUSSION forum

yet its YOU and your forum wife that dont want people discussing things.. becasue those things you dont want discussed ruin your snake oil sales pitches of scammy things which you dont want to be stopped

..
read the topic
majority of individuals are against this crap and want it to stop. its only you few buddy group/forum family. kissing ass to each other and defending each other to want this crap to continue

if you want to pretend its only me that opposes this crap.. have a ready of the many topics of lots of people against it. then read how its only the same few idiots trying to defend its continuation

then remember this is a discussion forum so you trying to get people that dont agree with you to stop discussing things. is you trying to control things

all i say is go learn, go research, try to understand how bitcoin actually works now and before and how things have changed and what has changed

you lot just cry about some social cause of defending devs and wanting to keep them as gods in your eyes, even if it means breaking/removing/softening/exploiting bitcoin rules to keep them in god mode

FOR EMPHASIS
this is a discussion forum.. (you want people to shut up or f-off)
i am not the rule maker (you pretend i am, then cry that i have shown no rules)
you want to pretend you know it all but then you play ignorant

if you dont know something or dont understand something GO RESEARCH

but research is not asking your forum wife for an updated sale pitch script to recite
it actually involved independent learning from source data and code

[BlackHatCoiner]

your not a native so YOU have the issues understanding english. because of YOUR limited understanding of english

Are offense, spelling mistakes and missing punctuation parts of your dialect? Don't expect every Internet user to understand your unique dialect. British and American are the two dialects most understand. I don't know what English you speak of, nor do I care. If you'd like to communicate, select either British or American.

(you cant even stick to one narrative A or B.. pick one)

I think that you misunderstanding my point is a more likely case.

you are instead promoting how core can throw things into bitcoin network protocol where users cannot vote, decide if its suitable for the network

Vote for what? Everybody can be in favor of the change by running a Bitcoin client with that particular change enforced.

[franky1]

i am speaking british. i do not need to "select" because i do not use a translator
it is YOU that does not understand enough british. also your translator YOU use is not a good one.. so find a better one

oh and by the way.
i actualy tested myself.
i pretended to not know the british english dialect called cockney rhyming slang and guess what it took me less then 25 seconds to translate it into google limited translation

so if you dont understand something, take atleast 25 seconds out of the waste of time social drama life. and try to learn something

this is a discussion forum
not a university english course lecture hall

do you understand the difference
if all you can respond with is grammar nazi debates.. you have been the one that has failed in this topic, by derailing it with such idiotic responses

so back to the topic

ordinal memes are not an NFT, they provide no proof of transfer. and thus anyone buying them off a meme creator is being scammed
also
ordinal memes are not helping with transaction count scaling nor transaction utility/affordability for many. thus not benefiting bitcoins purpose

there are ways that a bitcoin NFT can be made using features as old as a decade but idiots supporting these crap memes and wanting them to continue by pretending its censorship to try to keep bitcoin as a value transfer system instead of a meme library.. are idiots that dont understand bitcoins real purpose. dont want bitcoin to keep its real purpose and instead of making the schemes you do adore actually work. you instead want to argue about grammar with those that are saying that your schemes dont work

this is not an university english course lecture hall
its a discussion form
learn the difference


oh and by the way
UTXO PSBT LN HTLC are not words spoken in real world english. yet you use those words all the time... hypocrite

and last thing
if you are going to ignore the content and context of such content, simply because it does not begin a sentence with a capital letter and end a sentence with a fullstop(period) .. then that is your ignorance you have to deal with

and no dont cry and knit pick that i use '...' too much. i can speak how i please. especially becasue i am speaking english

dont bother replying with more off-topic grammar crap, instead use the time which you would have wasted on your grammar cries, to instead learn something

[franky1]

you are instead promoting how core can throw things into bitcoin network protocol where users cannot vote, decide if its suitable for the network

Vote for what? Everybody can be in favor of the change by running a Bitcoin client with that particular change enforced.

consensus WAS
users vote for a change by upgrading a node to have the rules ready to verify the change BEFORE the change occurs (before activation)
where the activation occurs because the network is majority ready to verify the change(good security)

however
core managed to mandate new code to be accepted. which has now allowed them to change the rules and activate whatever they want without needing the network nodes to be upgraded to be ready to enforce said rules

please take some time to learn consensus
learn what made bitcoin unique compared to old stuff cypherpunks were trying before bitcoin
learn what bitcoin solved and what its function was. and why certain security features were in place

then learn how the softening of consensus is a bug that allows code to be trojan activated without consent of the majority

like this ordinal crap that is happening due to the bug core put into the network

[DooMAD]

consensus WAS
users vote for a change by upgrading a node to have the rules ready to verify the change BEFORE the change occurs (before activation)
where the activation occurs because the network is majority ready to verify the change(good security)

however
core managed to mandate new code to be accepted. which has now allowed them to change the rules and activate whatever they want without needing the network nodes to be upgraded to be ready to enforce said rules

please take some time to learn consensus

BIP12 is from 2011.  It was proposed to be activated by softfork.  This proves beyond all doubt that franky1 is a gormless imbecile who does not understand consensus.
BIP16 is from 2012.  It was proposed to be activated by softfork.  This proves beyond all doubt that franky1 is a gormless imbecile who does not understand consensus.
BIP18 is from 2012.  It was proposed to be activated by softfork.  This proves beyond all doubt that franky1 is a gormless imbecile who does not understand consensus.

Do I need to continue?  You are either completely delusional or completely braindead if you think Bitcoin never used backwards-compatible (or, as franky1 likes to call it, "rape", because he's a vile, disgusting, inhuman piece of shit) code prior to SegWit.

[franky1]

those three examples are not user node consent (consensus)
you are the one in different posts and topics saying:

-there was never consent and trying to prove it
-you then say users get the choice by deciding not to run the software
-then you say core can do what they like and add what code they like and no one should stop them

funny part is
"it was PROPOSED" to be activated by softfork
you forget to include the whole conversations of back in those days

discussions came about how a soft consensus back then was dangerous so then it became a  need of 55% of miner adoption before activation. where miners had to run the updated software first and then flag they were running and ready to activate it. before it would activate

years later
things now dont even require that.. because consensus has been softened multiple times where by this ordinals crap got allowed to occur


just because a trojan back door exists and every few years the door is widened. does not mean we need to put up with the crap and keep widening the door and letting all crap in

the 55% was also controversial
also as all those bips mention, there are risks of forks doing it their way in earlier years so they had to be careful..
where a consequence.. they eventually gave up trying bip12.
and also bip16 caused a fork(chain split)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/925
because yep softforks went bad in 2012

oh and also if you dare read the bips.. you will read things like

To gracefully upgrade and ensure no long-lasting block-chain split occurs, more than 50% of miners must support full validation of the new transaction type and must switch from the old validation rules to the new rules at the same time.

To judge whether or not more than 50% of hashing power supports this BIP, miners are asked to upgrade their software and put the string "/P2SH/" in the input of the coinbase transaction for blocks that they create.

If a majority of hashing power does not support the new validation rules, then rollout will be postponed (or rejected if it becomes clear that a majority will never be achieved).

which with both the fact that the lower threshold(55%) caused problems and that it requires node readiness to verify..  is why they raised the limits to 75% and the 95% (ISM) (Is Super Majority 75% then 95% (oh this was in 2012 too))
after the attempts of lowering the requirements caused issues.


but
then years later the trojan adorers wanted to just not require any % and just let anything in by pretending soft consensus was error free (it was not, but trojan adorers dont like that being discussed)


so the way things are done now... do to them getting their way since 2017
the CONSENSUS SOFTENING lately is not about fork risk. because it just makes old nodes LIMP/ FOOL nodes that dont validating new stuff (thus not even a true backward compatibility)

something that has been controversial for years

but doomad doesnt like anyone talking about that, he just wants core to throw anything in untested and unverified

[d5000]

...

Yep, I more or less agree -- my remark was about the way the "sub-consensus" works in the case of Ordinals and Omni/Counterparty, and it's identic. Both assign "significance" to data which would normally be read as "arbitrary" with the standard Bitcoin tools (which follow only the Bitcoin protocol).

I've thought a bit how the Ordinals problem could be dealt with without censorship or hard forks, but simply using incentive mechanisms and/or possible soft forks. Apart from making ordinal-type taproot scripts non-standard, which could be a "short term" strategy but is a bit of a "hack", I think there could be a more long-term oriented, "cleaner" strategy to provide a clear "incentive framework": creating two new transaction types with even better witness discounts than Segwit-style transactions.

The first type would be for pure financial transactions without OP_RETURN scripts nor any contracts. It would get 4x discount in comparison to today. Maybe even with a privacy mechanism in the style of Monero or Grin.

The second type would be for small data inscriptions with a single OP_RETURN output to up to a few hundreds of bytes, and would get 2x the Segwit-style witness discount. I would prefer 200 bytes instead of 80, or even a bit more, to be able to support at least some of the Ordinal Inscription use cases, without opening to things like JPEGs.

For larger inscriptions, a "data sidechain" could be supported "semi-officially", with a client offering to store inscriptions which are hashed into a small OP_RETURN output, but separately from the main chain. (This could include the "notify and takedown" mechanism I outlined here).

We could allow some more types to be supported by the 2x category, like popular contract types (multisig, atomic swaps/Lightning HTLCs and channel openings etc.). There could be a mechanism similar to "standardness" to enable them for that category.

We would then have a new "minimum fee level" 4 times lower than now, so - always having the current "fee market" in mind - the fee level for the current categories would be moving two "steps" higher for the current transaction types:

- standard non-segwit transactions: paying 8x the new minimum fee
- standard segwit transactions with full contracts, including Ordinals: paying 4x the minimum fee
- new "small data" / limited contract transactions: paying 2x the minimum fee
- simple financial transactions: paying 1x the minimum fee

Ordinals Inscriptions would then, on average, pay approximately 4 times the fees they pay now (with similar network congestion).

This is just a very general idea, which should (from my understanding, please correct if not) be achievable with a soft fork. The advantage is: we would not rule out new contracts and innovation in that field, but make it up to 4x more expensive until it is accepted generally.

[franky1]

@d5000

messing with the fee's in regards to ordinal crap does not work because mining pools accept the meme crap with less than normal fee's and even wit no fee at all.. so no point thinking it can be fixed with fee's


to make ordinal memes no longer available to be on the network is easy as using the trojan backdoor trick in the opposite direction
upto 80bytes is within the upto weight rule.. and wont cause a hard FORK or soft FORK

it would however harden consensus to not allow random bloat to be put onto the blockchain, without first needing to use consensus to decide if new code deserves to be part of bitcoin protocol
(consensus = consent+census = uniting consent of majority survey)


thus improving security where by again we can get back to some semblance of consensus that requires nodes to upgrade first BEFORE changes are activated

as for a way to turn the dead weight memes into a form of NFT that has proof of transfer
thats an easy trick but if those idiots that love the meme crap cant work it out.. GOOD