On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[larry_vw_1955]

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

well i don't know about that franky. everyone knows that you have to check input length IF you don't want unlimited lengths. everyone knows that. especially beginning programmers. i don't know if it could be that simple of an explanation about why monkeys exist on the blockchain.

you don't just assume something will be one thing when you don't even check to make sure. there has to be other reasons. such as upgradeability in the future or something. if it was just a careless oversight then this thread wouldn't exist since they would have fixed it already.

those other networks relaxed their rules..

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

yeah i think franky might be wrong on that one...

[1714237355]

1714237355

[1714237355]

1714237355

[1714237355]

1714237355

[1714237355]

1714237355

[1714237355]

1714237355

[franky1]

well i don't know about that franky. everyone knows that you have to check input length IF you don't want unlimited lengths. everyone knows that. especially beginning programmers. i don't know if it could be that simple of an explanation about why monkeys exist on the blockchain.

you don't just assume something will be one thing when you don't even check to make sure. there has to be other reasons. such as upgradeability in the future or something. if it was just a careless oversight then this thread wouldn't exist since they would have fixed it already.

larry i have read the code and many technical discussions.. YOU HAVE NOT
you simply get your dreams from doomad

maybe if you did read the code you will learn what has changed and who changed it

they do not want to fix it for many reasons.. not technical reasons.. just political
yes its technically possible to fix but CORE DO NOT WANT TO FIX IT, which is why they are not doing any code changes to fix it and deleting comments and moderating out attempts to try to get core devs to do it.. heck even doomad is trying to get people to stop asking core to do it

[larry_vw_1955]

larry i have read the code and many technical discussions.. YOU HAVE NOT

then feel free and correct any inaccuracies. but i don't believe some of the things you say matter as much as you think they do. like fingerpointing about who made this commit or who made that one. it's almost like you take it personally when someone makes a modification to bitcoin core and need to know who it was that did it so you can hold them accountable personally. they don't answer to you.

maybe if you did read the code you will learn what has changed and who changed it

what does it matter who changed what? it has to go through an approval process. i'm sure they just don't let someone put anything they want into bitcoin core. if that was the case it would be filled with malware and things that stole peoples' private keys. has that ever happened? therefore they are doing a good job.

they do not want to fix it for many reasons.. not technical reasons.. just political

i guess that's their perogative then. why do you get to tell them what to do though?

yes its technically possible to fix but CORE DO NOT WANT TO FIX IT, which is why they are not doing any code changes to fix it and deleting comments and moderating out attempts to try to get core devs to do it.. heck even doomad is trying to get people to stop asking core to do it

maybe it's more like they don't want to hear the same thing over again? they're not there to be abused by complete strangers you know.

[franky1]

centralise adoration ass kissing

i have already mentioned the changes. ive mentioned the opcodes used and also the changes such as to the max_script_length went from 520b, 10kb, maxweight
these things are easy for you to find in cores github and things you can search for using google in seconds.. TRY IT
learn how do do research

i know you want to ignore code. ignore who caused exploits and instead BLINDLY pretend those that caused the exploits are the best authority and no one should independently review, question or scrutinise them.. ok i got it you love centralised authoritarianism with no accountability.. i get it. you are one of those type of idiots..
.. but take a chance on yourself. really push yourself out of your blind comfort zone and try to learn something

your the type of guy that would next be promoting to close the source code to not be publicly readable because you think the core devs should not be accountable for their code changes so there is no need for public readable code to review/scrutinise them..

you are already close minded about independent review by your admission that you think core devs shouldnt listen to the community..

but here is a tip
dont waste years being doomads echo chamber. and instead dare yourself to learn, discover, research bitcoin for yourself without being spoonfed empty promises that get broken

[larry_vw_1955]

i have already mentioned the changes. ive mentioned the opcodes used and also the changes such as to the max_script_length went from 520b, 10kb, maxweight
these things are easy for you to find in cores github and things you can search for using google in seconds.. TRY IT
learn how do do research

i know the max script size became unbounded up to the entire blocksize but who is going to really do that though franky? how many times did it actually get done? not many right? you're worrying about a non-event. now if someone came along and filled up block after block with a single transaction that might be a cause for concern but that's not happening. so chill out.

what you should be asking is why did they do that and i don't think the answer is it is just something they overlooked.

i know you want to ignore code. ignore who caused exploits and instead BLINDLY pretend those that caused the exploits are the best authority and no one should independently review, question or scrutinise them.. ok i got it you love centralised authoritarianism with no accountability.. i get it. you are one of those type of idiots..

the bitcoin development process is similar to the linux kernel one. not exactly the same but similar. i don't see an issue with either. they both have developed very successful products which are standing the test of time.

.. but take a chance on yourself. really push yourself out of your blind comfort zone and try to learn something

i did read the part of that BIP and they addressed the unlimited script size explaining why there didn't need to be a hard cap on it. so for you to suggest it was just an oversight on their part, no it's in the BIP. i'm not sure if they realized monkeys might be the end result but i hardly think it was a surprise to them when it happened.

your the type of guy that would next be promoting to close the source code to not be publicly readable because you think the core devs should not be accountable for their code changes so there is no need for public readable code to review/scrutinise them..

i'm a big believer in open source/free software franky. you should know that. but part of that belief means having an attitude of appreciation to the people that wrote the software and maintain it. if i don't like the direction they're going in, i can pay someone to modify it or do it myself if i know how or i can just use something else. but what i can't do is sit there and act like a baby and crying. waiting for someone to come clean things up for me. be an adult franky. fix your own problems. fix bitcoin yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. if it's that important to you.

you are already close minded about independent review by your admission that you think core devs shouldnt listen to the community..

they should listen to their employer the person that pays their bills. and if they're really nice, waste some time to consider what others have to say like yourself. but don't expect any promises.

but here is a tip
dont waste years being doomads echo chamber. and instead dare yourself to learn, discover, research bitcoin for yourself without being spoonfed empty promises that get broken

if you think being a core dev is easy franky then why don't you try and be one? you could then put in the changes you wanted and fix everything. you yourself said you know how to program so it should be a breeze. you might need to change your username though so they don't figure out what your real motive is...

[franky1]

larry YOU ARE BEING IGNORANT

you argue that bitcoin core are open and easy to make changes.. then you argue how its not easy to be a core dev and that core devs should only do things their employer tells them..

you cant even see where your initial narrative fails due to your own admission of your secondary narrative

its like your mind says the cult script of lies and empty promises. then you for a few moments try to escape the cult narrative but u just dont quite realise it the moment of clarity, thus you end up ignoring your moments of clarity to then just go back into cult speak of blind adoration of the authoritarian group

core MODERATE OUT any idea's that oppose THEIR ROADMAP. they get idiots to REKT any non core brand that wants to propose changes to the rules

HISTORY SHOWS THIS

stop having opinions spoonfed to you by doomad. you sound like an idiot when you recite his cult-speak crap
try for once to actually learn independently and stick with the stuff you can actually read away from the cultish narrative.. learn from the code, the block data and from the devs admissions outside of their broken promises. then trust your own conclusions you independently come to,. dont then deny your own conclusions just to recite the cult narrative that goes against all evidence

for instance you have a moment of clarity when you admit that they changed the byte limit to conclude:
"i'm not sure if they realized monkeys might be the end result"
so outside of your echo chamber cult chants. you had a moment of admitting they didnt realise the ramifications of their actions..
so why then jump back into the cult echo's to pretend they were the all-seeing, all-knowing gods.. "not surprised"
ignoring that they didnt foresee their own lack of rules would cause

another example is that you start by saying:
"i know the max script size became unbounded up to the entire blocksize but who is going to really do that though"
so you admit it happened and how.. which shows you partially try to admit what happened. but want to be ignorant of WHO done it.. everyone knows CORE DONE IT.. heck in previous paragraph i mentioned, even you had the moment of clarity to admit core done it

however then you ignore what happened. who or why it happened to return to your cultish state of ignorance to pretend it never happened.. when you said:
"how many times did it actually get done? not many right? you're worrying about a non-event"
do you not understand how many hundreds of thousands of users have just been through an event of junk spam affecting the bloat of blocks and blockchain data aswell as the fees they have to pay..  all of which was lasting a few months and can continue with new junky crap, which core currently refuse to stop.. (EG this entire topics discussion of MANY PEOPLE annoyed by what happened)
yep blockdata, discussions like this topic all show it happened..

i know you are just playing the cult script game of "its just franky".. yet read this topic, where MANY people are annoyed. read any topic about the ordinal meme junk. there are many people that experienced the event and annoyed by it. so stop pretending "nothing happened franky is in a fantasy"
you sound like an idiot ignoring the events that annoy bitcoiners due to bad code decisions of core devs. wher you just recite the cult "its just franky"

the exploit is still active and can continue to be abused every day.. IF it was a non-event then:
this and many topics like it would not exist..  
the junk of sooooo many memes would not be on the blockchain.

but evidence shows:
lots of people are annoyed by it.
lots of people can see junk memes on the blockchain
even you can try to escape the cult narrative and see deadweight junk memes on the blockchain.. so open your eyes and dare yourself to escape doomads narrative..

[DooMAD]

core MODERATE OUT any idea's that oppose THEIR ROADMAP. they get idiots to REKT any non core brand that wants to propose changes to the rules

Stop proposing shit ideas, then.  Simple.  No one in their right mind would entertain adding any of your unworkable nonsense.

Good ideas get approved.  Shit ones get ignored.  Exactly how it has always worked.

[jokers10]

Recursive Inscriptions update for the Ordinals is coming. They want to overcome the limitation of 4 Mb per block by dividing one object to several blocks. Big pictures, games, I guess video... Why? We've faced with problems from the start and the way to lower fees took time. Now it's more or less okay. Why to make even bigger problem? What do they want to achieve testing the strength of the bitcoin blockchain?

If I don't want to take away what some got with Ordinals it doesn't mean I'm so happy with the plans to get bitcoin stuck. No proggramms will work like they expect if the mempool will be constantly over-flooded. And all efforts to over-flood it... I don't understand why. Is it a type of bitcoin hate? To break it?

[larry_vw_1955]

Good ideas get approved.  Shit ones get ignored.  Exactly how it has always worked.

Franky keeps sidestepping that fact. Just using it as an excuse for why he or no one else can do anything.

Recursive Inscriptions update for the Ordinals is coming (https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-inscriptions-get-revolutionary-upgrade/). They want to overcome the limitation of 4 Mb per block by dividing one object to several blocks. Big pictures, games, I guess video... Why?

the article you referenced explains the new types of use cases it opens up. hadn't heard about this update but thanks for posting it. it sounds very exciting!

[franky1]

the article you referenced explains the new types of use cases it opens up. hadn't heard about this update but thanks for posting it. it sounds very exciting!

exciting?
yep larry has gone full idiot and thinks bitcoin should be used to store large files of junk data of more than 4mb and wants it to happen

[larry_vw_1955]

exciting?
yep larry has gone full idiot and thinks bitcoin should be used to store large files of junk data of more than 4mb and wants it to happen

before you go get too upset, look at what that article said: https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-inscriptions-get-revolutionary-upgrade/


OrdinalHub writes via Twitter that the BTC Core client, for example, could be stored on the blockchain. Bitcoin Core is around 15 MB in size and was therefore previously too large due to the block size limit. Again, recursive inscriptions are the solution:

Imagine we could split up parts of Bitcoin Core, load just an executable frontend, and the program “calls” the code it needs from other inscriptions. You’re now running Bitcoin ON Bitcoin.


doesn't that solve one of the problems with bitcoin which is a decentralized way to store bitcoin core? github is not decentralized. it's a central point of failure.

also keep in mind franky, it's not free to make an inscription. they do have to pay. it could cost over $100 right now to mint a picture of a monkey it was a 100 or 200kb file i guess. well over that. maybe $150. not like its free.

[garlonicon]

doesn't that solve one of the problems with bitcoin which is a decentralized way to store bitcoin core?

Of course not. Storing a binary alone will not make it decentralized. If someone will upload Windows 10 ISO on-chain, does it mean Windows will be decentralized?

Edit: Also note that storing Bitcoin client on-chain is like making "WinRAR.rar" file, and telling someone "you can unpack it with WinRAR". How do you want to avoid chicken-and-egg-problem in case of a completely new user that has no previous version?

github is not decentralized. it's a central point of failure.

Putting everything on-chain will not make it decentralized. Instead, it will cause blockchain growth, and mempool growth, and as a consequence, you will see less full archival nodes, and more pruned nodes. Do you have a full node, that can store hundreds of gigabytes now? Imagine we switch to terabytes, how many people will switch to SPV nodes or enable pruning, because they won't be willing to store all of those additional data?

Combine it with the fact that Bitcoin Core is working on a simplified Initial Blockchain Download, based on UTXOs. If people will put more data on-chain, then you will see more nodes, that will store only UTXO database, and nothing else, because that is sufficient to move chain forward, and that will allow to run a node in adversarial environment of exploding mempool. For example, read those posts in the context of the congested network, and think, if people will switch to such node, if their old software will spend a lot of time on processing data:

Assumeutxo allows a node to start with a preset UTXO set (provided by the user, and does not necessarily correspond to a hardcoded hash in the binary, this detail has not been worked out yet). This UTXO set is the state of the chain at a particular block hash and height. The node can then begin syncing from that particular block. The idea is that the block will be recent, so the node will be caught up to tip very quickly, thus allowing the user to make and receive transactions way faster than if they had to wait for the entire blockchain to sync.

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

it's not free to make an inscription. they do have to pay

Only if that transaction is broadcasted in P2P way to other nodes. In case of almost 4 MB transaction that started Ordinals, it was mined by Luxor. One pool with sufficient hashrate is enough to make the chain bigger. Attackers could reach 1% of the hashrate, and then they can put a lot of inscriptions for free every 100 blocks.

[larry_vw_1955]

doesn't that solve one of the problems with bitcoin which is a decentralized way to store bitcoin core?

Of course not. Storing a binary alone will not make it decentralized. If someone will upload Windows 10 ISO on-chain, does it mean Windows will be decentralized?

no but who said anything about storing a binary. i was talking about the source code. that makes it decentralized. when you can store the source code on some place like the blockchain where a third party doesn't have the ability to remove your account.

Putting everything on-chain will not make it decentralized. Instead, it will cause blockchain growth, and mempool growth, and as a consequence, you will see less full archival nodes, and more pruned nodes.

maybe so!

Do you have a full node, that can store hundreds of gigabytes now?

if i wanted to set one up then yes but i don't want to store other people's data so i wouldn't be too interested in performing that public service...

Imagine we switch to terabytes, how many people will switch to SPV nodes or enable pruning, because they won't be willing to store all of those additional data?

i don't know. but if i was serious about storing data on the blockchain, i would want it in the utxo set. not in something that could be pruned...

Combine it with the fact that Bitcoin Core is working on a simplified Initial Blockchain Download, based on UTXOs. If people will put more data on-chain, then you will see more nodes, that will store only UTXO database, and nothing else, because that is sufficient to move chain forward, and that will allow to run a node in adversarial environment of exploding mempool. For example, read those posts in the context of the congested network, and think, if people will switch to such node, if their old software will spend a lot of time on processing data:

i would say a properly designed payment network would only store utxos anyway. even banks purge old transactions after a certain number of years...or maybe bitcoin needs to move away from the utxo model and use the account model where they just update the balance of the account and no need to keep old transactions lying around. that would be how the banks do it kind of.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Attackers could reach 1% of the hashrate, and then they can put a lot of inscriptions for free every 100 blocks.

There's no such thing as free block capacity. The actual cost of these inscriptions would be the high-paying unconfirmed transactions that could be included instead.

when you can store the source code on some place like the blockchain where a third party doesn't have the ability to remove your account.

Source code is frequently updated. You can't go and upload a new source code for every single commit. That's why we have git.

i would say a properly designed payment network would only store utxos anyway.

You can't make sure they are real UTXO if you don't start verifying everything from block 0. So you don't have a "properly designed payment network" if there are no full archival nodes.

[Avantika jaiswal]

ordinals is really good idea to increase another hype of bitcoin where user again buy and sale bitcoin .

[dragonvslinux]

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

Bitcoin is winning, (again)

So we're basically back in between the 100+sat/vB "Bitcoin is too expensive" cost and the 1sat/vB "Bitcoin is useless because no-one uses it" cost.

With a cleared out mempool it makes me wonder if people are going to wish there were more inscriptions happening again

While I get that it isn't great for the average user, it's great for security of the network with an increasing hash rate...

[HmmMAA]

it's not free to make an inscription. they do have to pay

Only if that transaction is broadcasted in P2P way to other nodes. In case of almost 4 MB transaction that started Ordinals, it was mined by Luxor. One pool with sufficient hashrate is enough to make the chain bigger. Attackers could reach 1% of the hashrate, and then they can put a lot of inscriptions for free every 100 blocks.

1% of total hashrate to acquire would cost close to 150 million $ ( i did some calculations in the past and at that time the infrastructure had a cost of 16 billion ) , not to mention the power cost which is a nice amount . So , these transactions will not be free for them , even if they push them with zero fee .   

[larry_vw_1955]

Source code is frequently updated.

maybe but they don't make new releases of the entire thing every day.

You can't go and upload a new source code for every single commit.

you could but that would be very inefficient. you would have so many versions of the software lying around that it wouldn't make much sense. that's why they only do full releases every so often.

That's why we have git.

only developers need git. an end user that just wants to download the latest version of the software doesn't. but i wouldn't put it past casey to come up with a git type tool for ordinals. he's a genius. as is evidenced by all the stuff he's done.

You can't make sure they are real UTXO if you don't start verifying everything from block 0. So you don't have a "properly designed payment network" if there are no full archival nodes.

apparently "full archival nodes" are on the way out. they simply won't exist anymore at a certain point other than maybe you can find a service that will let you look at old history if you pay. that's what i heard...


 

[fathafraink]

What is your opinion on this? Are you in favor of this or not?

Personally, I don't really think if I would be a part of people who disagree or agree with this. As long as the Ordinals could be impact for the future of blockchain it will be a really good case. But I think, at current time the use case of Ordinals is not really impactful, but I believe it will be useful in the near or for long time. CMIIW.

[franky1]

apparently "full archival nodes" are on the way out. they simply won't exist anymore at a certain point other than maybe you can find a service that will let you look at old history if you pay. that's what i heard...

and there goes the "decentralised blockchain" principle.. sold out to the highest paying central point of failure corporation

i know you hear things from idiots..
but although explorers do show history FOR FREE. amd although being a full node is still cheap. i do understand why your idiot mentor has $$$ on his mind of making people need to pay for everything as a service.. funny part is though your mentor is promoting capitalist ideals while he himself isnt profiting from the promotions. he HOPES one day someone will recognise his ass kissing and will pay him. but after 6 years he is still penny pinching sig-campaigns so its not likely they will hire him as an official PR guy. so learn from his mistakes.. ass kissing wont make you wealthy

i do understand his ideologies is centralist capitalist(elitism) system.. but thats him thinking about fiat too much. he loves fiat

ever ask yourself why bitcoin was made to be nothing like a centralist capitalist system. ask yourself why even bother with decentralisation..

i really want you to ask yourself and seek out information from actual sources not your mentor because he is leading you into a cultish rabbit whole that wants to break bitcoin principles and just make it emulate and promote CBDC
if you look at the construct of hyperledger projects(the committee involved in CBDC) and see how ideas of CBDC prototypes are now seen via the blockstream path to make things like segwit which enabled liquid and lightning. you will see the intentions of the core devs formally and continually linked to such projects

all this information is a simple google search away. dare yourself to seek it