On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[Wind_FURY]

Haha yeah, and it's not just about disinformation and the lies about the Lightning Network.

even you dont know how lightning works.

You're right, I don't know how Lightning works. That's why I take advice, and learn from the people from this topic, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.0

DEFINITELY NOT from people like you who disinform anyone who wants to learn and gaslight them. Didn't you try to disinform people that transactions in Lightning are merely IOUs?

 

It's also the fact that he evangelized that Bitcoin Unlimited, and all those hard forks to bigger blocks, are the best technical solutions to scaling the network. He probably should make his definition of scaling clear.

actually i was never an angel trying to convert people to a religion..

Who said you were an angel? Laughable. You're merely a villain trying to spread misinformation in the forum. But everyone got smarter, and braver. Why? Because they saw through your crap.

 

Did you notice that more people are debating you now? Before there was just DooMAD, me and probably two more people.

want

wants

want

dont want

Listen clearly, you insidious, manipulative snake.  

Don't let him get through to you. We know he's lying, and he knows that we know that he's lying. What will he do? Play 4D chess, and what does playing 4D chess need?

 

(he pretend to not be doing that but seems too financially vested in keeping the scam alive to not be financially invested in their continuance)

franknbeans

Hahahaha! Nutildah dubs thee Ser FRANKANDBEANS.

[1714467084]

1714467084

[1714467084]

1714467084

[1714467084]

1714467084

[1714467084]

1714467084

[1714467084]

1714467084

[franky1]

vitalik and hoskinson they left bitcoin no one forced them to. they could have stayed. but they wanted to do radically different things so they needed to make their own projects not just tamper with bitcoin. simple as that. but there's nothing stopping somebody from making changes to bitcoin core and offering it as an alternative. no one can stop anyone from doing that. at all.

read your own paragraph i just quoted to yourself atleast 5 times to yourself and realise the irony of what you said.. you said anyone can offer changes to bitcoin core.. thus you admit the control power house of core is where people need to offer and make changes to..
secondly you also admit that those devs needed to make their own projects as another network because they were deemed as "tampering with bitcoin" and being "radicals" for suggesting changes that dont fit cores corporate roadmap..

seems you do know a bit of history but your not quite understanding what you know because you now seem to just want to promote the authoritarianism of core as free choice even when you admit the push off the network examples due to it tampering with or being radical against cores plans

[Boakse]

Nice to see those Legendaries here are getting a complete mental breakdown from Ordinals...

That's what I like the most

[jokers10]

Nice to see those Legendaries here are getting a complete mental breakdown from Ordinals...

That's what I like the most

Why? Everything changing the paradigm so much (as we see at a result) is making people nervous and think about possibilities and the future. So if you just want to see some fun it is easier to watch some show I guess.

Doesn't matter which position will prevail there will be a significant impact on bitcoin future in each case, just in different way. And both sides show that it is important for us all, and it is really important.

[larry_vw_1955]

read your own paragraph i just quoted to yourself atleast 5 times to yourself and realise the irony of what you said.. you said anyone can offer changes to bitcoin core..

anyone can make changes to bitcoin source code and publish their own version of bitcoin core. they don't need anyone's approval to do that. vitalik and charles had much grander plans than just tweaking bitcoin though so obviously, it wouldn't have worked for them to just stick around and work with bitcoin...because the changes they had in mind franky, would probably be incompatible with the then current bitcoin.

Releases are signed. Public keys used to sign them are in sources. Creating a new repository in some other place is possible, but you have to convince people to run something that is not signed by previous developers, and that part is hard. Another thing is convincing mining pool operators: as long as you convince only regular users, it won't change that much, because mining pools can decide, what is included, and what is not. As a user, you can only decide, what is relayed.

well if you get regular users using your version of bitcoin core then you pretty much achieved your goal since if everyone is using your version then they aren't making monkeys anymore. but yeah, it's not a foregone conclusion that you can capture that much market share or anywhere close to it.

[franky1]

read your own paragraph i just quoted to yourself atleast 5 times to yourself and realise the irony of what you said.. you said anyone can offer changes to bitcoin core..

anyone can make changes to bitcoin source code and publish their own version of bitcoin core.

again you are saying about make a clone node + separate website for distribution. ..
here is the thing you are not realising. understanding, not admitting. not saying:
 when people see that its not signed off using the public keys of core devs,, people wont download the clone nor think that it is bitcoin core. they will think its an attempted attack from some virus maker/hacker becasue it doesnt have the signed hashes of core devs

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

[BlackHatCoiner]

they will think its an attempted attack from some virus maker/hacker becasue it doesnt have the signed hashes of core devs

And, fortunately, that's a very reasonable thought for most. Even if the fork-site clarifies it is not written by the Core developers, financially bonded users need to be cautious when using Bitcoin software. Websites setup, and client forked for the sole purpose of enforcing someone's view on how Bitcoin is meant to work, without legitimate software engineering team behind, is a red flag. You should not be using software written by amateurs; let alone Bitcoin software.

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

That's how the world works. People trust doctors and healthcare professionals more than their friends, for their well-being. People trust electricians more than themselves, to handle electrical and plumbing issues safely and efficiently. People trust Bitcoin developers more than random, obnoxious laymen on a forum board with zero proven expertise, for their bitcoin.

And yet, you're still free to prove you're equally technically competent. No developer is forcing you anything, for if they were, Bitcoin would not be released under the MIT license.

[franky1]

they will think its an attempted attack from some virus maker/hacker becasue it doesnt have the signed hashes of core devs

And, fortunately, that's a very reasonable thought for most. Even if the fork-site clarifies it is not written by the Core developers, financially bonded users need to be cautious when using Bitcoin software. Websites setup, and client forked for the sole purpose of enforcing someone's view on how Bitcoin is meant to work, without legitimate software engineering team behind, is a red flag. You should not be using software written by amateurs; let alone Bitcoin software.

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

That's how the world works. People trust doctors and healthcare professionals more than their friends, for their well-being. People trust electricians more than themselves, to handle electrical and plumbing issues safely and efficiently. People trust Bitcoin developers more than random, obnoxious laymen on a forum board with zero proven expertise, for their bitcoin.

And yet, you're still free to prove you're equally technically competent. No developer is forcing you anything, for if they were, Bitcoin would not be released under the MIT license.

and again.. emphasising this for the blind or ignorant that cant even read their own posts to realise what they are saying is hypocritical to their own cause and idolations

thousands of people have released their own clones and no one adopts them because "they are not core, they are not reviewed by core maintainers, its not signed by core maintainers" thus people treat it with mistrust and just REKT them
bitcoin history has proven this, where the many civil wars has resulted in anything not core being told to create their own altcoin if it wants to offer options that differ cores roadmap for the protocol. they are only happy with other brands if the other brands sheep follow cores path, cores decisions.

thus core are a central point of failure. so stop pretending devs are not forced.. because they are they are forced to obide by cores moderation or get rejected as opposition.. heck even your emotions are admitting to it even when you pretend there is no control but show there is control in the same breath

you pretend that bitcoin is open to anyone to try. yet your emotions shout "dont trust" "RED FLAG" before any non core devs have even tried.

also your use of the doctor/electrician/plumber analogies do not apply. because with doctors there are different brand hospitals and people can get second opinions. yet you idolise that hospitals should all follow the policy of one medical institutions and think of anyone not part of that institution be considered quacks(amateur experienced doctors)
heck your doing it now. before any other brand node is released "by franky" you already trying to incite people to not trust it. thus REKTing it when there isnt even a chance for people to view it.. thats how much you are sucking up and idolising the authoritarianism of core maintainers

the issue is.. and take some time to put your core admiration hat to the side and really think
when core are the only doctors in town. the only people that do surgery. and they botch the healthcare they are responsible for. but dont take no responsibility to fix it. and their fans shout "dont tell the doctor to fix it. if you dont like it "fork off to another town"
you are not thinking that the doctors need to be de-licenced/stricken off. you instead want to defend the doctor to allow them to keep cutting into people and make them less able to function in daily life in the town. just to keep promoting that the only option is to move to a different state .. you dont want better doctors that take responsibility for their actions. nor do you want anyone scrutinising your doctor. you love that they are botching operations and causing people to leave town becasue you profit from those in other towns

[BlackHatCoiner]

and again.. emphasising this for the blind or ignorant
thousands of people have released their own clones and no one adopts them becasue "they are not core its not signed by core devs"

And again, emphasizing that this is how the world works.

There have been other such clients, with scientific staff, like Gocoin, Armory, btcd. People will trust the most reviewed software, simple as that. And Bitcoin Core is that. Obviously, the developers who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of commitments, and are most active, will gain the most trust. One single signature of them says much more than you'll ever desperately whine about. Because trust is granted when people take responsibility of their actions.

[franky1]

and again.. emphasising this for the blind or ignorant
thousands of people have released their own clones and no one adopts them becasue "they are not core its not signed by core devs"

And again, emphasizing that this is how the world works.

There have been other such clients, with scientific staff, like Gocoin, Armory, btcd. People will trust the most reviewed software, simple as that. And Bitcoin Core is that. Obviously, the developers who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of commitments, and are most active, will gain the most trust. One single signature of them says much more than you'll ever desperately whine about. Because trust is granted when people take responsibility of their actions.

(using your analogies)
those other brands are not separate opinions of different medical options.. they are not offering that they can fix things core botched. they just follow "the doctors orders" that is a doctor called core. yes it might look like a different doctor but its just following the orders of core. those brands are not treated as even doctors, but pharmacists. just filling prescribed offerings made and signed for by the only doctor in town

not offering independent options. they exist just to make it seem like there is choice. even though its not offering anything different at the protocol fixing level

core dont take responsibility for their actions because they have been sponsored to do a "great consensus cleanup" over the last few years to soften things. but act like they cant, wont, shouldnt fix their exploits THEY CREATED.

even you have been echoing the sentiment that its not cores fault and pretending anyone can fix it. but then you scream and cry that no one should because anyone offering such is a mistrusted inexperienced red flag that should be ignored.

ok here is a couple question for you
sticking with your doctor analogy
do you think that core(the only doctor in town) did botch an operation.. and do you think the only solution should be to move to a different town if said doctor wont repair their botched operation

or do you think the town should have different hospitals and doctors all serving the towns people where by best practices are all met with consensus where any doctor of any hospital in town can propose a new technique to operate and if its shown to work then its offered to the public.

take your core centralist authoritarian admiration hat off when thinking of the answer

[nutildah]

Here's the thing (its obvious you'll never accept it because your ego is too fragile but I'll say it anyway):

If you were right and I was wrong, then the Ordinals explorer would show that the ordinal is located where you think it is, instead of where it actually shows it is. I explained to you how it got there, you just said, "nope, its not there," even though the explorer very clearly shows that it is.  

I think you enjoy being at odds with reality. It provides you with some kind of empowerment that you are otherwise missing in life, that you think that you need/deserve. Its actually kind of common around here with some of the old-timers that, for whatever personal reason, have an axe to ceaselessly grind.

[franky1]

you blindly trust the ordinals explorer for their THEORY
you do know a THEORY is an unproven idea... do you know why he called it a theory.. yep becasue it can be proven.

many have already debunked the theory. shown how it miscounts and shown even with your example recently how you miscounted it.
let alone all the other problems it has of not even having a cryptographic proof of transfer (data sits outside the signed message of tx data and nothing within the tx data that gets signed, assigns the data to anything)

so when you shown the example, you did not do your own research using separate independent block data from other sources, you just followed ordinals explorer display and treated it as a god
you believe in caseys words more then blockchain economics


now ill say this one more time.
take off the "adore a project manager hat" and instead look at the example you gave but actually check the math of sats and then check things using logic. economics.

without relying on his explorer .. actual use the real block data. and math..

again its you that wants to pretend you have power by sucking up to project managers .. you even thik this is about power..

try to read this and make it clear to yourself

i dont want people kissing my ass i want people to for once think for themselves instead of being a dumb sheep ass kisser

dont just recite comments you read from some campaign/project manager. actually use the blockchain and real data for once in your life.

..
its not difficult to check independently. but i do find it very strange that you spent weeks declining such an easy check. doing all you can to excuse even trying to learn and instead trying to just sound like you want to remain a loyal ass kisser even if the ass kisser you can taste is a scammer

ok lets show your failed example again

As I mentioned previously its the first sat that was mined in block 781,463. To track where it goes, you just need to follow the first output each time it is spent, as sats move on a First In, First Out basis per Ordinals Theory.

Let's follow the sat from the block from which it was mined, with the output destination for each tx:

https://www.blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1d6cee0a930e327eacf74fae751613665091f5ecead34317510593c861e446cd - 1CK6KHY6MHgYvmRQ4PAafKYDrg1ejbH1cE (block reward)
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd - 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd?i=0

check it again. the funds of
- 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og went to
- 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW but then stayed with
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW

use logic and math.. not caseys own broke explorer
use maths logic and economics. of what the theory says then apply it outside of his explorer.

1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW 5 BTC -> 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW 4.99523700 BTC
                                                                              3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ 0.00471600 BTC

maths shows the parents block reward is still part of the 4.99523700 if you "follow the theory" and at this point even account for the fee subtraction

then once you realise the explorer of caseys is broke then apply more math and logic.
where by you need to notice that tx fees are taken first and the remainders are given to outputs.. (as change)
then do the maths and se how many hops of the value move from

- 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
before that coin is spent as a tx fee back to a pool

and once you realise that.
then realise that in all the taint ancestry. the block data shows no markers, tags, references, hashes that show a movement of some thing called "ordinal"

[BlackHatCoiner]

those other brands are not separate opinions of different medical options.. they are not offering that they can fix things core botched. they just follow "the doctors orders" that is a doctor called core. yes it might look like a different doctor but its just following the orders of core. those brands are not treated as even doctors, but pharmacists. just filling prescribed offerings made and signed for by the only doctor in town

Nope. They very much are, doctors. What do Bitcoin Core developers and Gocoin developers have in common? Both groups develop software; and not any software, Bitcoin software. The only difference is that the latter is maintained by only two developers, whereas the former by hundreds, if not thousands.

The fact that most Bitcoin developers conclude to Bitcoin Core developers' proposals, means Bitcoin Core devs are experienced and competent with writing and maintaining software. You have no evidence to argue they deceive the community, that is only a purely speculative conjecture. I do have. All these fruitful discussions, git commitments, and endless software reviews act as evidence to being experienced enough for the rest to follow.

Admit it. There is no Bitcoin developer outside Bitcoin Core who's being maintaining software, and is equally competent with Bitcoin terms and concepts. Because he just doesn't talk about Bitcoin. He does Bitcoin.

do you think that core(the only doctor in town) did botch an operation..

Core is not the only doctor in town. Software developers, and Bitcoin developers aren't exclusively working on Bitcoin Core. You just have to accept that if groups of experts tend to reach to the same conclusion, chances are, it's the correct conclusion.

[franky1]

again in the same post you say one thing and debunk yourself a few sentences later

you say there are hundreds of core devs maintaining.. but there are actually only 5 maintainers

you say there are lots of doctors. yet you want to include the pharmacists who just fill prescriptions wrote by actual doctors. you also want to include translators. and comment grammar checkers.. to pretend their are more doctors maintaining

you then say and let me quote you

The fact that most Bitcoin developers conclude to Bitcoin Core developers' proposals, means Bitcoin Core devs are experienced and competent with writing and maintaining software. You have no evidence to argue they deceive the community, that is only a purely speculative conjecture. I do have. All these fruitful discussions, git commitments, and endless software reviews act as evidence to being experienced enough for the rest to follow.

Admit it. There is no Bitcoin developer outside Bitcoin Core who's being maintaining software, and is equally competent with Bitcoin terms and concepts.

"for the rest to follow"

thank you for now admitting that its bitcoin core thats maintaining bitcoin and no developer outside is treated as the same level as core devs

you are saying that all the pharmacists, grammar checkers and blind sheep that dont review the code but just CONCEPT ack(read comments and blind agree) trust the core doctors(only 5) maintaining bitcoin protocols because you believe that the core doctors have no evidence that they deceived the community and so everyone should just go with whatever core devs say.. blindly. by just conceptACK where any scrutiny or critique against core devs should be banned, ignored or treated as hostile.. rather than treated as keeping core devs accountable and responsible

ok heres some evidence of deceptions
a. the promise that taproot was made to allow for all taproot uses to produce a single signature length.. to be more leaner witness weight than other scripts/multisigs/other features that waste more space ..
and yet.. ordinals dead weight memes and other junk has proven otherwise due to taproots activation yep before taproot 1tx taking up 4mb of witness weight was a no no.. but with taproot thousands of transactions using taproot have proven the "single signature length" as a lie.. broken promise.. deception

b. that they were trying to SCALE BITCOIN. yet over the years guess what. all they have been doing is altering bitcoin to annoy people via fee wars and spam methods to make people stop using bitcoin as much where their solution is to use a different network

c. their initial "conservative" dont allow more data per block. due to scary stories about bitcoin is unfit for hard drives manufactured in 2005.. to now being "censorship resistance" of allowing bloat .. both deceptions aimed at annoying the community via broken promises and lies just to get people to move to other networks as the ultimate solution in their eyes
and with that yep even with their now "censorship resistance" they are coding more fee mania mechanisms to make transactions paying low fees get censored.

d. how they abused natural consensus which only reached 45% in their favour. to then use authoritarian practices to blackmail pools into blind following cores demands or face block rejections.. and then try to blame those actions on non core brands

e. core wrote the code. not mining pools and not asic machines or their owners. yet many times core devs and their fangirls have tried to blame "miners" for many things

theres alot more evidence. and yes it can be backed up by code and blockdata. unlike your scripts which are only backed up by comments of your idols that just tell you "wrong becasue franky" which is not even a defence its just a point finger in different direction

i do find it funny how ignorant you are about who wrote the code that let all this cludgy crap in. and then pretend they done nothing wrong and its not their responsibility to fix it.

can i just offer you some advice.
if after a few years now you are still penny pinching for scraps doing sig campaigns for income.. but still hoping your loyalty and obedience to some humans you want to describe as doctors/masters/gods/angels, hoping it will pay off sometime.. if they have not hired you already. they probably never will
and secondly.
when you show blind obedience to a dev instead of caring about the code and protocol and who should or shouldnt control it. try to care more about the code and less about the who.
EG care more about decentralised network with no central point of failure

after all when devs retire.. they will too get REKT and treated as outsiders once they leave the team. so whos ass will you then be kissing.

and one last thing. when you try to pretend there is no central point of failure but then wave the loyalty flag saying everyone should trust the central point.. you counter your own arguments. especially when you also then pretend there are hundreds of maintainers. yet you then highlight the hierarchy thus showing you do actually know it centers around the actual maintainers.

so stop playing games against yourself by arguing and count arguing and contradicting yourself

i know you dont want to admit that core devs caused the exploit that caused ordinal meme bloat crap and fee mania.. but they did open the exploit up.. and code and blockdata can prove it

if you cant trust the blockdata. then you have no clue of the basic principals of bitcoin..
oh wait you dont like blockdata.. as you have admitted in other posts

[franky1]

There is a decision-making process that includes proposals, discussions, and testing of protocol changes before they can be implemented.

done by core-dev-maintainers moderated platforms

go-coin does not have its own open BIPS platform to offer the wide community opportunity to discuss protocol level changes. nor does armory or any other software thats been mentioned by the lemmings of core adoration that failed at disproving or proving their illogics
heck their illogics cant even even come to a conclusion because their illogics both say core do control and dont control.. because they cant even make a point. so hope if they say both then they can pretend they are right.

[larry_vw_1955]

again you are saying about make a clone node + separate website for distribution. ..
here is the thing you are not realising. understanding, not admitting. not saying:
 when people see that its not signed off using the public keys of core devs,, people wont download the clone nor think that it is bitcoin core. they will think its an attempted attack from some virus maker/hacker becasue it doesnt have the signed hashes of core devs

and yet everyday people download various bitcoin wallet apps from google play none of those is made by the core developers. say you created a bitcoin wallet app and ran a full node with your own version of bitcoin core to service the users of the app. you get to control the type of transactions they make. sound like an interesting idea? now lets say you made 100 different version of that wallet each with 1 million users. that's 100 million bitcoin users you are helping to not spam the blockchain with junk. right?  

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

now you're starting to understand one of the issues with bitcoin is that the source code is not immutable and people can decide on changes to it. they can actually change how bitcoin works. which would you rather have, an open bitcoin where anyone can propose and make changes to how it works or something that is immutable? your call. you seem to be in the latter category to me i think you would be happier if it was immutable.

The question of what should or should not involve the development of bitcoin and its protocol is a complex one and is subject to differing opinions. Bitcoin is an open network with a decentralized structure, and developers and community members may have different ideas about how it should develop.
Some people believe that bitcoin should stay the same and stick to Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision. They support limited changes to the protocol in order to preserve its integrity and principles such as decentralization, security, and privacy.
Other people believe that bitcoin should be more flexible and adapt to new needs and technological possibilities. They see value in developing and implementing additional features and protocol improvements that can expand the use of bitcoin and attract more users.
It is important to remember that decisions about the development of bitcoin are made collectively among developers, miners, and community members. There is a decision-making process that includes proposals, discussions, and testing of protocol changes before they can be implemented.

you're using AI right? why spam the thread with stuff like that...it's almost as bad as people spamming the blockchain with dare i say it, monkeys. 

[nutildah]

I've removed all the rhetoric because its pointless to even read, so we're left with this:

1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW 5 BTC -> 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW 4.99523700 BTC
                                                                              3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ 0.00471600 BTC

maths shows the parents block reward is still part of the 4.99523700 if you "follow the theory" and at this point even account for the fee subtraction

We went over this before: the ordinal doesn't go to the change address according to First In, First Out, according to the actual theory (not Franknbeans Ordinal Theory). I provided you with an excerpt from the documentation which explains this, you once again ignored it in favor of stampeding over reality.

https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki

Transfer and the Dust Limit

Any single-sat transfer can be accomplished in a single transaction, but the resulting transaction may contain outputs below the dust limit, and thus be non-standard and difficult to get included in a block. Consider a scenario where Alice owns an output containing the range of sats [0,10], the current dust limit is 5 sats, and Alice wishes to send send sat 4 and 6 to Bob, but retain ordinal 5. Alice could construct a transaction with three outputs of size 5, 1, and 5, containing sats [0,4], 5, and [6,10], respectively. The second output is under the dust limit, and so such a transaction would be non-standard.

This transfer, and indeed any transfer, can be accomplished by breaking the transfer into multiple transactions, with each transaction performing one or more splits and merging in padding outputs as needed.

To wit, Alice could perform the desired transfer in two transactions. The first transaction would send sats [0,4] to Bob, and return as change sat [5,10] to Alice. The second transaction would take as inputs an output of at least 4 sats, the change input, and an additional input of at least one sat; and create an output of size 5 to Bob's address, and the remainder as a change output. Both transactions avoid creating any non-standard outputs, but still accomplish the same desired transfer of sats.

Regardless of your personal interpretation of things, if you were correct and I was incorrect, the "uncommon sat" wouldn't be where the ordinals explorer shows it to currently be.

Just because you continue to misunderstand the theory doesn't mean its broken, it means you don't understand the theory. At this point I think you're just trolling me instead of having to concede you were wrong -- I don't think you are actually this stupid.

[franky1]

that quote of caseys description.. you are using as your rebuttal has nothing to do with the counting sats method you are trying to use as an explainer of your exampled taint path

because that 5btc is not breaking up the coin into 3 amounts where the 'rare' sat goes to the 3M address.
not is it about shifting sats around. to end up with the specific rare sat ending up in the 3M address

JUST DO THE BASIC MATH !!!

why do you waste weeks avoiding the logic, math, and instead just want to blind follow some project manager
have you ever tried to think about verification of blockdata rather than "trust project manager "
just spend the 2 minutes required to do the obvious instead of wasting weeks avoiding the obvious whilst trying to find lame excuses to avoid it just so you can remain a loyal ass kisser to a project manager rather than math/economic, logic proof

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

now you're starting to understand one of the issues with bitcoin is that the source code is not immutable and people can decide on changes to it. they can actually change how bitcoin works. which would you rather have, an open bitcoin where anyone can propose and make changes to how it works or something that is immutable? your call. you seem to be in the latter category to me i think you would be happier if it was immutable.

your a noob with alot to learn
changes used to be made when supermajority are sticking to the same rules thus the blockdata accepted by the majority unites around those rules

however there is only one full node brand that has become god like, that wants to be the new rule proposer and treats any other node proposer as the enemy.
meaning that one proposer is the central point of failure..(anti-decentralisation)

the whole point of consensus is that it does not need one brand to rule them all.. learn the whole point of consensus solving the byzantine generals problem

there should not be one major general in charge making all of the proposed orders. there should be many generals able to coexist all proposing possible ways forward where the best path follows. and then a different general can come up with something new next time. .. with no reliance on one general giving the marching orders everytime.

LEARN DECENTRALISATION
LEARN CONSENSUS
LEARN BYZANTINE GENERALS TOLERANCE
LEARN CENTRAL POINT OF FAILURES

the reason this ordinals crap has not been fixed is because people cant propose a fix .. becasue core BAN people proposing such. yep there is no BIP on their github to fix it. heck even Luke JR who used to moderate the BIPS cant even get his discourage ordinals into a BIP. thats how controlling core are. and even when people add a discourage ordinals patch and try to release it to the masses.. core and their fan club REKT it by saying dont trust it. its not signed or reviewed by the 5 maintainers of core.

..
also i see you have fallen into the trap of thinking stupid things like ordinals are real assets. you were even willing to accept an ordinal just yesterday in another topic..
you have much to learn. but goodluck ass kissing the idiots that want to scam you and control you.
maybe just for once break out of becoming another echo of their plan. and do some independant research. think more about bitcoin as a system that should be decentralised that uses the mechanisms that made bitcoin work in the first place .. the invention of consensus.. to realise bitcoin does not and should not be controlled by a central point
and then learn that not every project manager exists to help the community. they are there becasue they have been sponsored to harm the community, whilst promoting their other favoured networks they want people to move to

dont just read a project managers concepts, theoriies, promises. read the code and how it affect the blockdata. becasue its the code and the blockdata that is more important then their broken promises.
and certainly dont still ass kiss them when their broken promises are shown to the world
EG
promise: taproot makes witness usage lean..
actual result: a tx can use upto 4mb of witness for dead weight junk unrelated to proof of signing a utxo

[DooMAD]

Before anyone replies further, consider the following points:

If someone is complaining about getting "REKT", where people shot down their ideas, try to see that for what it really is.  It's not an injustice or some sort of conspiracy.  It's merely an admission on their part that they failed to make a compelling argument.  That their ideas simply weren't good enough.  If ideas are sound in reasoning and logic, people will generally accept them.  So, it stands to reason that any ideas which got "REKT" did so for a sensible reason.  It was just a weak proposal that didn't stand up to scrutiny.  And they're bitter about it.

When people refer to 'Byzantine Fault Tolerance', the very problem which needed to be solved was the issue with social contracts and people needing to be trusted to do as they were instructed.  The entire premise is that you don't rely on trust.  So if someone is telling people to "learn Byzantine generals problem" in one breath and then claiming that the solution supposedly involves asking every single coder on the face of the planet to "do as they're told" in the next breath, perhaps that individual doesn't understand things as well as they claim.  It sounds to me like such a person is in absolutely no position to lecture others about anything.  Social Contracts are not Byzantine Fault Tolerant.  

[franky1]

core is not using the byzantines generals solution because the byzantine generals solution is about diverse and independent brands of full nodes(generals) that can all propose upgrades where the supermajority agree on a path to follow.. .. core however want to be a single major general making everyone obey core and have no one question cores orders.

as for thinking that someones getting REKT because their idea is flawed. that has not been the historic past of examples. they got rekt simply for not being core. and treated as the enemy for asking for something not in the core roadmap

doomads social contract is his belief they everyone should obey core, but never criticise, scrutinise or ask anything of core. to instead trust that the 5 maintainers will self govern each other and trust that they will do such.

in short he thinks the only general of bitcoin should be the 5 core maintainers. and no other generals should exist outside of core. no one outside of core should be able to make proposals to the core generals, nor ask the core generals for other options that contradict the core general.

he thinks other brands should just be infantrymen following orders and echoing the orders of the only general