On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[DooMAD]

But, to clarify to everyone reading this: HmmMAA is arguing for BSV, and does not acknowledge value in running a full node unless being a miner. Given that, it is justified to be in favor of large size blocks. But Bitcoin is destined for micro-payments, indeed; it's just not the blockchain the way to go.

You are trying to twist my words , but i didn't expect something different from you , let's don't forget that you have ask banning people from a free speech forum .
As i have read in many of your posts you are not a fan of 1 MB blocks either , so why are you mention that i'm in favor of big blocks ? Also i said that every one that can do bussiness on bitcoin has interest to run a full node . Bitcoin is about building services and value , not hodling to buy lambos .  Guys like you want to cripple bitcoin so that people turn to L2 solutions that don't work .
If we follow your logic about everyone having the right/ability to run a node , than we should have Kb blocks and 56k modems as a prerequisite to participate in the network , as some people in 3rd world countries can't afford even to have a rapspi or a Mbit connection . And you dream of btc global adoption , so funny .
As you might understand someday " Δε βαφoνται με πoρδες τα αυγα" .
https://www.slang.gr/lemma/6318-me-pordes-den-bafontai-auga
Cheers .

PS. Apologies to every other member for derailing but i had to respond .

Ultimately, whether we are talking about Ordinals, or the off-topic subject of scaling, the result is the same.  Ask yourself the following question: 

Aside from voicing your disappointment on a discussion forum, are you going to *do* anything to change the status quo?

If the answer is "no", then Bitcoin will continue to function as it currently does.  If nothing changes and those securing the chain continue to follow the path we are currently on, the way Bitcoin works will not change in the way you would like it to.

Whether you agree with how others are interpreting your views or not is immaterial.  It's all moot.  If you want change, don't just talk about it, get something done. 

[1714475317]

1714475317

[1714475317]

1714475317

[1714475317]

1714475317

[1714475317]

1714475317

[franky1]

Bitcoin was destined for micropayments , high fees are just nonsense .

Bitcoin is the most inefficient, distributed database. For Bitcoin to tackle the same (on-chain) tx/sec rate as with financial institutions like Visa and Paypal, it has to become one. It simply becomes impractical for the average user to run a node.

But, to clarify to everyone reading this: HmmMAA is arguing for BSV, and does not acknowledge value in running a full node unless being a miner. Given that, it is justified to be in favor of large size blocks. But Bitcoin is destined for micro-payments, indeed; it's just not the blockchain the way to go.

and blackhat is anti-blockchain as just proven

stupid thing is bitcoin never leaves the blockchain so he is pretending his favoured network is bitcoin without the blockchain. even though his favoured network is Msat without the bitcoin

his game is the same as fiat bankers.
you know the story "19th century bank notes are gold".... decades later people realise they are not and lost value due to the lies

yep his favoured network can create msats without being locked to any bitcoin value. its been done many times. confirmed bitcoin is not required to create msat value.

so while he pretends his favoured network is bitcoin and the BTC network is not bitcoin or not the way bitcoin works. he has things the wrong way round

his favoured network is flawed broke and not able to cope with the liquidity of value bitcoin does. his favoured network gets worse the more popular it gets(payment success % levels decrease). but hey he does not care. as long as he can get idiots to move value into contracts destined to scammers like him he does not care. he will just wait them out until users have no balance on their side and instead all on his side and then and only then close out a proper bitcoin transaction paying him. while leaving the idiots he scammed with nothing

heck his favoured network is already showing the failure becasue instead of independant nodes moving "pizza" amounts 100% successfully users are ending up having to use custodians(factories) to hoard the value where users then just play around with "inbound balance" controlled by the custodian

yep majority of his favoured networks liquidity is locked up in factories(custodians) like bitfinex


but it is always funny to see them say dont fix bitcoin. and then start advertising their other networks

[larry_vw_1955]

Whether you agree with how others are interpreting your views or not is immaterial.  It's all moot.  If you want change, don't just talk about it, get something done. 

well about the only thing someone could really do is fork bitcoin. bitcoin has forked before. small blocks vs bigger blocks. this one could be monkeys vs no monkeys. but no one has stepped up to the plate to do that YET. maybe franky could do that. he would need to be on the lookout for things like the ORC-20 tokens though. 

https://www.bei24.com/post/what-is-orc-20-an-upgrade-of-brc-20-orc-20-vs-brc-20-exploring-the-future-potential

[nutildah]

You can't stop arbitrary data from being added to the blockchain. It's an age-old debate almost as old as bitcoin itself. What the devs can do is close the hole that allows for superlong taproot scripts in witness data.

this one could be monkeys vs no monkeys.

All pre-existing monkeys get grandfathered in to any sort of new fork unless you're including some kind of rollback to the pre-Taproot Wizards days, which makes things super complicated and let's face it, isn't gonna happen.

[Tolosi]

You can't stop arbitrary data from being added to the blockchain. It's an age-old debate almost as old as bitcoin itself. What the devs can do is close the hole that allows for superlong taproot scripts in witness data.

this one could be monkeys vs no monkeys.

All pre-existing monkeys get grandfathered in to any sort of new fork unless you're including some kind of rollback to the pre-Taproot Wizards days, which makes things super complicated and let's face it, isn't gonna happen.

I understand this. But bitcoin has exposed a weakness which can stop blockchain. And if it can happen, it will for sure.

[larry_vw_1955]

All pre-existing monkeys get grandfathered in to any sort of new fork

they would be grandfathers without any descendants though. no more making new monkeys.

unless you're including some kind of rollback to the pre-Taproot Wizards days, which makes things super complicated and let's face it, isn't gonna happen.

i would think that the bitcoin cash hard fork was way more complicated than just rolling back bitcoin to some previous state...

This episode was just a test run for the real thing: how to stop Bitcoin.

...

Attach 1 GB file to each tx

how do you attach a 1GB file to a transaction in bitcoin? they don't allow files that big. 

[franky1]

Whether you agree with how others are interpreting your views or not is immaterial.  It's all moot.  If you want change, don't just talk about it, get something done.  

well about the only thing someone could really do is fork bitcoin. bitcoin has forked before. small blocks vs bigger blocks. this one could be monkeys vs no monkeys. but no one has stepped up to the plate to do that YET. maybe franky could do that. he would need to be on the lookout for things like the ORC-20 tokens though.  

https://www.bei24.com/post/what-is-orc-20-an-upgrade-of-brc-20-orc-20-vs-brc-20-exploring-the-future-potential

a fork is when more then one chain sustains and persists..  AKA creating an altcoin
otherwise its just an orphan event of rejecting a few blocks where pools all congregate and follow one chain of blocks(aka not a fork(not a altcoin))
(hard or soft consensus is about whether a change is done with super majority consent or not requiring consent respectively)

now let me make this as clear as possible

you can upgrade/downgrade/change/reinforce the rules again, without causing a fork.
the only option is not to only make changes on an altcoin

stop with the crap of pretending that the only option is to create another network.. stop telling people to use another network if they dislike what bitcoin has been broken into. there is another option. fix the exploit

i know you are becoming just like doomad thinking only the 6 lead maintainer devs of core should be the only superpower to decide what upgrades get merged into core thus into bitcoin. but thats the mindset of the authoritarian/centralists.. dont fall for it. dont start promoting that centralisation is good for bitcoin by idolising 6 maintainers as gods

your falling into the same dumb scripts as what doomad is recruiting people to say. dont fall into the dumb trap

there are ways to fix the exploit without needing to move to another network
putting limits on lengths of witness per transaction again will just as nutildah admits grandfather old memes and json crap(we are stuck holding that old data) but it pretends new transactions from including long useless data
also having rules again to expect certain validatable data per opcode/sigop use where the bytes need to meet a specification/format or be associated with a certain policy would mean even short junk would get rejected becasue it isnt a script/signature

[larry_vw_1955]

now let me make this as clear as possible

you've already made yourself perfectly clear i understand what you have been saying.

you can upgrade/downgrade/change/reinforce the rules again, without causing a fork.

who is "you"?

the only option is not to only make changes on an altcoin

ok. if you say so franky.

stop with the crap of pretending that the only option is to create another network.. stop telling people to use another network if they dislike what bitcoin has been broken into. there is another option. fix the exploit

you keep saying do this and do that. who do you expect to do that. like "fix the exploit" who are you asking to do that exactly? me? i'm not a bitcoin developer so how am i supposed to fix it?

your falling into the same dumb scripts as what doomad is recruiting people to say. dont fall into the dumb trap

i highly doubt, franky, that we are going to see anyone do anything about this whole situation. because if something was going to be done, it would have already been done. not waiting around for weeks and months while the blockchain fills up with useless junk...they would have put a lid on it right away. no need for waiting around.

there are ways to fix the exploit without needing to move to another network
putting limits on lengths of witness per transaction again will just as nutildah admits grandfather old memes and json crap(we are stuck holding that old data) but it pretends new transactions from including long useless data
also having rules again to expect certain validatable data per opcode/sigop use where the bytes need to meet a specification/format or be associated with a certain policy would mean even short junk would get rejected becasue it isnt a script/signature

you're living in a fantasy land at this point if you think they are going to do all of that. there's simply no way that's going to happen since it hasn't already happened and there has been plenty enough time to do it. don't you think?

[franky1]

i agree that the bigger problem is the centralisation of development comes around to the idolation of 6 maintainers being the gods/authoritarians. and we(everyone) needs to stop that.

whenever anyone tries to oppose the authority. they get treated as opposition by their fanbase. so we need to stop treating core as gods and actually get back to a system of diverse full node brands where other brands can propose upgrades. without the REKT campaigns.
where by first step is to get the core devs to listen to the wide community instead of their current moderation policy (this forum, irc, stack, mailinglist, github) that only likes the pro core echo chamber club of ass kissers

the reason its taking so long is that core wont relinquish control in an instant. people(many) have already tried for a while to ask devs for changes and got ignored. other othering a different brand client with changes have been ignored or REKT

core need to stop being authoritarians.. heck even the last lead maintainer that left managed to admit the centralisation once he was out of contract.

the reason its not happening in an instant is the "civil war" has to come to a end result before any big change is noticed

it is funny how you think the only option is "no way that's going to happen" or "would have been done already" there is a middle ground
it is funny how you think the only option is "do nothing" or "make an altcoin" there is a middle ground

[be.open]

i agree that the bigger problem is the centralisation of development comes around to the idolation of 6 maintainers being the gods/authoritarians. and we(everyone) needs to stop that.

whenever anyone tries to oppose the authority. they get treated as opposition by their fanbase. so we need to stop treating core as gods and actually get back to a system of diverse full node brands where other brands can propose upgrades. without the REKT campaigns.
where by first step is to get the core devs to listen to the wide community instead of their current moderation policy (this forum, irc, stack, mailinglist, github) that only likes the pro core echo chamber club of ass kissers

the reason its taking so long is that core wont relinquish control in an instant. people(many) have already tried for a while to ask devs for changes and got ignored. other othering a different brand client with changes have been ignored or REKT

core need to stop being authoritarians.. heck even the last lead maintainer that left managed to admit the centralisation once he was out of contract.

the reason its not happening in an instant is the "civil war" has to come to a end result before any big change is noticed

it is funny how you think the only option is "no way that's going to happen" or "would have been done already" there is a middle ground
it is funny how you think the only option is "do nothing" or "make an altcoin" there is a middle ground

A nice feature of open source is that you can always clone the bitcoin core into your github and continue development in a new direction, make your own version of an alternative full client with stricter consensus rules, more in line with Satoshi's original vision. The only problem is how to get anyone else besides you to use this alternative full client.

By the way, I followed your advice and studied the architecture of the brc-20 tokens in more detail, and you are right - this is complete crap. I don't know who in their right mind wants to use it. But still, I remain of my opinion that idiots should have the right to remain idiots, you cannot force someone to stop doing stupid things if it is paid at the market price.

[franky1]

By the way, I followed your advice and studied the architecture of the brc-20 tokens in more detail, and you are right - this is complete crap. I don't know who in their right mind wants to use it. But still, I remain of my opinion that idiots should have the right to remain idiots, you cannot force someone to stop doing stupid things if it is paid at the market price.

yes i agree idiots will remain idiots, but you do atleast have to try to enlighten them. give them the chance to learn something outside of the echo chamber club house, rather than get stuck into a ass kissing echo chamber of idiocy and social drama loyalty while breaking bitcoin just to keep a friend.. (they dont realise the people they suck upto are not their friends)

i never ask people to blindly trust me, i never ask for ass kissing or idolation, im not intersted in forming friendship groups. i dont care about loyalty, friendship, trust.. i just ask people to do their research outside the social echo chambers.
i dont care if people dislike me for being frank with them. but they can atleast try to learn something.

as for those idiots saying "yea ordinals is BS and will die down by itself". yes ordinals and json junk crap is all scammy BS.. the bigger problem is the exploit of bloat allowance of nonsense data persists even if ordinals version x.x dies. because they just invent a new scam to use within the exploit
meaning when "first sat" trend died. then memes came, that died then brc-20 came, thats dying but now there is brc-70.. then brc-721 then brc777 and then brc1155

all of which are scammy ways to con people out of their money. aswell as cause fee mania for everyone else. and these will persist unless the exploit is fixed

heck the altnet fangirls then want bitcoin to store stablecoin "tokens" so they can then play with fiat on an altnet. thus making regulators jump in because fiat stable coins would be higher regulated than bitcoin. thus make bitcoin more highly regulated if it was containing stablecoin tokens..

the main problem is that if bitcoin is able to create ICO "tokens" regulators will make tighter restrictions on bitcoin to control ICO scammers. which no one wants(not scammers or regulators). so we need to get back to bitcoins main purpose, instead of allowing in things not bitcoin related which then gets regulators jumping deeper into things

[be.open]

the main problem is that if bitcoin is able to create ICO "tokens" regulators will make tighter restrictions on bitcoin to control ICO scammers. which no one wants(not scammers or regulators). so we need to get back to bitcoins main purpose, instead of allowing in things not bitcoin related which then gets regulators jumping deeper into things

I don't think the main issue with bitcoin is possible partisan scrutiny by the SEC or even a total ban in any arbitrary jurisdiction including the US (the ban in China was painful but not fatal). The main problem with bitcoin imo is the risk of losing decentralization at the pool level. Now the top three pools control 51% of the hashrate, and the top seven pools control 85% of the hashrate - and that's the problem.

[franky1]

the main problem is that if bitcoin is able to create ICO "tokens" regulators will make tighter restrictions on bitcoin to control ICO scammers. which no one wants(not scammers or regulators). so we need to get back to bitcoins main purpose, instead of allowing in things not bitcoin related which then gets regulators jumping deeper into things

I don't think the main issue with bitcoin is possible partisan scrutiny by the SEC or even a total ban in any arbitrary jurisdiction including the US (the ban in China was painful but not fatal). The main problem with bitcoin imo is the risk of losing decentralization at the pool level. Now the top three pools control 51% of the hashrate, and the top seven pools control 85% of the hashrate - and that's the problem.

there may be 3 pools that total 51%.. but those pools are not 1-3 warehouses
they are many many many farms of asics. whereby they also have many managers managing different stratums

so it may appear as 3 power houses. but think of it as 3 international races but scattered around the planet. in different locations, whereby the races have different cultures and decisions compared to their related kins
(i have a relative across the other side of planet, but he acts totally different to me even though we are part of same family)

if a pool was to get too abusive people just pool hop to  a less abusive pool in minutes. they are not stuck to only serve one of those 3 pools..

plus pools do not create the code/rules of bitcoin. all a pool does is choose which transactions to include and get its workers(miners) to simply hash a hash
the workers dont choose the transactions. so if a pool is being abusive of transaction choices the miners jump in minutes to another pool

the bigger problem is dev centralisation of the 6 5 main core dev maintainers who hold all the power of what gets merged into bitcoin.. and yes they are abusing that power. i have seen many of them "force merge" their own code without review or ACK from wider community of devs or users.
they are even making moderation policy whereby the main one that is moderator on this forum and of github wants to centralise the moderation powers to those same 6 5 devs where by anything that goes against their roadmap gets removed and uses banned from participating. where its not a independent reviewer/moderator. but those main devs that control it all

[be.open]

plus pools do not create the code/rules of bitcoin. all a pool does is choose which transactions to include and get its workers(miners) to simply hash a hash
the workers dont choose the transactions.

Exactly. And if the managers of three large pools declare an arbitrary public address persona non grata, attempts to exit from it will not be confirmed. It's interesting that you don't see this as a problem.

so if a pool is being abusive of transaction choices the miners jump in minutes to another pool

That is why your calls to ban BRC-20 tokens are doomed to failure. End miners don’t care about the content of transactions, even if they want to they can’t see them, their computing devices are just stupid number grinders. The only thing they will immediately react to is a decrease in profits, and they will switch to another pool.

[franky1]

plus pools do not create the code/rules of bitcoin. all a pool does is choose which transactions to include and get its workers(miners) to simply hash a hash
the workers dont choose the transactions.

Exactly. And if the managers of three large pools declare an arbitrary public address persona non grata, attempts to exit from it will not be confirmed. It's interesting that you don't see this as a problem.

so if a pool is being abusive of transaction choices the miners jump in minutes to another pool

That is why your calls to ban BRC-20 tokens are doomed to failure. End miners don’t care about the content of transactions, even if they want to they can’t see them, their computing devices are just stupid number grinders. The only thing they will immediately react to is a decrease in profits, and they will switch to another pool.

so why,, after now learning that its not the miners fault, were your pointing fingers at the miners hashpower as the threat..
.. i hope you now know that the cause and effect of the exploit is about the core devs not the miners. and you should worry more about dev abuse/centralisation

as for your transaction selection separate debate..

for pool managers they always have censored some transactions.. so when the BS brigade shout bitcoin is censorship proof they are wrong
transactions had to meet specific rules to even get into a pools mempool.. for instance:
transactions used to require a signature in the signature area of a transaction. if anything else went in there it got rejected. (rules have since then changed/softened since)

also. if you tried to push/relay a altcoin tx into bitcoin it would get rejected(for now, but who knows what validity check is next to be removed)

there used to be many default sanity checks to ensure lean efficient byte use of tx data.. emphasis USED TO BE

anyways
the amount of distributed stratums means even in the same 3 pools there are multiple more transaction selectors(block template creators) that then give a hash to their workers below them to hash.

yep even in 3 pools there are more then 3 blocktemplates happening at anyone time. meaning chances of one template not having a tx means one of the other templates might.

in short them 3 pools are not managed by just 3 people

[BTCBroker2016]

Bitcoin was destined for micropayments , high fees are just nonsense .

Bitcoin is the most inefficient, distributed database. For Bitcoin to tackle the same (on-chain) tx/sec rate as with financial institutions like Visa and Paypal, it has to become one. It simply becomes impractical for the average user to run a node.

But, to clarify to everyone reading this: HmmMAA is arguing for BSV, and does not acknowledge value in running a full node unless being a miner. Given that, it is justified to be in favor of large size blocks. But Bitcoin is destined for micro-payments, indeed; it's just not the blockchain the way to go.

It has changed so much from the begining of it's story everything is possible

[larry_vw_1955]

the bigger problem is dev centralisation of the 6 5 main core dev maintainers who hold all the power of what gets merged into bitcoin.. and yes they are abusing that power. i have seen many of them "force merge" their own code without review or ACK from wider community of devs or users.
they are even making moderation policy whereby the main one that is moderator on this forum and of github wants to centralise the moderation powers to those same 6 5 devs where by anything that goes against their roadmap gets removed and uses banned from participating. where its not a independent reviewer/moderator. but those main devs that control it all

you keep talking about the core developers as though they control bitcoin but all they got is a github and maybe a website .com domain name. here is what i propose franky. make your own .com domain name include the word "bitcoin" in it, make it sound official then start releasing your own version of bitcoin that does away with these problematic things you keep complaining about. if you make your website look official enough people might start downloading your version of core and before you know it, everyone is rejecting monkeys. what do you think?

certainly that would do more good than just sitting here complaining about something that's broken, you can be part of the solution that way. and you would be a hero.

[franky1]

if you think thats how things work larry. its time you do more research

learn things called REKT.. search it see the results
you will soon see that its not "just a github" of cores .. its THE github everyone has now become controlled by of cores


the aim is to decentralise the development by not letting core continue to control it.. because at this precise moment anyone that oppose core gets REKT and has their version chucked over to an altcoin

because lemmings keep thinking the only option is to fork and create an altcoin and see who follows

core need to change their hierarchy and moderation. to actually be the "open source" they pretend to promise
and be less objectional, less REKTing and les opposing of other brands of full nodes

however that involves something like firing achowe out of the group because he controls all the moderation and the main echo chamber clubhouse so they only hear a certain voice that repeats their own centered wishes

at the moment their definition of open source is like a newspaper.. its free and open to read the words but if you want to be an editor-in-chief that controls what gets written you(unlike a commenter/grammar checker volunteer) you need to be one of the 5 maintainers of core. anything else that goes against the 5 maintainers wishes gets treated as opposition and treated as not bitcoin.. yes they allow volunteers to change comments and minor issues that dont affect the roadmap to appear open. but there actually is a hierarchy..

thousands of devs over the last decade realise this centralisation. but they lost the fight of trying to decentralise bitcoin code development. and instead they gave up and just went to make an altcoin.
however that give up and use another network is not the only option.

we the wider community actually need to realise what the core devs have done to exploit bitcoin and not just let them continue but actually get them to act responsibly.

unlike your recent recruitment into a certain social tribe where you think that core should be left alone and other should just "f**k off"

..
there already are other brands of full nodes but if they dared to proposed a rule change or reinforce an old rule.. core would send out their acolytes to REKT them and other tactics. so right now other brands are left to only follow core. thus the solution is to get core to be less centralised and allow other brands to suggest changes

get it?

[be.open]

core need to change their hierarchy and moderation. to actually be the "open source" they pretend to promise
and be less objectional, less REKTing and les opposing of other brands of full nodes

This is where I disagree with you and will not support your crusade against core developers. The only real power they have is to block attempts to make changes to production, and I'm fine with that. They may not write another line of code for the next 50 years - okay. Let them move very slowly along the approved roadmap and check the code a thousand times for potential vulnerabilities so as not to screw up the next time as they already screwed up with oridnals.

I showed you where the real vulnerability of bitcoin is, which is already being exploited, and you know it. At the level of pool managers, bitcoin is not censorship resistant today (If you're a badass hacker, fuck binance and withdraw 100,000 bitcoins to your local wallet, you won't be able to spend it, and that's all you need to know about bitcoin's resistance to censorship). And if you want to push harder on just eight points of failure at the same time, it’s not so difficult. The decentralization of pow-mining is an opportunity that can be realized, or it can be fucked up, it is not an immanent given that is inherent forever. But you prefer to fight windmills with zero chance of success. Good luck.

[BlackHatCoiner]

if you make your website look official enough people might start downloading your version of core and before you know it, everyone is rejecting monkeys. what do you think?

You're wasting your time. He's not going to do the obvious, because he's a lazy narcissist. He only knows to blame people for not agreeing with him, as he thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth; the breathing true consensus.

(If you're a badass hacker, fuck binance and withdraw 100,000 bitcoins to your local wallet, you won't be able to spend it

According to who? There may be a few pool owners who'll reject it after a phone call from the Chinese guy, but there is no way to prevent all pool owners to reject it; unless of course the top pools cooperate to continuously reorg the chain for an indefinite time, until CZ gets his money back. That, however, would be a self-destructive move, as Bitcoin would no longer have the same value.