On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[nutildah]

i have my own thought process no one told me how to think about this whole thing.

If you don't always agree with everything franknbeans says clearly its because you've been brainwashed, lol


You wrote a post on the Bitcoin Forum.
Franknbeans says you don't understand what you're talking about. Is it because:

a) you can't read
b) you didn't do research
c) you've been fed false narratives
d) you're an echo chamber choir member, or
e) all of the above

You must choose one to continue!

[1714317691]

1714317691

[1714317691]

1714317691

[1714317691]

1714317691

[1714317691]

1714317691

[1714317691]

1714317691

[DooMAD]

learn the plural of the byzantine generals. it does not mean one general major incharge..

The "generals" are those securing the chain, you ignorant dullard.  Devs are not and have never been "in charge".  How are you this unbelievably stupid?

[franky1]

learn the plural of the byzantine generals. it does not mean one general major incharge..

The "generals" are those securing the chain, you ignorant dullard.  Devs are not and have never been "in charge".  How are you this unbelievably stupid?

generals MAKE the orders
soldiers FOLLOW the orders

the blockchain does not make its own code.. its not Ai..
code is made by DEVS

again you want to play dumb pretending devs have no responsibility or involvement..
.. this is you again shifting the blame of the exploited code onto the mining pools by pretending the mining pools are the generals making the orders..

sorry the mining pools are the ones following orders, producing blocks that follow the formats ordered by devs rules
the devs made the rules for which the mining pools and node users follow

because thats the paradigm we are in
you have now tried to pretend bitcoin works differently again by saying devs do nothing. after spending pages with your dev adoration campaign..

maybe spend a little less time jumping between dumb and insanity of defending devs by either calling them gods or nobodies.. and instead actually learn how bitcoin works and how that has changed over the years from decentralised to centralised
heck core can admit it.. they even named their brand the center CORE

[BlackHatCoiner]

generals MAKE the orders
soldiers FOLLOW the orders

Code is not what's securing the chain. "Coding" doesn't solve the generals' problem. Mining does. Generals in this case are miners. The developers are merely hobbyists who implement solutions, generals will later use in practice. There are no soldiers in Bitcoin, unless we accept the term "user" as that, because we all follow the miners' order (of transactions).

sorry the mining pools are the ones following orders, producing blocks that follow the formats ordered by devs rules

This neither makes sense. Order is authoritarian command. There is no such command from Core developers beyond your imagination. Developers write code, and literally everyone is free to run it. Nobody forces you to run Core. Nobody prevents you from altering Core, and running your own rules. Mining pools aren't following any such orders. And the act of running Core is a very conscious one. 

Accept for once you've made a mistake, and enter adulthood.

[DooMAD]

generals MAKE the orders
soldiers FOLLOW the orders

Code is not what's securing the chain. "Coding" doesn't solve the generals' problem. Mining does. Generals in this case are miners. The developers are merely hobbyists who implement solutions, generals will later use in practice.

Exactly.  If we stick with the military analogy, developers are more akin to R&D.  They'll merely design the equipment and come up with new technology.  They can't force Generals to put new gear into service.  Generals can use old gear if they choose to.  R&D are not in charge of the military.  And developers are not in charge of Bitcoin.

Anyone who claims devs are in control doesn't understand Bitcoin.

[franky1]

in normal byzantine generals scenario they cant force..
but here is the thing you pretend to ignore when it suits you..
core have become the only general. thus the soldiers are forced to follow the major general

it used to be a case that nothing upgrades unless there is super majority of diverse independent generals all agreeing to the same rules

and yes its you that know full and well that the super majority process has been broken because you have been hollering and howling the praises of core bypassing the super majority natural vote. you love soft consensus, you love the mandated blackmail process to activate things without natural super majority. check your post history you love how core dont need natural diverse independant super majority opt-in. due to soldiers not needing to upgrade nodes to vote.

you own post history has shown that consensus has changed and you love the new process that avoids super majority.
you even say how you dont want people questioning core or asking them to do things. you also dont want core to return to the process of needing a super majority becasue you think thats censorship to stop core activating their master plan

[DooMAD]

core have become the only general. thus the soldiers are forced to follow the major general

Code does nothing if no one runs it.  Those securing the chain are choosing to run the code.

you love soft consensus.

I'm accurately describing how consensus works.  It is merely a statement of fact when I say that no one can prevent opt-in softforks.  You can't prevent freedom of choice and I wouldn't dream of doing so even if I could.

you even say how you dont want people questioning core or asking them to do things.

Legitimate issues are welcome to be raised.  But no one can implement your "No softforks allowed" idiocy, and whining about it changes nothing.  What you want is not possible.  Move on.  Find a new stick to jam up your arse and then blame someone else for.

[BlackHatCoiner]

core have become the only general.

Core is not a general, let alone the only. Producing code and executing code comes with different responsibilities. At this point, it's like arguing that gun producers are "the real military", because those are where military relies on.

you love soft consensus, you love the mandated blackmail process to activate things without natural super majority.

You see it as "blackmailing", I see it as inevitable compromises to sustain backwards compatibility, which is an invaluable property of a decentralized software of that kind. You can't have a decentralized network with everyone's approval. Clearly, some groups of people have opposed interests; miners and users first and foremost. We don't live in a Nirvana. You can't have everyone happy.

However, we don't limit ourselves to that. We are not arrogant or certain enough to impose this perspective on everyone. You are welcome to disprove this claim by establishing a superior network of your own: [Fuck Core!]. What you are not free to do is continuously intervene in other people's discussions, without any basis in model, paper, or code, and disrupt their understanding with your personal issues.

[franky1]

blackhat yet again proving the core authority by suggesting the only other option/choice people have is to produce a different network if they want to reject the core path
and wanting no one to intervene into core discussion

such boring rhetoric which within 3 posts blackhat will forget and then deny he said it just to be an ignorant hypocrit social drama queen of switching rhetoric just to keep social drama going to earn a few more pennies on his penny pinching sig campaign(sole income) and to avoid holding himself to any thing he ever says because his preferred narrative loses him fans

edit to reply to below
again idiot wants to avoid any talk about code and devs. just to talk about ego and emotion..

oh well cant be surprised by the same half dozen idiot brigade of the core fanbase that cant even get the facts straight about what bitcoin does and did do and how things have changed that this topic actually shows is annoying bitcoiners.. and no its not just franky thats annoyed by ordinals, but it is sure as hell the same idiots wanting ordinals to continue hoping bitcoiners will stop using bitcoin and move to their broken altnet they pretend is a better version of bitcoin even if its name starts with an L

[BlackHatCoiner]

Feel free to whine as much as you want about my rhetoric, and "social drama". Whenever I encounter crap like you, I'll talk. Given the situation of your mental health and inflated ego, I'll probably talk a lot.

Edit:

again idiot wants to avoid any talk about code and devs. just to talk about ego and emotion..

You are the one who avoids the essence and switches to social drama. Whenever I'm correcting you, you start cyber-attacking me, doxxing me with my real name, calling me a "fanboy"/"fangirl"/"DooMAD's wife" (wtf, how old are you?), account me for being a sig spammer, and all that shit that makes me wanna ignore and move on.

So listen up. Just because I have a life, and I'm not 24/7 in front of a screen, whining about what consensus should be like, retired because I happened to buy the dip in some 2012 bear market, it doesn't mean I won't be debunking the shit out of you whenever I find the time.

[franky1]

again the idiots avoid talking about the causes of this ordinals crap and dont want the core devs to take responsibility and instead pretend that im the authoritarian that causes the problems. even though they lack any actual evidence of any debunking on their part. all they can shout is "franky is wrong"

i have given them years of opportunity to look at code read blockdata, and instead they find excuses not to even do the most basic of checks to work out who actually caused what and how

boring

[larry_vw_1955]

it used to be a case that nothing upgrades unless there is super majority of diverse independent generals all agreeing to the same rules

i'm curious franky. what version of bitcoin core you got running at home? is it one that is written by the "DEVS" ? surely you would not be using a product that you disagreed with on such fundamental levels and yet i bet you do use the DEVS bitcoin core. but that kind of makes me question your sincerity about the whole thing if that's the case...

even if it's a patched version of the devs bitcoin core franky, i'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on in that case...

i guess it's always possible you're running a pre-segwit version of core like one of those holdouts that runs some old version of linux kernel because they dont believe in modern computers...

[franky1]

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

thus it has become a point where core who caused the exploits that allowed ordinal memes/json junk to exist in block data, are the only party that have the controls of protocol changes to fix their own exploit but they are unwilling to hold themselves responsible for their actions and want their fanbase to deny its cores fault to evade having to fix their exploit.

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.

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.

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.

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

[DooMAD]

i'm curious franky. what version of bitcoin core you got running at home? is it one that is written by the "DEVS" ? surely you would not be using a product that you disagreed with on such fundamental levels and yet i bet you do use the DEVS bitcoin core. but that kind of makes me question your sincerity about the whole thing if that's the case...

even if it's a patched version of the devs bitcoin core franky, i'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on in that case...

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.

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.

When he says:

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

This means he actively gives his consent and voluntarily chooses to adhere to Bitcoin's consensus rules.  Further, every subsequent keypair he has ever generated, every satoshi he has ever sent or received and every block his wallet client has accepted and relayed is further testament to the fact that he has given his consent to abide by Bitcoin's rules.  He can claim he doesn't agree with them, but he freely elects to follow them anyway. 

Sounds like a massive hypocrite to me, but then again, I'm just a cult leader.   

[franky1]

doomad your an idiot

first of all my node is based on my code that i started with before core was even core. which i edited/updated over the years. and so yes i get pissed off when core change things without some super majority activation because it means i got to go through all their cludge to see whats changed and then adapt it to my code..  because they dont actively propose shit for non-core devs to then look over and implement in their own nodes to then vote on before an activation occurs.
they instead activate shit and then say for others to update their nodes

yep many changes core done have not been with the consent of the masses to activate a new feature where the other brands are ready upfront before such activations.. that was cores whole point of the "consensus cleanup" campaigns over the many years. to make it so that core can change rules and bypass shit, activate shit when they like.. where by anyone actually wanting to be a FULL NODE actually has to (A) rewrite their node to stay in compliance and actually validate the new feature. but not get a vote on if it should have happened or not or phased into being a non full node by not fully validating. or (b) just be a sheep and just use core

the shit gets even worse when core cant even be bothered to validate their own new features fully and thus let many crap stuff pass. which makes non core nodes have to decide to disable stuff too to stay in compliance with CORES decisions or find new ways above and beyond what core does to validate the cludge in some meaningful way without losing compliance with CORES decisions.. which again is not allowing for non core devs to propose stuff or prevent core exploits

this is another reason why many non core devs just give up even trying to offer a diverse node.. firstly becasue of the tricks core play when they change the network without super majority activation where its given time for other brands to review and code their versions.. and secondly when non core node brands are not even allowed to propose any changes themselves. most non core devs just give in and just become sheep or give up and move to another network

if you think consent is about being just a sheep to core then you are proving your admiration for the central authority.
bitcoin is suppose to be that core should not unanimously be able to change the rules without super majority of diverse node brands

but hey all you care about is central authority and wanting anyone outside of that to be treated as opposition.. much like how cults act.. pretending to be against government whilst idolising their own religion as one. but not wanting to admit they love forming their own government that hates outsiders that dont want to convert to their centralisms(communism)

[franky1]

doomad your an idiot

*you're

what does any of this even have to do with ordinals anymore, lol

its about doomad being for ordinals and wanting it to remain by not wanting people to tell core to fix it.
its about doomad pretending ordinals memes of upto 4mb being able to occur for all 14 years of bitcoin, by denying core involvement in creating the exploit. but then being the hypocrite salivating over how core done it and pretending its all to benefit bitcoin. even though it only benefits those that want to push people to other networks

its about doomad showing his ignorance of what actually occured, who caused it and who should be responsible to fix it because if he thinks the only solution is for non core node users to fork off and create an altcoin. he is very delusional about what bitcoin was invented for, and ignorant of things like consensus and decentralisation and the solution to the byzantine generals. all of which have been bastardised over the years by core devs which lead to this exploit

there are actual code solutions to fix this crap by making bitcoin rules refined and structured again requiring opcodes meet certain format and content requirements. but at this present juncture it does require core to do something because they have become the central point of failure and they need to stop REKTing any attempts to fix cores mistakes and instead fix their own mistakes and voluntarily relinquish their centralist power to allow non core node brands to propose things

i have already mentioned this but doomads ignorance forgets things fast and he cant even take 3 minutes to search for things.
and nutildah you are just as bad as him becasue you sound like his echo's 95% of the time, as does blackhatcoiner and winfury and new recruit larry (you know the same echoing voice saying the same crap as each other but never looking at code, doing math, checking bytes, or blockdata.. just screaming and crying about people and egos)

you all want ordinals crap to continue and you dont want core to take responsibility for them causing this chaos.. but hey you al then want t pretend im the one causing chaos..
and thats why you lot earn the "idiot" status

[DooMAD]

first of all my node is based on my code that i started with before core was even core. which i edited/updated over the years.

And... just to make sure I've got this straight...

franky1:  
 
*Spends YEARS ranting about how no one should be able to write code without permission*
*Now claims he wrote code before Core existed*

*Spends YEARS ranting about how the community have to peer-review and approve everything*
*Hasn't provided any of his code to review*

*Spends YEARS ranting about how there should be more diversity and other clients*
*Never shares the client he's using with anyone*


What an absolute fucking joke.  If there's a world record for hypocrisy, it belongs to this cunt.  

Just when I think he can't say anything more insane than he did in the previous post, he just keeps going.    


//EDIT: In response to the further histrionics after this post:

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.

[franky1]

YOU REKT anyone that tries, even before they try to publicly release stuff.. but you dont want anyone scrutinising core
even when core do publicly release stuff that does affect users..

thats why people dont bother releasing code proposals via non core brands because they know the result is to instantly be treated as opposition/threat.. rather than a choice

secondly core release code to the public that does affect the protocol and core do change the prototcol, so core should be scrutinised
other non protocol affecting code thats not publicly released, has no affect publicly

i have not released my code publicly and yet your cult is already shouting red flag, dont trust, dont use it, dont treat it as a viable candidate, it should not be on the bitcoin network, it should f**k off to an altcoin

[BlackHatCoiner]

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.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

In as much as I pretty much agree with what Radamor said, that bitcoin has pretty much exceeded or gone far beyond what Satoshi himself had in the beginning imagined or designed bitcoin to be, I would still very much say that I am against ordinals, I am not a very technical person and might not be able to really discuss this from its technical perspective, but all I can say is that, bitcoin blockchain was not builds to have smart contracts of any kind running on it..
Though it does have the potential to bring more usage to bitcoin as well as more value, but the downside is that, it also could possibly destroy the chain with/due to high transaction cost, which has been a major issue on Ethereum blockchain before the upgrade/fork.