On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

its about doomad being for ordinals and wanting it to remain by not wanting people to tell core to fix it.

There is nothing to be fixed without forking the code. You can't "fix" this situation. Censoring valid transactions that don't pass your moral standards is perfectly reasonable only in your pro-censorship dystopia. It's simply not worth it to sacrifice one of the most important principles of this protocol to pay a few sats less. You can't measure the value of censorship-resistance; it's an invaluable and unique property. Doesn't surprise me you don't get it, you've made it crystal clear you don't believe Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant.

People don't tell Core to "fix" it, not only for that. There is nothing, literally nothing they can do if full node operators DENY to run their code. The Core team is merely a developing team, which makes in practice what enthusiasts envision in theory. They are not there for imposing ethics, or their opinion on how the protocol should work. Their opinion goes as far as their full node's configuration file, and maybe a little bit influence but 'til there.

Now as for "your Bitcoin client", I'm honestly not surprised you're running this (if you really do and just don't believe you do, which would nether surprise me given your medical condition again). You're clearly mad though. Maintaining all these C++ modules by yourself, solely for the sake of throwing the finger at Core sounds extremely arrogant. No sane person believes it's safe to maintain work done by very competent engineers, with no similar tests and reviews by other people than himself.

But please, show me the source code. I'm interested to know what you've built. Unless you don't feel confident with me reading it. For the third time, it wouldn't surprise me if you argued for closed-source Bitcoin clients.

blackhat coiner.
you have alot to learn
secondly you prtending i have a medical condition is not an original thought by you. you are yet again playing the songs of doomad
thirdly i have asked you to even dare yourself to read cores code and realise it was actually core that cause d the exploits which this topic speak of. and yet you yet again want to pretend they are not responsible and im just finger pointing at the wrong people. and again without seeing code you are already making judgement over code you have not even seen

for once just take some time in your live to read core code look at who actually did cause the exploits and actually rationalise the truth for your own mind rather then ignore the truth just to stay loyal to your forum wife

you seem to care more about being loyal to certain idiot humans rather then think about things that actually benefit or harm the protocol

so instead of attacking me and pretending that my code is some how bad and an attack even without you seeing it. go look at the code that has negatively affected hundreds of thousands of users. where MANY people in this topic.. are debating against wanting this exploit to continue.

and no its not a doomad clan vs franky thing.. read the other comments from others that are not in the doomad excho chamber.. its alot of people not just me.

WISE up.. that a week off from the doomad recitals challenge yourself.. learn bitcoin without doomads warped reality

heck even luke JR released a discourage ordinals patch and he was held in high esteem but now the rekting crew are screaming to not trust him because he is not a core maintainer so he cant get his code even to be a bip..

[1714498437]

1714498437

[1714498437]

1714498437

[1714498437]

1714498437

[1714498437]

1714498437

[1714498437]

1714498437

[BlackHatCoiner]

secondly you prtending i have a medical condition is not an original thought by you.

No, it's not. It's a reasoned conclusion by another forum member. Indeed. How irrelevant though.

read cores code

You don't know what I'm doing. You don't know who I am. Shut your whiny lips for once, cut the childish crap, and answer the questions like an adult. You're once again trying to make me look dumb, because you don't think I can read code. You genuinely believe that reading code is the utmost necessity for understanding Bitcoin.

go look at the code that has negatively affected hundreds of thousands of users.

You know when me and my classmates work on some project, or big assignment, and notice "negatively affecting" code, we don't talk at them, yelling "LOOK AT THE CODE"; doesn't sound very informative, but I haven't tried it to tell you the truth. We point at the exact part, and we describe what's wrong.

So, point me.

[serveria.com]

Guys, mempool is freeing up, is this the final relief or just a pause in this NFT craze? If it's over, I guess we can just lock this thread, shake hands and part as friends? At the end of the day, transaction fees and speed is all that matters.  

[franky1]

secondly you prtending i have a medical condition is not an original thought by you.

No, it's not. It's a reasoned conclusion by another forum member. Indeed. How irrelevant though.

read cores code

You don't know what I'm doing. You don't know who I am. Shut your whiny lips for once, cut the childish crap, and answer the questions like an adult. You're once again trying to make me look dumb, because you don't think I can read code. You genuinely believe that reading code is the utmost necessity for understanding Bitcoin.

go look at the code that has negatively affected hundreds of thousands of users.

You know when me and my classmates work on some project, or big assignment, and notice "negatively affecting" code, we don't talk at them, yelling "LOOK AT THE CODE"; doesn't sound very informative, but I haven't tried it to tell you the truth. We point at the exact part, and we describe what's wrong.

So, point me.

first of all bitcoin is code.. so yea reading code actually does help you learn what negatively affects bitcoin. becasue its the code changes done that caused the negative affects.. and reading the code you can also spot who wrote it and who merged it to learn WHO caused it.

in short.. you learn more from reading the code than you ever will on your social drama chatrooms and tweets

as for pointing it out..
i already have pointed at it. i have already mentioned in many posts about opcodes and(lack of) byte limits. and many other points of interest of limits being changed.
such as how opcodes used to have a 520byte limit of attached data. and other rules and checks.. . yep i mentioned this stuff.
its easy to find in the code. takes just 20 seconds

funnily enough doomad has not mentioned opcodes or other operations that core have done. he just wants to teach you social drama games to follow.. so dont expect any bitcoin teachings from him. he is just the dev defending social drama queen desiring social cohesion to centralisation

so i have pointed out thing that have negatively affected bitcoin
its YOU that has ignored all that because you just wanted to play the social drama distract game by deflecting any negative speak of core and your clans altnet preference.. and pretend this topic is about "only franky wants" rather than actually learn about whats actually happening and how bitcoin works and has changed.

so take time away from doomads social drama game and take more time learning bitcoin for your own benefit. without having to have people spoonfeed you just so you can then blame them, whilst not learning becasue you pretend they didnt explain it.

and i know you want me to spoonfeed you something just so you can ignore it and pretend that im controlling you. (yea i know that game) so instead ill stick to asking you to do the simple thing. the thing you should have done from the start
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. that way there is no possibility of you blaming me for telling you things.
do your own research and learn the hard way, as its the only way you will truly learn without finger pointing that "it must be wrong because franky said it"(again i know that game. its not original so stop trying to play that avoidance tactic, and simply instead just go learn)

so go look at what core done to enable the exploit that ordinals uses.
the hint again. (which can be found in 20seconds) is the opcodes and their byte limits(or should i say lack of). so dont pretend its too difficult to find as another avoidance tactic

..
i will be fair and say atleast you admit that even after a couple months of this topic you have admitted now that you have wasted a couple months of not learning. so it shows you can admit in your failure to learn. so do something about it and start to learn. no more avoidances

[larry_vw_1955]

Yes, he's running an altered version of Bitcoin Core, forked from Core's repository and based on code made by Core contributors.  But franky1 doesn't have the courage of his convictions to admit what client it is.  Perhaps he's too embarrassed or ashamed.

very strange. how many hours has it taken him to do this altering? and what good does it do? other than keep his own mempool looking like he wants it to. it has absolutely no affect on the rest of the world, i.e., bitcoin network.

I'm pretty sure it's "Bitcoin Unlimited" if you were genuinely curious.  As far as I'm aware, there's only one publicly-reachable node on the Bitcoin network still running that client (which they should be aware carries certain privacy risks, if it is in fact theirs).  All of the other BU users forked off to BCH.  But franky1 remains, like a stubborn faecal blemish that won't wash out.

if that's the case then franky is worse off than i thought. he really should upgrade. 

my software is not core software because my software actually does more/proper validity checks, where as cores software has too many "assume valid" bypasses. and byte miscounts and other silly methods of validating things in an improper way

yes i have also had to disable a few things on my software to stay aligned to cores cludgy rule changes to ensure i am not rejecting blocks. but that is the point.. core have made it so that transactions are allowed into blocks without being rejected due to loose rules core caused.

the point is not that people can run software. its that anyone not a core maintainer centralist who want bugs fixed, exploits removed or features not listed in cores roadmap, is treated as an attacker/opposition/threat

well think of it this way. lets say you released your software for public use. it would need to be audited. how does someone know it doesn't have bugs or backdoors or things like that? now who wants to spend all that time auditing something that only one person uses? they would have to really think you have something special to offer in order to do that. and i'm not sure how responsible it would be to release something that does the things you're talking about. the more i think about it, the better i think it is for you to keep that software to yourself. because it may not work correctly. you seem to think it does and that's fine but are you a professional programmer?

yes users can set their own node to reject junky transactions that contain memes and json crap. but that just separates those individuals from holding the same blockdata as the bitcoin blockchain.

but that's where you're wrong franky. people that have normal transactions are going to appreciate you for blocking the junky ones. that gives their transactions a better visibility on the network right? everyone has the same blocks in the blockchain though. only thing that varies is mempool data. right?

majority of core users are not devs they just use whats handed to them and core love that. they love having the decision power and majority are just blind followers just trusting the core devs.

it needs to be audited. your code is not audited i don't think. so i wouldn't necessarily recommend people to use your code even if you did release it until it had been fully audited and given a green light. even then, you're just behind the times if you're running some old bitcoin unlimited time to upgrade franky. get with the modern era. your privacy sounds like it might be getting compromised otherwise, as doomad pointed out.

and as said many times. certain idiots dont want core devs to be scrutinised and critiqued and asked to fix their own bugs. they love moderating out comments that go against their roadmap.

but you certainly get your full say and even more right here and no one moderates your comments at all. no one is moderating out your comments in this thread at all. not even the devs

if anyone was to release a full node that defies cores roadmap. they will get REKT and treated as a altcoin fork attempt rather than a valid option to fix the bitcoin network exploits

so what needs to happen is for core to take a open approach and actually start acting like a decentralised part of the network whereby other brands can co-exist to propose upgrades/patches/fixes.. rather then treat diverse brands proposing upgrades/fixes/patches as opposition

are you really running some old bitcoin unlimited wow just wow. i'm really sorry for you franky. that's a huge burden to bear... imagine how much easier your life would be if you just went with the flow and accepted bitcoin core and didn't worry about maintaining some old version that has to have been a huge time sink for you hard to imagine someone would do that.

[xanather]

I've been in crypto for a long time. Before mtgox collapsed. Been though blocksize wars. Three crypto bubbles. I just wanted to leave a comment.

How the fuck did Ordinals become possible with Taproot/Segwit? The whole point of the 2017 blocksize fork fiasco was that block space is scarce and now there's an exploit in the core client that allows for megabyte size files of shitty non-financial/transactional data to be embedded?

This is a massive fuckup. I am personally a big-blocker and hate how larger fees dimish the growth potential of Bitcoin, but I understood why some people preferred to keep small blocks to maximize network security.

But now we have the worse of both worlds. The limited processing space per 10 minutes being filled with shit and still constrained by the 1MB non-weighted limit for non-witness data.

Back in 2016 I was arguing with core devs on IRC that were adamant that Moore's law didn't exist anymore. Since then I've gone from a 16GB 4CPU machine to 128GB 16CPU machine with plenty of SSD space ready to provide processing power for financial freedom and autonomy to poorer countries with non-functional monetary policy.

Absolute fucking joke.

[larry_vw_1955]

Back in 2016 I was arguing with core devs on IRC that were adamant that Moore's law didn't exist anymore.

I hate to tell you but I think I would side with the core devs on that one. I doubt your cpu going from 4 core to 16 core really disproves it. Nice machine though. How big's the hard drive?

ready to provide processing power for financial freedom and autonomy to poorer countries with non-functional monetary policy.

well the usa really isn't a "poorer" country but could you fit us into the "non-functional monetary policy" category? we did just raise the debt celing you know, again.  

How the fuck did Ordinals become possible with Taproot/Segwit?

there was some signature size limit that they allowed to be up to 1MB or something. for a single transaction. something like that. instead of clamping down on it, i guess they figured it would sort itself out somehow. which it has been doing but franky hasn't been to happy. neither has alot of other people but miners seem to be ok with it. since they get extra revenue so they're happily mining away.

[DooMAD]

At the end of the day, transaction fees and speed is all that matters.  

Every fibre of my being tells me you could not be more wrong about that.  There isn't a single doubt in my mind.  So we're clearly not going to find common ground any time soon (aside from it being time to lock this topic, I'm on board with that part).  Again, other things are more important than speed:

If you sacrifice what makes Bitcoin matter in order to make it faster or cheaper, you're making it worse.

My list of priorities goes something like this:

1.  Open-source
2.  Permissionless / Censorship-resistance / "freedom" / etc.
3.  Secure / Strong hash rate / alignment of incentives to secure the chain
4.  Decentralisation / sufficient node count
5.  Fixed supply / 21 million BTC / predictable emission
6.  Reasonable privacy / Pseudonymous
7.  Efficient / Fast / Cheap

[franky1]

larry you are showing your inability to think for yourself and just becoming a drone for doomad

i am not using an old branded node that was forked from core. and no its not out of date. that is doomad being an idiot and having no clue about many things yet again

larry spend less time on the social drama of "attack franky" and realise that core are the ones people should be scrutinising.
funny part is that you say you wont recommend people use other software.. becasue you have not reviewed it.. well how about you first review core code.. becasue its obvious you have not. you just work on blind trust and have no clue about the situation of how the exploit works and how it came about.
you are just falling into the social drama trap.

GO LEARN THE CODE

try to actually read the code that caused exploits. read which devs wrote it and which devs merged it into the final release candidate that majority of the network then use.

realise who actually caused what. dont fall into the cult trap of "it must be gods will" when something bad happens. actually question the governance of something rather than think the governance are gods

as for doomads wishlist
notice how he says permissionless but misses out on consensus.
in short if he was a medieval king of a castle he would allow the trojan horses into the gates of the castle.. he does not understand that code is used to make rules. he wants to break rules and have no rules

funny part about his "censorship"
he loves telling people to stop transacting, stop coding fixes for bitcoin.. he loves the "bitcoin perfers to go the altnet route, be patient use the altnet instead", he loves it when blocks got rejected and transactions rejected..
he literally campaigns every year that bitcoin should not be used by certain people. where he doesnt want to see people buying coffee-pizza value amounts on bitcoin. (reality is those pizza amounts are weeks wages for about 1billion people. so he is trying to reject 15% of the planet from even the choice/affordability to use bitcoin.. to instead be advertised into using another network that does not even have a blockchain or hashrate to protect their value)

 all he cares about is making bitcoin expensive because he wants people to hate bitcoin because he promotes another network as the solution to bitcoins exploits he idolises

..
it is funny how you think i am pigeon holed into the "bitcoin unlimited" brand.. your an idiot following doomads social drama games. my node is not a fork of any brand publicly released. its actually self built and upgraded to meet current specs of the rules core governed. but not one single line of it matches cores.
yep i actually create better rules to validate stuff core bypasses. mine even counts the rewards as bytes of the smallest unit(sats) that half the proper way at each halving.. not as 'coin' the divides in the flawed way core does it

and no its nothing like bitcoin unlimited either.
stop being fed by your mother hen of social drama.. it makes you look more of an idiot when you recite his crap

i have been writing code since before unlimited was even a brand and before core was even a brand. and no core did not exist previous to 2014(even if they pretend they existed since 2009 by putting 2009 in their copyright of their code)

...
as for you also being led down the rabbit hole of idiot stories
the exploit that caused a tx to be allowed upto 4mb of space via one opcode content.  is not simply the "1mb wall" rule
even when the 1mb block wall was strict pre 2017 a single tx could not even use up 1mb of data on a single opcode content. .. LEARN what actual opcodes and rules have been softened over the years that al led upto causing the bloat and fee mania

[Deftelbow]

I'm reading some of your comments in here and I can't help but laugh. Like it or not Ordinals is here to stay. It's an nft revolution with BTC. Stop whining and accept new challenges and technology.

[franky1]

I'm reading some of your comments in here and I can't help but laugh. Like it or not Ordinals is here to stay. It's an nft revolution with BTC. Stop whining and accept new challenges and technology.

i laugh that you think that ordinals are an NFT
seems you need to read more

but hey if you think people should stop scrutinising and just accept crap. then you should be first inline to lose all your value and just accept your losses

[Deftelbow]

I'm reading some of your comments in here and I can't help but laugh. Like it or not Ordinals is here to stay. It's an nft revolution with BTC. Stop whining and accept new challenges and technology.

i laugh that you think that ordinals are an NFT
seems you need to read more

but hey if you think people should stop scrutinising and just accept crap. then you should be first inline to lose all your value and just accept your losses

Digital assets inscribed on a satoshi. Nft similarity. But hey, like I said, like it or not it's here to stay in the BTC Blockchain..lol

[larry_vw_1955]

larry spend less time on the social drama of "attack franky" and realise that core are the ones people should be scrutinising.

well, a rationale for why a limit on the script size is no longer needed was already given in the BIP. it's not like they just overlooked the whole issue. they specifically addressed it with an explanation. i guess you don't agree with their rationale/explanation. did you speak up about that back in 2020 when that bip was published? just wondering. or did you wait until ordinals came around and then started complaining?

funny part is that you say you wont recommend people use other software.. becasue you have not reviewed it..

franky, i think it should go without saying that anyone who would just download and use some random bitcoin core software from some random website well, that would be a pretty dumb thing to do.

take a look at how it needs to be done: https://bitcoin.org/en/download

notice how they provide not only the different binary exes for different platform/operating systems but presumably each one has a signature that can be verified and yes they also include the signing keys from the devs. not only do we know who the devs are but now we can make sure that they are the ones that approved what we just downloaded and installed.

well how about you first review core code.. becasue its obvious you have not. you just work on blind trust and have no clue about the situation of how the exploit works and how it came about.

that's the beauty of how bitcoin core works is if i'm not able to read and understand c plus plus, i don't have to. i can just trust the devs. they've got it setup so i won't be downloading some fake trojaned copy of bitcoin core that will steal my private keys. most people franky are not going to delve into the source code of bitcoin core. that's an unreasonable expectation you have there to be quite honest.

funny part about his "censorship"
he loves telling people to stop transacting, stop coding fixes for bitcoin.. he loves the "bitcoin perfers to go the altnet route, be patient use the altnet instead", he loves it when blocks got rejected and transactions rejected..
he literally campaigns every year that bitcoin should not be used by certain people. where he doesnt want to see people buying coffee-pizza value amounts on bitcoin. (reality is those pizza amounts are weeks wages for about 1billion people. so he is trying to reject 15% of the planet from even the choice/affordability to use bitcoin.. to instead be advertised into using another network that does not even have a blockchain or hashrate to protect their value)

it's nice and warm feeling if everyone on the planet could use bitcoin to buy pizza or coffee and all at the same time but it's just not technically possible franky. bitcoin has limitations on how many transactions it can do in 10 minutes. thus, not everyone can use bitcoin. not directly. the way that is dealt with is people who are willing to pay a larger fee get prioritized by the people processing the transactions. it's not a socialist system franky. people who are willing/able to pay more get preferential treatment. sorry to tell you but it's the truth.

all he cares about is making bitcoin expensive because he wants people to hate bitcoin because he promotes another network as the solution to bitcoins exploits he idolises

i don't know about that franky. that sounds a bit over the top to be honest.  

..
it is funny how you think i am pigeon holed into the "bitcoin unlimited" brand.. your an idiot following doomads social drama games. my node is not a fork of any brand publicly released. its actually self built and upgraded to meet current specs of the rules core governed. but not one single line of it matches cores.
yep i actually create better rules to validate stuff core bypasses. mine even counts the rewards as bytes of the smallest unit(sats) that half the proper way at each halving.. not as 'coin' the divides in the flawed way core does it

well good for you then. but how is that helping anyone else?

as for you also being led down the rabbit hole of idiot stories
the exploit that caused a tx to be allowed upto 4mb of space via one opcode content.  is not simply the "1mb wall" rule
even when the 1mb block wall was strict pre 2017 a single tx could not even use up 1mb of data on a single opcode content. .. LEARN what actual opcodes and rules have been softened over the years that al led upto causing the bloat and fee mania

in that BIP in 2020 franky they explicitly said that there was no maximum script size limit. seems pretty clear to me. what that meant, they further explained, is that it could take up the entire block if it wanted to. i don't think i need to learn about opcodes to understand what i just mentioned.  

[franky1]

in that BIP in 2020 franky they explicitly said that there was no maximum script size limit. seems pretty clear to me. what that meant, they further explained, is that it could take up the entire block if it wanted to. i don't think i need to learn about opcodes to understand what i just mentioned.  

actually there was.. but that involves you looking further instead of "THEY SAID"
doomad has taught you to believe that core is king and been running things since 2009 and that there has never been any rules about script lengths

however there was ..
before core there was and core did not come about until many years after bitcoin was invented and if you look at all the changes core done you will see they have removed alot of limits and expected things opcodes were suppose to do. many opcodes are now replaced to just be treated as 'isvalid' with no actual checks performed

[larry_vw_1955]

in that BIP in 2020 franky they explicitly said that there was no maximum script size limit. seems pretty clear to me. what that meant, they further explained, is that it could take up the entire block if it wanted to. i don't think i need to learn about opcodes to understand what i just mentioned.  

actually there was..

not in the BIP, franky.

[franky1]

in that BIP in 2020 franky they explicitly said that there was no maximum script size limit. seems pretty clear to me. what that meant, they further explained, is that it could take up the entire block if it wanted to. i don't think i need to learn about opcodes to understand what i just mentioned.  

actually there was..

not in the BIP, franky.

learn more.. instead of finding random unrelated things just to find a quote that suits your cults narrative

so here goes, lets play your game in the opposite direction
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0141#P2WSH

"P2WSH allows maximum script size of 10,000 bytes, as the 520-byte push limit is bypassed. "

meaning there was a 520byte limit. that got bypassed for a 10kb limit which was implied and applied to segwit scripts which later got bypassed to allow for a 4mb when they used taproot, by not having such limitations

other things to note

New script system

Since a version byte is pushed before a witness program, and programs with unknown versions are always considered as anyone-can-spend script, it is possible to introduce any new script system with a soft fork. The witness as a structure is not restricted by any existing script semantics and constraints, the 520-byte push limit in particular, and therefore allows arbitrarily large scripts and signatures.

so now try to learn.. large scripts/signature spaces were not always possible from 2009 -2017... unlike what your cult leader tries to suggest was always possible. and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.

so look how things changed over the years!!

yep the witness structure has no rules. but the use of opcodes for the inclusion into the witness structure(opcodes are used to inform on which type of script system the spender wishes to use to prove a spend) used to have limits on the content included for that opcode script function of what went into that 'proof'(witness data). but with each new opcode and version they keep removing and relaxing the rules meaning the latest tx format types(aka taproot) has less rules on formatting requirements for its opcode(script types). thus that lack of format requirement(data security/integrity/validation checks) allowed any junk be added to a block

now here is a game even you can play
put a small amount of funds into
1. a legacy p2pkh address ('1' prefix)
2. a legacy p2sh multisig address ('3' prefix)
3. a segwit p2wpkh v0 address ('bc1q' prefix)
4. a segwit p2wsh v0 address ('3' prefix)
5. a taproot v1 address ('bc1p' prefix)

just enough to cover possible fees for each next spend
then i dare you to try to add a 3.9mb meme to each of those utxo spends scripts.

and see which ones can and which ones cannot.
then you will learn when the junk was made to be allowed..


and the funniest thing.
for years i have been talking about the risks of enabling the opcodes that get treated as "anyone-can-spend"
but yep the same echoed voices didnt want me to mention it and have been trying to shut me up about the possible abuses of using opcodes with less format requirements or byte limits or requirements to even need a signature in the area that is supposed to be for proof of authorisation of spending

[DooMAD]

and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.

so look how things changed over the years!!

Changes aren't just made for the sake of it.  Those who proposed that change presented an argument for why that should be the case.  That argument was accepted.  If you aren't even going to attempt to overcome that argument, stop wasting oxygen.

You keep wailing "lOoK aT tHe ChAnGeS!!!1  cHaNgEs BaD!!!1  cOrE eViL!!!1", but at no point have you ever presented a coherent challenge to the reasons any changes were made in the first place.  Do you even know the reason why this limit was removed?  Did you bother to research that?  Or are you just looking for ways to smear Core with the least possible effort?

[BlackHatCoiner]

And speaking of reasons, that's why.

Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed.

The tl;dr is: Taproot is extensible through so called leaf versions, which are different types of spending conditions that can be used within a Taproot output, allowing complex such conditions to be hidden within a public key.

[franky1]

and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.

so look how things changed over the years!!

Changes aren't just made for the sake of it.  Those who proposed that change presented an argument for why that should be the case.  That argument was accepted.  If you aren't even going to attempt to overcome that argument, stop wasting oxygen.

You keep wailing "lOoK aT tHe ChAnGeS!!!1  cHaNgEs BaD!!!1  cOrE eViL!!!1", but at no point have you ever presented a coherent challenge to the reasons any changes were made in the first place.  Do you even know the reason why this limit was removed?  Did you bother to research that?  Or are you just looking for ways to smear Core with the least possible effort?

the thing you ignore is this:

bitcoin was more secure. to ensure no junk bloat went into a block, there were stricter rules..
rules that would only change when a super majority were ready to understand the new feature to be able to fully verify the new format.. becasue that was the whole point of full nodes and decentralisation.. to hold up the integrity of he block data by super majority agreement of fully verifying the data..

recently things have changed without network readiness. meaning junk gets added when majority of full nodes dont evne understand what they are receiving.. they dont understand it but are made to accept it anyway.. because of the trojan bypass trick that just treats junk as "isvalid" without having the code to verify/understand any of the content.

it used to be the case that nodes had to upgrade to include new rulesets that had format requirements and specifications... and then a new feature activates ONCE SAFE to assume that the majority of nodes would understand the content..

however this is not the case now
we see more times then ever how the core devs "force merge" their own edits to the code and where they dont even get full review ACK comments when proposing.. they have been seen to just force things in with just "concept ACK"
so even their own peer review process is broke.

they even admit that have compartmentalised their github where they say its not cores responsibility to review every line but instead the project managers of certain parts of core self review /test their own parts of their project

where by instead of a peer reviewed and scrutinised codebase where even at code release to the public should wait for the public to review and then decide to run the software and then after that the feature only activates when there is majority network readiness to verify the new feature.. all of that has been replaces and dismantled into a stupidly insecure reliance on "trust a human"

it especially gets worse where they want to REKT any efforts of no core devs reviewing/scrutinising them or offering an open option that different to core

[DooMAD]

Notice how franky1 continues to completely disregard the rationale behind why the limit was removed.  It's just more intellectual dishonesty on his part.  He doesn't have an answer, so he'll just keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over.

Like a two-bit politician looking for mud to sling at his opponents.