On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

We shouldn't forget that franknbeans was telling people to support Bitcoin Unlimited, that to be with Roger Ver was the right side, and that users don't need to run full nodes.

I had to look into this Bitcoin unlimited thing: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/faq/what-is-bu

Essentially Bitcoin Unlimited is not a restriction to a certain implementation of Bitcoin. It introduces the concept of Emergent Consensus (EC), which can and should be adopted by other clients like bcoin, btcd or Core. Emergent Consensus is decentralized decision-making in action

I thought for a second I might be reading a posting from Franky there but no, that's on their own website...but it seems like a perfect project for franky to get behind since he seems to relish the thought of "emergent consensus" and not some consensus that is brought down off a mountain in Moses ten commandment style...

actually i was not in group unlimited.. and it was doomad that was the one telling people to not be full nodes..

but look at this Franky:

from their faq linked above:

How is Bitcoin Unlimited different from Bitcoin Core?

The blocksize limit is removed from the consensus rules, so that the node follows the longest chain independently from one determined by maximum blocksize.
the maximum size of a block is freely adjustable by the miners.
Nodes have the option to set the parameters Excessive Blocksize (EB) and Acceptance Depth (AD). This enables them to delay acceptance of extra-large blocks from miners by orphaning their blocks until they reach a certain depth in the Blockchain.

so you never supported this project ever?

a. even doomad liked "emerging consensus" before he went full core cult in 2017
b. bitcoin unlimited is one project of many projects back then(before the REKT campaigns). with many wanting independence and multiple brands on the same level of all being proposals "generals" instead of 1 "major general" running on the bitcoin network.
i was not advocating certain brands like bitcoin unlimited i was and still am not advertising or promoting any brand. its more about the ethos of the network not anything to do with brand advertising.. (try to learn this it will help you)
but in 2017+ it was doomad that flipped his script and started trying to pigeon hole me as if i was against cores roadmap then in his mind i must be part of "that group" (because he thinks that everyone was/should be filtered into groups/loyalty cults)
and he tried to pigeon hole me as if i was part of another group when he failed to poke the bear of saying i was in unlimited group...

i do laugh that you think if i am against core authoritarianism i must be part of some other branded group..
you really are falling into doomads echo chamber mindset

have you ever realised in your own mind(without seeking advice from your cult) that you do not need to be part of a group, and where independence is an option.. you know(well maybe you dont) that decentralisation and lack of central points of failure is an option that should be explored..

im sure you are going to reply asserting your obedience and adoration of cores continued control and spout alot more scripted blubber ive heard from the same echo chamber of halve a dozen authoritarian loving group minded idiots

so take a chance on yourself. take some time to really think for yourself and come back with a reply that doesnt sound like the usual dreams and wishes and echos of doomads cult

escape the group speak narrative where you think the only option is for users to need to be loyal to one brand

last thing to note
unlike doomad (and his cult that love to sell their soul to advertise brands for penny scraping income or hopes of being hired if they show loyalty to a brand.. )
i have never advertised promoted or ass kissed any brand. even before i became self sufficiently able to retire young thanks to bitcoin i did run businesses and do things bitcoin related professionally and i did code things, but even so i never advertised them on this forum. and before you ask non of my business interests in my real life were any of the silly pigeon hole brands doomad pretended i existed in.
i never needed to sell my soul by promoting brands..

[1714852306]

1714852306

[1714852306]

1714852306

[1714852306]

1714852306

[larry_vw_1955]

i do laugh that you think if i am against core authoritarianism i must be part of some other branded group..

i don't know why you call it authoritarianism. do you think there is someone better suited to be maintaining bitcoin? if so then why aren't they? you have already admitted that you think the core devs are on someone's payroll. that being the case, why would they be interested in listening to someone that doesn't even sign their paycheck? that would be you.   but you don't want to be part of a branded group so who exactly do you think is going to listen to you then? that's why groups form so they can present their beliefs and rally around one another. i guess you're against that.

have you ever realised in your own mind(without seeking advice from your cult) that you do not need to be part of a group, and where independence is an option.. you know(well maybe you dont) that decentralisation and lack of central points of failure is an option that should be explored..

ever heard of unions? unions exist to give individuals a voice. especially labor unions. but i guess you don't think those are necessary either.

im sure you are going to reply asserting your obedience and adoration of cores continued control and spout alot more scripted blubber ive heard from the same echo chamber of halve a dozen authoritarian loving group minded idiots

well someone has to maintain the code base franky. you're retired so you're not going to do it. and i don't have the expertise or knowlege to do it. so who do you think should do it?

so take a chance on yourself. take some time to really think for yourself and come back with a reply that doesnt sound like the usual dreams and wishes and echos of doomads cult

if the core devs are being paid to work on bitcoin then it would make sense that whoever is footing that bill should get some type of preferential treatment don't you think? money talks. why else would someone sponsor something if it didn't benefit them in some way? lets not try and live in a fantasy land franky. that doesn't mean anyone is trying to destroy bitcoin though.

i never needed to sell my soul by promoting brands..

good for you. not everyone is as fortunate as you to be able to retire off their investment. but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with trying to earn a buck. you have to do what you have to do. i don't look down on someone just for that. but what really gets me is when I see someone spamming AI comments on the forum having signed up for some sig campaign previously. at least earn your money the honest way...

[franky1]

i do laugh that you think if i am against core authoritarianism i must be part of some other branded group..

i don't know why you call it authoritarianism. do you think there is someone better suited to be maintaining bitcoin?
[snip]
that's why groups form so they can present their beliefs and rally around one another. i guess you're against that.

"someone better suited" = you are falling yet again for the mindset of the need of singular maintainer

you then after the snip speak of groups.. but ignoring the singular brand that does all the maintaining that does not listen to the community that does not pay them.. but listens to its corporate sistership that does sponsor them

have you ever realised in your own mind(without seeking advice from your cult) that you do not need to be part of a group, and where independence is an option.. you know(well maybe you dont) that decentralisation and lack of central points of failure is an option that should be explored..

ever heard of unions? unions exist to give individuals a voice. especially labor unions. but i guess you don't think those are necessary either.

you try to use plural here. but again core is not a plural is it a singular union.. nor one that is on the side of the wide  community, but instead onside with the corporations they work for. and are sponsored by..

whats happening is core are not a "union" but a corporate advisory board and management team, benefiting the corporations not the users/community/customers

im sure you are going to reply asserting your obedience and adoration of cores continued control and spout alot more scripted blubber ive heard from the same echo chamber of halve a dozen authoritarian loving group minded idiots

well someone has to maintain the code base franky. you're retired so you're not going to do it. and i don't have the expertise or knowledge to do it. so who do you think should do it?

again "someone" singular.. you are escaping the conversations of the possibility of decentralised diverse groups..
there are thousands of developers out there that would love to make reference clients for bitcoin which are allowed to make upgrade proposals.. problem is years of REKT campaigns have made those groups move to altcoins or just not even bother coding anymore.. this is even as far back as ethereums main dev(before ethereum was a thing) being pushed out of proposing stuff for bitcoin and instead deciding to move away from the centralised group club house and just make something different(ethereum)

years ago gmaxwell said that scrutiny and critiquing devs would be the reason why talent would leave bitcoin.. however the actual reason talent left bitcoin is the centralised clubhouse mentality and REKT campaigns against anyone having idea's that dont follow the core roadmap.. you know the script "F**k off" where ** can be 'UC' or 'OR', but mean the same think in your script masters mind, becasue thats the only option.. "disagree with core, go make an altcoin" is now the only "choice" in your scriptmasters mind

so take a chance on yourself. take some time to really think for yourself and come back with a reply that doesnt sound like the usual dreams and wishes and echos of doomads cult

if the core devs are being paid to work on bitcoin then it would make sense that whoever is footing that bill should get some type of preferential treatment don't you think? money talks. why else would someone sponsor something if it didn't benefit them in some way? lets not try and live in a fantasy land franky. that doesn't mean anyone is trying to destroy bitcoin though.

atleast now you are starting to see that yes money motivates their politics.. and what you next have to learn is these sponsors are not paying out with no plans of ROI.. those sponsors do want to get paid back for their sponsorship investment.. which is where the campaigns of " dont use bitcoin fir daily living, dont use bitcoin, use this subnetwork where router get fee's" stuff plays in
they want to create factories/hubs(custodians) so that they can hold users funds and lock them in until the user has nothing left then close out their account. while charging them fee's per payment that seem cheaper then bitcoin fee's but thats because they are spending years trying to push bitcoin fee's to make their subnetwork fund syphoning game seem attractive

and then when you dare to do some research to see who their sponsors are..
you wil see the altnet adoration brigade(blockstream) and the hyperledger(CBDC) groups are paying the core maintainers
yep when you start following the money you then see who core politics belong to. and it certainly (as you admit) is not the wider community of bitcoiners.. but those that want to put up barriers of entry into bitcoin to promote other networks and systems as solutions

the sponsors know they cant make ROI on their sponsorships via for instance bitcoin fee's because bitcoin does not pay relay nodes. so they want their ROI from other systems that do have routing fee's and processing fees and custodian 'renting channels/ renting inbound balance' fee's

i hope it does not take you 7 years to escape the cult mindset. and instead takes you less time to realise the whole big picture situation of the "offramping" game.. which is a game of pushing people out of bitcoin via halting tx count scaling onchain.. also premiumising the fee's to annoy bitcoiners into using bitcoin less, or using other systems instead to save on fee's... aswell as the games of "pruning" to have less decentralised blockchain full archiving nodes to secure the network. and all the other games of allowing junk into the blockchain while rejecting users who just want to pay a fair fee for a normal bitcoin use tx

[Artemis3]

What a derailment. You turned this thread into an anti franky1 discussion and ignore completely the topic.

[DooMAD]

I'm actually the stupid one and the most ridiculed among those names, but I'm honored to be in franknbean's list. It probably shows I'm trying to be in the right path of my Bitcoin journey, and listening to the right people.

We shouldn't forget that franknbeans was telling people to support Bitcoin Unlimited, that to be with Roger Ver was the right side, and that users don't need to run full nodes.

actually i was not in group unlimited.. and it was doomad that was the one telling people to not be full nodes..
you cant even get your own story straight let alone the scripts your forum daddy tells you

no wonder doomads clan are so dumb.. their memory lasts about 2 weeks and they forget anything they

Get REKT fascist1.  You're the one who wants to make it prohibitively expensive to run a node and thinks that pruned nodes are unacceptable.  I want it to be affordable to run a non-mining full node.

Whatever group you're in, it's Stalinist totalitarianism bullshit that hates freedom.  Fuck you.

What a derailment. You turned this thread into an anti franky1 discussion and ignore completely the topic.

It's what he does best.  Constant derailment forever.  Every topic has to be about his misconceptions and total failure to understand both freedom and Bitcoin.

[dragonvslinux]

6 Months...

Is this part of the "fEeS wIlL nEvEr gO dOwN" theory? As transaction fees have been dropping consistently for over a month now, even if the total number of transactions remain high. Now the mempool is starting to clear through 10 sat/vB transactions, so it won't be long before the rest clear imo. This is the usual threshold required in order to clear out the mempool at least from historic data.

Overall it's nice to see the situation resolve itself without any external input required, despite all the doom and gloomers predicting that transaction fees would never get back to "normal".

[larry_vw_1955]

Is this part of the "fEeS wIlL nEvEr gO dOwN" theory? As transaction fees have been dropping consistently for over a month now, even if the total number of transactions remain high. Now the mempool is starting to clear through 10 sat/vB transactions, so it won't be long before the rest clear imo. This is the usual threshold required in order to clear out the mempool at least from historic data.

Overall it's nice to see the situation resolve itself without any external input required, despite all the doom and gloomers predicting that transaction fees would never get back to "normal".

i think the monkeys experienced an extinction level event when those BRC-20 tokens hit ordinals hard. I never saw a single monkey again they might be extinct. 

[Artemis3]

Overall it's nice to see the situation resolve itself without any external input required, despite all the doom and gloomers predicting that transaction fees would never get back to "normal".

And yet, the graph shows how things were before February... So what exactly is improving? Pointing an issue is not "doom and gloom" but reality and that's all there is in that graph. However you want to interpret it, is not going to change it.

[dragonvslinux]

Overall it's nice to see the situation resolve itself without any external input required, despite all the doom and gloomers predicting that transaction fees would never get back to "normal".

And yet, the graph shows how things were before February... So what exactly is improving?

I stated exactly what has improved over the past month, but instead you've clearly decided to ignore it and focus on something else I said:

As transaction fees have been dropping consistently for over a month now, even if the total number of transactions remain high.

The mempool rarely clears overnight after high fees, instead historically these things usually takes weeks if not months.

Pointing an issue is not "doom and gloom" but reality and that's all there is in that graph. However you want to interpret it, is not going to change it.

For sure you can speculate that the situation won't continue to improve as it has done, but you can't deny what is clearly shown in the graph, that of fees decreasing.

However you interpret it, the situation has been improving over the past month, this is impossible to deny. You can only speculate it won't continue to improve...

You can for sure speculate that the number of transactions will remain high (even though they have also begun to decrease), I'll instead speculate that the situation will continue to improve:

Now the mempool is starting to clear through 10 sat/vB transactions, so it won't be long before the rest clear imo. This is the usual threshold required in order to clear out the mempool at least from historic data.

[franky1]

Get REKT fascist1.  You're the one who wants to make it prohibitively expensive to run a node and thinks that pruned nodes are unacceptable.  I want it to be affordable to run a non-mining full node.

Whatever group you're in, it's Stalinist totalitarianism bullshit that hates freedom.  Fuck you.

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cludgy large transactions of upto 3.96mb to continue...

funny.. coming from the guy that wants people to prune thus no longer be full nodes.. both by not requiring to need to fully validate transactions (your love of backward compatibility of telling people they dont need to upgrade their node when new features arrive) and your adoration of pruning data thus not having FULL data to analyse or pass to other peers.

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cores centralist authoritarian principles..

funny how you pretend to want to make bitcoin affordable. whilst being a hypocrite by celebrating when fee's go high

you really are the biggest bullsh*tter and hypocrite in this forum right now. way above some of the ICO scammers

you dont want these crappy deadweight memes and useless json data to stop. which reveals that you dont care about bitcoins security or economy or ethics or morality. all you care about is promoting whatever crap thing might cause people to want to jump over to your favoured sponsored subnetwork, even if that subnetwork is broke and flawed

as for derailing. i have constantly talked about WHO and WHAT caused the junk of ordinals to occur and everything i said is related to what caused it and whats preventing it from being undone and what ways it can be undone ..

you however want to avoid the topic and make it "all about franky" trying to avoid any negative speak of the actual developers that caused this fiasco and continued softening of the rules that lead to these annoyances that have affected many hundreds of thousands of bitcoiners

[panganib999]

There are different approaches and varying degrees of flexibility or restrictions that can be applied in the development of a protocol like Bitcoin. Bitcoin's protocol development involved finding a balance between flexibility and rules to maintain the security, integrity, and consensus of the network. It is a complex task to meet diverse use cases while ensuring the network remains robust and resilient. Regarding the Taproot upgrade and its impact on space requirements, Taproot is primarily focused on improving the privacy, scalability, and flexibility of Bitcoin transactions. Although Taproot introduces new codes and features, it is designed to be backward compatible, meaning it does not significantly increase the capacity requirements for individual instances. The aim is to provide more efficient transaction processing while minimizing the impact on the size of the blockchain.

isn't the beauty of Bitcoin in its simplicity? Its core principles, its resilience, its immutability? Let's mull over Taproot a bit. Sure, it brings improvements to privacy and scalability, which sound like unicorns and rainbows. But isn't there a chance it might actually complicate things further? Are we just making Bitcoin's transaction processing fancier without addressing the elephant in the room – the ever-growing size of the blockchain? And let's not forget, Bitcoin was built to be decentralized. But with these upgrades, are we making it more complicated, potentially requiring more advanced systems to participate? Could we end up centralizing what is fundamentally decentralized? That's something to scratch our heads about!

Simplicity is beauty but live thrives in complexity. The whole industry surrounding bitcoin has been this way ever since and even though bitcoin's resilience stands as a statement against this cascade of multiple projects and networks all with their own thingamabobs and varying levels of complexity in framework and in function, bitcoin still needs to catch up every now and again if it doesn't want to become a novelty coin when the future arrives.

Plus we're in the IT world adjacent, this world thrives in ever-improving and advancing technology to new heights and feats, to let bitcoin stagnate just because "it's better being simple than making things even more complicated in the name of progress" is not going to spell great for it in the long run. It needs that change-up every now and again as much as we hate to admit. Ordinals may be the sign that we're looking for, as let's face it, we only ever saw bitcoin as a means to either transfer money, or as a store of value we can also use at the same time to rake in profits. We didn't see the potential it could provide when it tries to go par with the rest of the industry, which is the reason why we're having problems like this now.

[larry_vw_1955]

funny.. coming from the guy that wants people to prune thus no longer be full nodes.. both by not requiring to need to fully validate transactions (your love of backward compatibility of telling people they dont need to upgrade their node when new features arrive) and your adoration of pruning data thus not having FULL data to analyse or pass to other peers.

so you must not agree with people using electrum since it doesn't download a copy of the entire blockchain. or you don't agree with people telling other people its ok to use electrum instead of downloading the entire blockchain. i don't know what your problem is.

funny.. coming from the guy that adores cores centralist authoritarian principles..

some projects get abandoned because there's no one willing to take the time to maintain the code. just be glad that hasn't happened with bitcoin right?

as for derailing. i have constantly talked about WHO and WHAT caused the junk of ordinals to occur and everything i said is related to what caused it and whats preventing it from being undone and what ways it can be undone ..

well what is your opinion of bitcoin Stamps? i haven't heard you talking about that. what's your criticism of the stamps protocol? other than what we'd certainly expect which is that it uses utxos to store monkeys. we all know that but what's the technical problem with it that it can't serve as a proper NFT proof of ownership thing?

you however want to avoid the topic and make it "all about franky" trying to avoid any negative speak of the actual developers that caused this fiasco and continued softening of the rules that lead to these annoyances that have affected many hundreds of thousands of bitcoiners

does the bitcoin stamps protocol have anything to do with this "softening of the rules". or not. i guess there's already been 65,000 or so bitcoin stamps nfts minted. so that increased the utxo set by at least 65,000 utxos i'm not sure if those can ever be spent. but it is what it is. 

[franky1]

funny.. coming from the guy that wants people to prune thus no longer be full nodes.. both by not requiring to need to fully validate transactions (your love of backward compatibility of telling people they dont need to upgrade their node when new features arrive) and your adoration of pruning data thus not having FULL data to analyse or pass to other peers.

so you must not agree with people using electrum since it doesn't download a copy of the entire blockchain. or you don't agree with people telling other people its ok to use electrum instead of downloading the entire blockchain. i don't know what your problem is.

if people dont want to be full nodes they are free to use other software thats not a full node. however bitcoin core is a full node software.. which for people that want to be full nodes will want to use a full node software..  but lemmings like doomad even want to break that facility.. whilst trying to REKT any choice of other brand alternatives of true full node utility that includes proposal making for upgrades.

he wants to tell and has told people false information such as by disabling full node functionality.. doomad pretend users are still full node capable even though they are not using a nodes FULL functionality.
(research the "user agent services" that peers communicate with peers to show if it offers full functionality/services or not) EG the difference between 1101, 1097, 1033, 1032 may interest you

he loves the "backward compatible" bait and switch. that has made it so users (falsely)believe they remain full nodes nor need to upgrade to stay compliant with network rules. which he pitches as pretending that nodes are still FULL even if they are not FULLY validating blocks/transactions nor archiving them FULLY(not offering full services)


if people are pruning blockdata and not validating all bytes of data. and treating transactions as "anyonecanspend" where it does not check for signature authentication due to lack of understanding the new formats.. then those are not full nodes.. they are infact FOOL nodes

[DooMAD]

as for derailing. i have constantly talked about WHO and WHAT caused the junk of ordinals to occur and everything i said is related to what caused it and whats preventing it from being undone and what ways it can be undone ..

you however want to avoid the topic and make it "all about franky" trying to avoid any negative speak of the actual developers that caused this fiasco and continued softening of the rules that lead to these annoyances that have affected many hundreds of thousands of bitcoiners

Read page 1 of this topic again.  Read it.  Learn to read and read page 1.

From the very first post you made, you were whining about "subnetworks" (or layer 2 as all the sane people refer to it).  Off-topic from the get go.  And, as it turns out, layer 2 is the optimal solution for assets.  See 'Taproot Assets' and see how much more efficient that would be versus all the current crap.  But you still don't think devs should be "allowed" to work on such things without your "consent".

But I ignored your first derailment attempt and made my first post.  Entirely on-topic.  What happened next?  You tried to make the topic about me and about your hatred for Lightning.

Read.  It.  I'll even provide the link:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.msg61700946#msg61700946

That's what happened. But even when presented with incontrovertible facts, you'll just deny reality again.  Sociopath.

[franky1]

yet again your advertising a certain adoration for a certain other network people should use instead for "'bitcoin'" payments yet you want the actual bitcoin network to just be a vault/reserve for crappy non bitcoin value stuff. and a store of dead weight data. not value

it is funny how you play these games..
and by the way lightning is broke, it has a liquidity issue due to the limitations of routing value totals per session. its not the "optimum solution"

i know you want to break bitcoin, or atleast support those that want to break bitcoin..  and then offer something thats already broke as a solution to the things you want broken on bitcoin. because you dont care about people having a working system that just does what it promised. you only care about scraping pennies together from whomever will pay you to advertise their crap as a feature people should use and continue using..

the reason i highlight the purpose of all this junk happening to bitcoin, and the realities of the changes, and the other projects idiots mention as solutions to the crap happening to bitcoin..  is because this crap is from the lemmings that want to offramp users away from bitcoin and into their other scammy broken systems which they can syphon value away from victims.  so its all related.. but you dont want people to talk about whats really happening because it ruins your sales pitch

heres the thing if you read the first page.. i did actually say the ordinals crowd could make their own subnetwork to throw their junk at..
..my stance has been and always has been to keep bitcoin clean and efficient for bitcoin utility of those that want to use BITCOIN where bitcoin scales for BITCOIN utility.

you however want bitcoin to fill with nonsense junk but reject bitcoin payments(you hatred of coffee/pizza which amount to unbanked users weekly wage).. where you want the value stuff to happen elsewhere and bitcoin just just be a dead weight data store of no utility.. and yes i do laugh how you want a small 'coffee' purchase rejection crying about how it makes nodes more costly. but then you want junk of 3mb+ to be allowed where it makes other users pay more per tx than 10 coffees just in fees

yes i do highlight that lightning is not the solution to many many things(multiple posts later after doomad makes his comment).. because lightning is not the solution to bitcoins woes.
but i did actually mention that for niche things like scammy ordinals and other asset crap.. people can make their own niche subnetworks.. but the point is bitcoin should remain for bitcoin utility. not become some dead weight junk network where it pushes everyone to other networks to do the "bitcoin payments" that bitcoin is suppose to do. while the other networks are not used for the junk stuff .. it should be the other way round other networks for the junk stuff and bitcoin to be strengthened as the value system of bitcoin stuff

my hatred of lightning is not that its a subnetwork... its that its a broken subnetwork.. a broken network being overly promised as the solution to the bitcoin crap that has been allowed to happen, which by trying to break bitcoin just ends up trying to annoy people into hating bitcoin and thinking lightning is the solution .. rather than actually fix the bugs and trojans recently employed into bitcoin

[DooMAD]

Your entire argument is built on the premise that Core or Blockstream or <insertboogiemanhere> is responsible for what has occurred with Ordinals.

WRONG BECAUSE FRANKY

DOGE does not have Taproot
DOGE does not have SegWit
DOGE does not have "subnetworks"

But what DOGE does have is a third party script that allows anyone to embed images into the DOGE blockchain.

You can't point the finger at Core.
You can't point the finger at Blockstream.
You can't point the finger at "fake consensus", "softened rules", "subnetworks", "REKT" or any of your other technobabble made-up horseshit.

People can append data to ANY public blockchain.  Stop being a disgusting liar and trying to blame the dev team you have a vendetta against.

Kindly deposit yourself into the nearest landfill like the absolute garbage you are.

[franky1]

those other networks relaxed their rules.. inspired by what core done
yes core relaxed the rules on bitcoin via wanting to implement segwit and taproot. assuming that no one would exploit the lack of checks, limits, expectation when they implemented segwit/taproot.

and other network simply relaxed the rules for THEIR OTHER NETWORKS purely just to relax the rules, purely to ride the fashion trend of scamming victims out of value for nonsense memes.. inspired by what happened with bitcoin

and it is always funny how you pretend that bitcoin is some AI code that self made itself, where you dont want people to talk about WHO actually maintains the bitcoin network code and decides on rule changes.

here is a lesson. bitcoin is not AI. bitcoin actually does have developers that make rule change decisions for bitcoin. and when you stop wasting your life on asskissing and see WHO made such changes, which allowed the exploit to make ordinals possible on bitcoin. you will learn it was not some doge bunny coder or some altnet that caused ordinals on bitcoin. it was the core devs that softened the rules with their bad assumptions on bitcoin

i am laughing more at your stupidity when you dont want people to look at bitcoin code to see who wrote the bitcoin code(core) that caused this fiasco. even going as far as you pretending core dont exist and are just some boogiemen fantasy..
 but instead you want people to look at doge code and try to shift the blame on them.. much like you pretended that it was miners that were to blame for the exploit

you could earn more pennies doing stand-up comedy of acting like an idiot on stage(seems to be your talent). because if after 6 years of ass kissing if your still needing to penny scrape using sig campaigns and have yet to earn sponsorship from those you ass kiss.. .. maybe ass kissing is not as lucrative as you were hoping and its time you change your role

so remember this lesson.
CORE did soften the rules for BITCOIN which allowed the crap to happen to BITCOIN
doge devs didnt do it to bitcoin. core devs did

and my last point about you (your hypocrisy)

doomad conservative: "no one should use bitcoin to move 0.001btc with <300byte for <0.00001fee  because it causes bloat to have many small transactions"

doomad anti-censor: "anyone one should use bitcoin to move 0.00000001btc with 3960000byte of bloat for 0.001fee because we want bloat and high fees for little value spend because it promotes our other network that people should use for their actual bitcoin value movemnts we dont want to see on bitcoin"

[DooMAD]

those other networks relaxed their rules..

LIAR.  You are making things up again.  DOGE hasn't "relaxed" anything.

and other network simply relaxed the rules purely just to relax the rules, purely to ride the fashion trend of scamming victims out of value for nonsense memes

LIAR.  You are making things up again.  You can't help but lie and lie some more.

it is always funny how you pretend that bitcoin is some AI code that self made itself and you dont want people to talk about WHO actually maintains the bitcoin network code and decides on rule changes.

But we literally just established that Ordinals can still occur without any of the changes Core have made.  Your issue is with satoshi's code.  The potential for Ordinals has been there since the Genesis Block.

You are a liar.

[franky1]

But we literally just established that Ordinals can still occur without any of the changes Core have made.  Your issue is with satoshi's code.  The potential for Ordinals has been there since the Genesis Block.

You are a liar.

dare you to put a 3.96mb meme into a legacy transaction

dare you to read the code where it changed from expecting a signature of ~73bytes, to then later be 520byte for a new format for "scripts"(multisig)

dare you to read the code where it changed from not allowing 'scripts' to be more then 520byte.. until that was relaxed to 10kb
dare you to read the code where it changed to not allow 'scripts' to be more then 10kb.. until that was relaxed to be less than blockweight

the funny part is your forum-wife(blackhatcoiner) atleast admits the reason why they removed the 10kb limit, it was because core devs (ignorantly) assumed that taproot scripts would be one signature length so they ASSUMED there was no point in length checking a script(save calculation/computational checking time) if the ASSUMPTION was the length would only be a short 1x signature length.. and guess what.. now we are seeing scripts(junk) in taproot that are far longer then the promised and assumed 1x signature length

[fillippone]

In the meantime, a month-old transaction with 9 sats/vbyte just got confirmed.
Observing 25,810@Stamp.

Bitcoin is winning, (again)