On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[BlackHatCoiner]

brand new webrowsers dont like old flash/java
heck even old html tags dont work any more like <marquee><nobr><no embed> to name a few

Lol. That's the corresponded to soft forks. Invalidating the valid.

old webbrowsers dont understand DIV CSS or the latest media players

No, they can't, because there have been rules added on top. They can still do the essential; browse the web, but their browsing is very limited. Reminds me of a pre-SegWit node analogy to me.

by the way nodes made pre 2016 do not store full blockdata nor are part of the block or tx relay of all bitcoin users. they are instead via newer nodes handed a striped out version of blocks where old nodes cant fully validate all transactions nor propagate full blocks

I know. I'm aware that if you spin up a v0.1-v0.2.9 node, you can't reach the tip. I'm not quite sure if you could even reach it with any Core client prior v0.8. There have been some technical changes, but the protocol has not introduced any non-backwards compatible rules.

this is not about sustainability. its about breaking security

I don't know what Bitcoin you use, but mine is pretty secure.

[1714313919]

1714313919

[1714313919]

1714313919

[1714313919]

1714313919

[franky1]

you use pruned node with certain features turned off. thus you are not so secure.. you advocate for using a node that does not have many rules or blocks or require verification of data, too much for you to not be doing it yourself
if however you are using a full node that verifies and archives everything.. your just a hypocrite


as for the other stuff you pretend core done things to remain "backward compatible" then you admit that core done stuff that is not compatible with older nodes
so thank you for debunking yourself

and now that you have admitted that new core stuff is not actually compatible with old nodes STICK TO IT!

and then realise the actual changes of softening consensus.. as you now know is not about "compatibility" is about being an open gate trojan exploit to allow future stuff to be allowed in without the need of nodes upgrading

.. and no dont argue with yourself by playing ping pong tennis about your changing narrative.. pick one narrative and stick to it


years ago your forum wifes narrative was
"no more than 1mb because conservatism"
"lets not scale bitcoin transactions because alt networks will serve people"

the block limit moved from 1mb to 4mb but again your forum wife
"lets not scale bitcoin transactions because alt networks will serve people"
"no more transactions because conservatism"

but now you and him are saying that 4mb of dead weight data bloat is good but you still dont want more transactions(real payments) per block, with your lame excuse you call "censorship"

grow up with your schemes to ruins bitcoins utility as a payment network by advocating that it should become a meme library.. all so you can promote your alternate networks (yes you love lightning and monero) as the things people should use instead

when you speak independently. such as having knowledge that certain things are not compatible with older nodes.. is one thing

but then when you go against your own research and just chant the usual scripts and buzzwords you read from your social drama group.. that is when you become and sound like the idiot.. because you are going against your own knowledge just to say things that sound as if your only purpose of saying them is to ass-kiss a group of other idiots that want to ruin bitcoin and promote altnetworks as the only escape from the things they want ruined

[larry_vw_1955]

They definitely didn't consider bloat when considering removal of script limit, maybe they didn't consider existence of OP_PUSH.

so that means they need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider things a bit? or what?

P.S. Don't forget to mention source statement you mentioned,

i wouldn't want to give it any publicity. let's hide it under the covers since it is quite an embarassment to bitcoin that such a thing could be misused to put pictures of monkeys and naked women on the blockchain... there's a time and place for those things maybe but on Bitcoin? seriously?

Validation of Taproot Scripts as it stands right now is garbage.

[franky1]

i wouldn't want to give it any publicity. let's hide it under the covers since it is quite an embarassment to bitcoin that such a thing could be misused

Validation of Taproot Scripts as it stands right now is garbage.

not the first time
and some devs did consider it, and adore the utility abuse of allowing it.
the thing is though by letting certain people try to hide it and not talk about it. it just ends up with devs getting away with it and repeating it, rather than fixing it

bitcoin used to be a proper open gated community allowing anyone to get involved where by the mass consent of the network instructed the ruleset. thats not the way anymore
bitcoin used to have many node implementations of different brands on the same network where the devs of each would promote their own proposals..
and after review and seeing the benefits other devs wanted it too.. thats not the way anymore

bitcoin used to be independently reviewed/scrutinised and critiqued where anyone can report bugs.. thats not the way anymore

now even core devs (the sole reference client) is closing off its gates with new moderation policy and contributor ranking systems. heck even the top half dozen devs do not propose code and ask the rest to review and "ack" it. instead there are many instances they just self merge their own code. unreviewed

so silence is not the solution
normal people did not need complex scripts and other cludge. it was businesses that wanted segwit/taproot.. as gateway features to use on alt networks.. and they sponsored devs to get it implemented before a certain date. which required pushing it in by any means possible

note all the date limits amd mandated dates.. and instead of listening to consensus from november 2016-may2017 of only 45% they pushed outside of the 45% consensus vote to force it in by faking a 100% unnatural flag

the pushed it soo fast that once activated they didnt finish the job.
 the devs that made segwit didnt strengthen the rules again after their bypass
at the GUI level they didnt even make segwits able to sign a message

there are other things. where the main devs do not trust segwit (sipa and luke jr still use legacy)
(even coinbase which is the vault for grayscale GBTC uses legacy)
and it was the DCG group (NYA) that sponsored and pushed for segwit.

then more businesses wanted taproot. yep normal people again dont need the complex scripts.

these features of segwit and taproot are for organisations on alt networks.
and as we know taproot is not a finished complete feature. its another flawed feature

these things were sponsored implementations. they were not wide community requested features
and the devs paid to get them to be activated into the network did not care about bitcoins security/utility. they just took the money

and thats the big shame on bitcoin

the softening of consensus in 2017 and 2022 are not about 'backward compatibility'. its about 'forward ease of change'
old nots do not fully verify data they have no rules for. so these new stuff are not made to be verified by older nodes. so its not backward compatible at all..
its just a softening and weakening of consensus to let new things in unchecked. which is bad security

[larry_vw_1955]

now even core devs (the sole reference client) is closing off its gates with new moderation policy and contributor ranking systems. heck even the top half dozen devs do not propose code and ask the rest to review and "ack" it. instead there are many instances they just self merge their own code. unreviewed

i wonder what craig wright thinks about all of this. he's probably laughing.

normal people did not need complex scripts and other cludge.

at least craig wright started things out with bsv to be the original bitcoin without adding all this new crap onto it. i could agree with that vision unfortunately bsv failed to hold true to it since they became something way different than the original bitcoin.

it was businesses that wanted segwit/taproot.. as gateway features to use on alt networks.. and they sponsored devs to get it implemented before a certain date. which required pushing it in by any means possible

sounds like the devs got paid to make bitcoin become something it shouldn't have. but we let it happen now we have to deal with the consequences. somehow.

[franky1]

CSW is not a dev or coder he is just an altcoin piece of scam drama

but when it comes to greed. many scumbags would ruin a good thing for the masses just for personal gain

its why CSW and other alternative network idolisers are trying to ruin bitcoin just to promote other networks as (fake) bitcoin networks. they are the worse type of people to get to say their crap narratives and recruit people into their delusions. they love to make claims of how their other networks are better or true bitcoin. yet its obvious they are not. so they try to then break bitcoin to push people into not using bitcoin and using their alt network

bitcoin was made to escape the greed of corporate/scam mindsets.. but even core devs have fallen into that trap

one of the main flaws is not just softening the protocol to let core add what they please. but also removing the diversity of different brand full nodes that are allowed to propose change to the protocol. as it has made core a central point of failure that has gone "god-mode"

i am a bitcoin maximalist. but i do not fear mentioning the things people need to be risk aware of.
only speaking of utopian dream, hope and blind trust. just blinds people

[NotATether]

now even core devs (the sole reference client) is closing off its gates with new moderation policy and contributor ranking systems. heck even the top half dozen devs do not propose code and ask the rest to review and "ack" it. instead there are many instances they just self merge their own code. unreviewed

i wonder what craig wright thinks about all of this. he's probably laughing.

Breaking into Bitcoin Core development is hard. I mean, I tried it. Got one commit merged into the 24.0 codebase, and even that was only because of achow's guidance. But I haven't given up yet.

normal people did not need complex scripts and other cludge.

at least craig wright started things out with bsv to be the original bitcoin without adding all this new crap onto it. i could agree with that vision unfortunately bsv failed to hold true to it since they became something way different than the original bitcoin.

He added the ability to seize bitcoin from any BSV address by presenting a legal document... so I would not say his "Bitcoin" is original at all. It is more of a time-wasting if not fraudulent shitcoin.

[franky1]

Breaking into Bitcoin Core development is hard. I mean, I tried it. Got one commit merged into the 24.0 codebase, and even that was only because of achow's guidance. But I haven't given up yet.

yep you most definitely need achow's involvement. especially this year, if you dont get his approval/nod. it becomes even harder
but a random outsider getting to add something to bitcoin is usually a diversity hire temp. just to translate or grammar check comments or add a extra line in debug logs

you know.. if it doesnt affect their roadmap they will call outsiders in to make min version changes

[ABCbits]

They definitely didn't consider bloat when considering removal of script limit, maybe they didn't consider existence of OP_PUSH.

so that means they need to go back to the drawing board and reconsider things a bit? or what?

They need to create new BIP which make size of taproot script or OP_PUSH data bigger than X bytes become non-standard.

P.S. Don't forget to mention source statement you mentioned,

i wouldn't want to give it any publicity. let's hide it under the covers since it is quite an embarassment to bitcoin that such a thing could be misused to put pictures of monkeys and naked women on the blockchain... there's a time and place for those things maybe but on Bitcoin? seriously?

Validation of Taproot Scripts as it stands right now is garbage.

I see. Although i'd suggest you to mention the BIP number (BIP 342 in this case) to prevent plagiarism accusation. And despite flaw you mentioned, i'd argue in general Taproot in general is good improvement towards Bitcoin.

now even core devs (the sole reference client) is closing off its gates with new moderation policy and contributor ranking systems. heck even the top half dozen devs do not propose code and ask the rest to review and "ack" it. instead there are many instances they just self merge their own code. unreviewed

i wonder what craig wright thinks about all of this. he's probably laughing.

That person can't even code "Hello World" on C++.

normal people did not need complex scripts and other cludge.

at least craig wright started things out with bsv to be the original bitcoin without adding all this new crap onto it. i could agree with that vision unfortunately bsv failed to hold true to it since they became something way different than the original bitcoin.

Do you know BSV facilitate storing arytbniary data where 98% of BSV TX used to store weather data[1]? Do you also know BSV has feature to steal BSV under feature called "DARA"[2-3]?

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/98-bsv-transactions-used-writing-223000472.html
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/releases/tag/v1.0.13
[3] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

[BlackHatCoiner]

old nots do not fully verify data they have no rules for. so these new stuff are not made to be verified by older nodes. so its not backward compatible at all..

its just a softening and weakening of consensus to let new things in unchecked. which is bad security

On the former message, he says that old nodes don't fully validate the chain, because there have been new rules introduced. On the latter, he says that this is "softening" or "weakening of consensus" because new things are left unchecked. How that weakens consensus is a thing only God and he know. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much progression in consensus, as members are not forced to comply with each other. As for security: if you don't use SegWit, and go solely with Legacy, how on Earth will you get less security? You obviously can't verify the new, updated transactions, but this isn't a concern for users who just want to stick with traditional Bitcoins scripts; if they didn't, they would have switched to the updated client.

[Artemis3]

Next spammer "Yuga Labs" reports 700 BTC in profit made from abusing the blockchain. Of course with such wealth regular Bitcoin transactions will be relegated to second class at best. Even if this spam benefits miners, it kills Bitcoin's original intent.

7 days and counting, 1 rebroadcast, current wait 32MB. Before Feb 6, this transaction would have taken a few hours, 1 day a worst.

[franky1]

old nots do not fully verify data they have no rules for. so these new stuff are not made to be verified by older nodes. so its not backward compatible at all..

its just a softening and weakening of consensus to let new things in unchecked. which is bad security

On the former message, he says that old nodes don't fully validate the chain, because there have been new rules introduced. On the latter, he says that this is "softening" or "weakening of consensus" because new things are left unchecked. How that weakens consensus is a thing only God and he know.

the point is this
the games you recite is that this term "backward compatibility" is where you idiots are trying to tell people its ok to be an old node .. where you pretend that old nodes still fully validate and archive everything due to your favoured buzzword

im correcting that narrative
by saying old nodes do not fully verify/validate/archive everything..

..
the softening of consensus is about instead of the consensus that required nodes to upgrade to then have a new ruleset in their code/software ready to validate new rules(good security) before the new rules activate. (good security)

instead
the softening allows new rules without the consensus (consent of the masses flagging they are ready)

As far as I can tell, it's pretty much progression in consensus, as members are not forced to comply with each other. As for security: if you don't use SegWit, and go solely with Legacy, how on Earth will you get less security?

the whole not complying.. is evident.
but blackhatcoiner yet again dismisses and ignore the purpose of full nodes which are suppose to be verifying everything and archiving everything (ya' know: FULL compliance/unity)

also its not about enforcing everyone. its about ensuring everyone that wants to remain a full node us updated and ready to verify everything.. before a rule is changed.

where separately people can downgrade or set themselves as a lite function.. by choice too

however having new stuff shuvved into blockchain data without consent of the masses to be ready for it is BAD security.. its called a trojan horse backdoor

the network used to have hard consensus where rules dont change until masses of FUL NODES were ready to accept the change.

You obviously can't verify the new, updated transactions, but this isn't a concern for users who just want to stick with traditional Bitcoins scripts; if they didn't, they would have switched to the updated client.

here is the thing your missing ...
having a trojan back door means new things can be thrown in unverified before there is even a proposed node release candidate to allow other people to upgrade too
even now.. CORE does not have a release to sanity check, verify integrity of ordinals or even have released code to prevent them..

right now none of the nodes of the network can verify the craps recently added.. no nodes were ready for it



i do laugh when idiots like blackhatcoiner and his idiot army of half a dozen echos try to say that bitcoiners should not comply to rules nor care about random crap being put into the blockchain.. it reveals alot about their scammy scheming mindset to want to ruin bitcoin, by his desires to want these trojan backdoors left open

[larry_vw_1955]

He added the ability to seize bitcoin from any BSV address by presenting a legal document... so I would not say his "Bitcoin" is original at all. It is more of a time-wasting if not fraudulent shitcoin.

from https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin-sv/
The name comes from supporters’ belief that cheaper fees align with Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision for the blockchain network. According to the project’s website, the blockchain was “created to restore the original Satoshi protocol, keep it stable and enable it to massively scale,” making it “unlike other bitcoin projects.

maybe bsv wasn't too far off the mark. where they went wrong is the "massively scaling" part but the part where they wanted cheaper fees and keeping the original protocol seems agreeable especially given the current situation with bitcoin...

Next spammer "Yuga Labs" reports (https://twelvefold.io/) 700 BTC in profit made from abusing the blockchain. Of course with such wealth regular Bitcoin transactions will be relegated to second class at best. Even if this spam benefits miners, it kills Bitcoin's original intent.

300 nfts sold at 2btc minimum. wow. people really want bitcoin nfts badly it sounds like   and these werent even pictures of monkies apparently.

They need to create new BIP which make size of taproot script or OP_PUSH data bigger than X bytes become non-standard.

who is "they", why can't anyone do it? or the devs got too much control over bitcoin such that they control what goes into it and no one else has any say?

I see. Although i'd suggest you to mention the BIP number (BIP 342 in this case) to prevent plagiarism accusation.

accusation by who? did i say i wrote bip 342?   i'm glad i didn't.

And despite flaw you mentioned, i'd argue in general Taproot in general is good improvement towards Bitcoin.

Maybe but that's not the point...

[Macadonian]

Breaking into Bitcoin Core development is hard. I mean, I tried it. Got one commit merged into the 24.0 codebase, and even that was only because of achow's guidance. But I haven't given up yet.

yep you most definitely need achow's involvement. especially this year, if you dont get his approval/nod. it becomes even harder
but a random outsider getting to add something to bitcoin is usually a diversity hire temp. just to translate or grammar check comments or add a extra line in debug logs

you know.. if it doesnt affect their roadmap they will call outsiders in to make min version changes

Bitcoin development has become centralized because of elitist attitudes that think they know better. I do not like the way development has gone because it is this ego and gate keeping that leads to centralized development and only developing to personal goals instead of what the community needs.

[larry_vw_1955]

Bitcoin development has become centralized because of elitist attitudes that think they know better. I do not like the way development has gone because it is this ego and gate keeping that leads to centralized development and only developing to personal goals instead of what the community needs.

which i guess is what leads to hard forks. seems like it needs another fork. someone that can put back the original vision of satoshi and not all this extra features that not many people really need to just send digital cash.

[Macadonian]

which i guess is what leads to hard forks. seems like it needs another fork. someone that can put back the original vision of satoshi and not all this extra features that not many people really need to just send digital cash.

Hard forks are not good for the price and they usually divide the community but if the development keeps going on the path it is then we are never going to get what we need and only greedy developers adding things that they want to add because it makes them look good. I think a few of the developers are using their position for job prospects instead of developing Bitcoin for the good of the community.

[franky1]

forks are where things divide out .. knives just cut straight through the crap in a straight line

we need to stop using concepts of forks and just cut through the crap and bring things back to a semblance of sanity and trim off future ability of the dead weight fat.

strengthening consensus rules does not cause forks. because.. a upto 80bytes at block 7x9,999 still fits within the current ruleset of upto weight(4mb)
because simply 80 is still within the limit

i wont destroy old blocks but will make new blocks collate leaner transactions and reject fat transactions trying to get into new blocks

thus it actually uses the trojan back door of sliding in a new rule without needing mass node acceptance. all it requires is majority of mining pools to implement, which then seals up the trojan back door on its way out

the whole scream if you hear "fork" campaign and then call everything a fork is stupid
especially since they use a backdoor that doesnt create forks..

hence why i have been saying softening consensus rather than softfork
and hardening consensus instead of hard fork

..
what should happen is once the hardening of census occurs. then yes there would be opcodes with unset parameters. but these would be disabled by default whereby if a new tx format wanted to become part of the ruleset. then devs need to release it as a proposal for users to download. and then only enable the opcode when majority is ready.. like how it used to be

[larry_vw_1955]

strengthening consensus rules does not cause forks.

that's correct. incompatible changes is what causes hard forks. compatible changes causes soft forks. so i guess segwit was a soft fork. same with taproot. bitcoin cash was a hard fork since they made the blocksize bigger.

hence why i have been saying softening consensus rather than softfork
and hardening consensus instead of hard fork

..
what should happen is once the hardening of census occurs.

but isn't that a big assumption that it is going to occur? it doesn't seem like the devs are going to play any role in that so that means you have to convince a majority of the bitcoin miners to go along with it. how likely is that? if i was a miner, it would be hard to do something that would reduce my profitability. that's why i mentioned "forks" because that might be the only way forward. clearly that would be a last resort option but if you can't get it done any other way then what other choice do you have? 

[franky1]

segwit had a 2event process in under 2 months to activate it in 2017
NYA (economic nodes  threaten mining pools of rejecting blocks that dont comply)
MAHF (miners went to unnatural 100% block flag)

taproot only needed 1 process

as for your other assertions.. i think you need to do a little more research on events. and due to certain people crying each time i tell people how events occured i wont spoonfeed the info. so its best you do your own research by looking at actual block data and flag events of the periods to see what actually occured

economic nodes can make the same threat of NYA where pools that include deadweight block will get their blocks rejected. thus not even getting the 6.25btc reward. let alone the petty 0.0x fee you think they worry about

yep using the exact same tactics of segwit adoption against those that loved the segwit adoption
in short using the trojan against the trojan adorers. to get rid of the trojan and close the gate on its way out

[pooya87]

300 nfts sold at 2btc minimum. wow. people really want bitcoin nfts badly it sounds like  and these werent even pictures of monkies apparently.

There are always gamblers around who want to make bets on price of anything they buy in the cryptocurrency market. If you manage to put dog poop in a pretty package and advertise it well, you will be able to find lots of them who would buy it.