(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[NotATether]

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

Though I don't expect low-fee tx's to get any priority from them as long as the Unisat hype continues.

[ABCbits]

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. 

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

[larry_vw_1955]

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

[philipma1957]

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting.  

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

Note bold question.

I mine it is a business
I need fee income
Every ½ ing fee income is more critical and the Block reward lessons.

I will be the first to say while I like to see a 6.25 reward and 4.75 in fees = 11 btc per block but I know it hurts the business of btc if it continues for say 1 or 2 years in a row.

My fears for down the road of ½ ing rewards are getting fees to work well enough for

miners, pools and users of btc.

6.25 + 0.75 = 7 seems to work okay

6.25 + 5.7 = 12 seems to be an issue if it goes for a long time 6 months a year seem bad.

so in a year

3.125 + 0.875 = 4 seems okay

3.125 + 5.875 = 9 seems wrong a real problem

in 2028

1.5625 + 0.9375 = 2.5 still may work

1.5625 + 5.4375 = 7.0 seem wrong a real problem



on and on and on

I worry for this to get worse as time goes on.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

[joker_josue]

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

[ABCbits]

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?

Note bold question.

The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top  pools decide to do that.

[larry_vw_1955]

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit?

i didn't realize cpu speed is an issue when running bitcoin core. i am sure that a simple dual core cpu from 2010 would be fine still in 10 years for running bitcoin core just like it probably is today. a core i5 would be better but i'm not sure it's really necessary. but bitcoin doesn't need high end cpus. it never will.

How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?

if someone doesn't have a 100Mbps download speed today they are in the stone ages, just being honest. If in 10 years they're still in that situation then they really have no business downloading a 1Terabyte blockchain. Just being honest. There's companies who just don't want to increase their customers speeds so they try and force them to stay at lower speeds too but that's a different story.

Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.

probably not practical but if it was done then that would certainly encourage people to consolidate their coins. 

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.

just don't try and use ssd for something like chiacoin. i heard it eats them for lunch. churning through and doing a bunch of wear and tear.

[philipma1957]

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

Yes but the problem is BTC is so fucking valuable that we will have scaling issues.

2009 to 2012 reward 50 btc    vs  fee 0.01 or 5000 to 1 ratio

2012 to 2016 reward 25 btc    vs  fee 0.025 or 1000 to 1 ratio

2016 to 2020 reward 12.5 btc vs fee  0.050 or   250 to 1 ratio

2020 to 2024 reward 6.25 btc vs fee 0.100 or  62.5 to 1 ratio


note the fees are an in my head guess as the the average value of each block fee

we know 2023 block fees got up to 6 coins

but the Long term average over last 3 years is closer to .1 btc a block

I am okay at math and figuring some trends out.

the reward to fee number ratio shrinks every 4 years.

5000.000 to 1 2009
1000.000 to 1 2012
  250.000 to 1 2016
    62.500 to 1 2020       note in my head estimate.

this means

   15.625 to 1  in 2024 or    3.125 reward and   0.20 in  fees on average
     3.906 to 1  in 2028 then 1.5625 reward and 0.40 in fees

btw we are over the fee average for 2020-2023  of 0.1000 btc

As of the  last 10 blocks

793263-0.96
793262-0.90
793261-0.69 2.55
793260-1.02
793259-0.76
793258-0.91 5.24
793257-0.98
793256-1.11
793255-0.59
793254-1.04
    
they are about 0.896 btc a block

I have read various number for fee average during 2020-2023 as high as .15 btc average as low as .07 average I picked .1 for my ratio comparison

it is easy to see May 1 to June 7 we are above .07 .1 or .15 in fact we are over 1 btc a block for about 37 days.

But it dropped a bit  as May 5 to May 12 it was 2.5 btc a block

now it is .896 btc a block .  This is ordinals+BRC-20+NFT clutter.

I have shown ways in a prior thread that pools can push fees up and turn profits.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0

a method of pushing fees upward and not being able to directly prove any pool does it.

All of that thread's concepts  can be done by 3 large pools with the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT clutter.

And proving it is hard.

It is obvious people are testing the Blockchain right now to see how easy they can jack fees turn profits and not be fingered for doing it.


I don't fear any of that as much as I fear the top pools simply black list all tx's under 50 sats a byte.

I think we are heading that way.

BTW if ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs are barred and fees drop to 0.1 per block

The top 5 pools will be incentivized to blacklist all 50sats per  or 40sat per and lower tx's

So Once again I say leave the ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs just as they are,

 as I rather deal with a wild dog(brc-20) than a wild lion (blacklisting of <50sats a byte tx's)

oh some opec news

"OPEC+ countries also agreed to extend oil production cuts they announced in April through the end of 2024, reducing the amount of crude they pump into the world market by more than 1 million barrels per day." 3 days ago  from google search "opec to lower oil"

[OgNasty]

I also don't think taproot is what enabled the current issues as much as segwit, but what do I know? 

Considering how this attack has become possible by exploiting an oversight in the Taproot script validation rules, this is a Taproot related issue not a SegWit related one.

Is that what made it possible?  I'll admit I haven't looked into the technical aspect of this as much as I should have, but I don't believe what you're saying is true.  From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in. 

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network, which I believe is guilty of the exact same crimes of Ordinals, but since it is patented tech by Blockstream and Blockstream basically runs Core, we are all just supposed to blindly support it.

[d5000]

From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in.

It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before.

There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did.

Thus:

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network,

... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN.

[BtcMaxi2090]

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455647.0

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

[larry_vw_1955]

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455647.0

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

i doubt anyone here is going to be excited about that  since they seem to be clogging up the blockchain...

[gmaxwell]

because this applies to big inscriptions

The big inscriptions are non-standard still today, too.  The maximum weight of a standard transaction wasn't changed by taproot. ... but parties can and do pay miners to bypass those rules, and clearly have here.  So I think taproot is also pretty irrelevant for the huge ones too.

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that miners will accept payment to attack the network,  so I think the general skepticism for standardness as anything but a tool to protect forward compatibility mechanisms is probably well founded.

[philipma1957]

because this applies to big inscriptions

The big inscriptions are non-standard still today, too.  The maximum weight of a standard transaction wasn't changed by taproot. ... but parties can and do pay miners to bypass those rules, and clearly have here.  So I think taproot is also pretty irrelevant for the huge ones too.

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that miners will accept payment to attack the network,  so I think the general skepticism for standardness as anything but a tool to protect forward compatibility mechanisms is probably well founded.

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure not the miners or pools.

Getting rid of BRC-20+ordinals+NFTS

only makes pools want to simply do a minimum tx fee of 30 or 40 or 50 sats a block.

In 2032 block reward will be .78 btc if fees are 1.22 a block will be 2 coins if coins are 100k

The smallest fee would be about 227 x 50 = 11350 sats or 0.00011350 btc or $11.35

I believe that the major pools will do everything they can to insure fees are high enough for their survival.

As a miner burning 5000 k-watts a day. or $250 a day I will be forced to use larger pools to avoid variance. So the problem of BRC-20/ordinals/NFT's is a smoke screen to the real issue top 5 pools have 87% of the hash and can set fees at 50sats or higher.

And at the same time they can greenlight fake 0.00000227 tx's to flood the blocks.

This has been done before my lock thread talks about it.

And I see 2032 as fairly close to this date now.

I say leave the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT shit alone and work on a bigger scoped solve that also deals with what I am talking about.

Or leave it all alone and do nothing to see where it goes and how fucked up it gets.

I do not like an out of the fire pan and into the fire solution.

[larry_vw_1955]

I guess me and people on most country[1] still in stone age


[1] https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-internet-speed-by-state

in the usa, only california is under 100mpbs but they're sitting at 91. that's stone ages. most states in the usa are at least 300 or 400 mbps. that's still pretty slow...seems like the industry overall has stagnated in terms of higher speeds. stagnated for YEARS. they want to keep charging the same rates for sub-standard technology and service.

I say leave the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT shit alone and work on a bigger scoped solve that also deals with what I am talking about.

Or leave it all alone and do nothing to see where it goes and how fucked up it gets.

you're right. if they don't fix that problem then bitcoin goes back to low security network where people with home computers can mine it and the price becomes worthless...kind of like how it started out 

[gmaxwell]

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure

What is that supposed to mean?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-internet-speed-by-state

in the usa, only california is under 100mpbs but they're sitting at 91. that's stone ages. most states in the usa are at least 300 or 400 mbps. that's still pretty slow...seems like the industry overall has stagnated in terms of higher speeds. stagnated for YEARS. they want to keep charging the same rates for sub-standard technology and service.

Those stats are boarderline lies, they're provided by ISPs trying to juice government mandates and incentives.  Beyond the bulk misrepresentations they don't really expose how bad upload bandwidth is or how poor delivered performance is.   It's pretty common to have 100 Mbit down which seldom does more then 8mbit, and only offers 5mbit up (but usually at least delivers close to it).

you're right. if they don't fix that problem

There is no they buddy, only you.

[larry_vw_1955]

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure

What is that supposed to mean?

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

It's pretty common to have 100 Mbit down which seldom does more then 8mbit,

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

There is no they buddy, only you.

I support ordinals and any other things that bring more use cases to bitcoin so that miners can be incentivized to continue securing the network. how about you? 

[gmaxwell]

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

Why do you take that for granted? Bitcoin fee income levels (even the sustained ones outside of the recent traffic) are many times the entire fees PLUS subsidy of several competing altcoins combined.  Are they currently screwed?

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

Guess you don't live in an area where comcast has a monopoly. In many places they have a "100Mbps" which rarely performs, but lets them claim that they provide broadband for the purpose of government reports.

more use cases to bitcoin

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

I'll give some examples:

"My bank (and ANY conventional bank I can find) is only open for international wire transfers from (say) 10am to 3pm M-F or other such limited hours and I want to be able to send money internationally *at any time*, 365 days a year, because I don't know when a good opportunity will happen or an emergency will come up" Bitcoin solves this.

"I tried using online payments but Paypal froze my account randomly with no explanation and wouldn't give me my money back for a year" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to hold on to money but my government keeps printing it like its going out of style, debasing its value" Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation I kept wealth at home as silver but it took up an enormous amount of space and was easily stolen by thieves because it was hard to secure in a way that was impossible for others to access". Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation AND theft risk, I stored wealth in gold bars in a safe deposit box, but because I didn't visit for two years the bank auctioned off the content (or alternatively the FBI came and took it all because some OTHER customers were suspected of drug dealing)". Bitcoin fixes this.

"I wanted to buy a telescope but they required 20 minutes of invasive security questions that a scammer could have answered anyways and I couldn't convince my bank it wasn't fraud and they froze my account and it took me three days and a dozen phone calls to fix it" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to buy provocative comic books, but even though they are unambiguously legal where I live, the government leaned on payment providers to deplatform the vendor" Bitcoin solves this.

"I'm concerned that years down the line my country might be taken over by a theocracy and they'll get all the payment company records and start executing people who purchased birth control or subject them to some less dire punishment." Bitcoin can help here too.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  These are examples of the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).

Use cases which aren't exclusive-- that any old alternative will also do are fine, but they don't provide a reason for someone to use Bitcoin when they otherwise wouldn't-- instead Bitcoin will get used for those based on other factors like existing usage for the exclusive reasons or because Bitcoin is less expensive (but that is a pretty unlikely case for cases where a centralized alternative works, because centralized alternatives can always be cheaper if they choose to be).

[philipma1957]

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

Why do you take that for granted? Bitcoin fee income levels (even the sustained ones outside of the recent traffic) are many times the entire fees PLUS subsidy of several competing altcoins combined.  Are they currently screwed?

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

Guess you don't live in an area where comcast has a monopoly. In many places they have a "100Mbps" which rarely performs, but lets them claim that they provide broadband for the purpose of government reports.

more use cases to bitcoin

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

I'll give some examples:

"My bank (and ANY conventional bank I can find) is only open for international wire transfers from (say) 10am to 3pm M-F or other such limited hours and I want to be able to send money internationally *at any time*, 365 days a year, because I don't know when a good opportunity will happen or an emergency will come up" Bitcoin solves this.

"I tried using online payments but Paypal froze my account randomly with no explanation and wouldn't give me my money back for a year" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to hold on to money but my government keeps printing it like its going out of style, debasing its value" Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation I kept wealth at home as silver but it took up an enormous amount of space and was easily stolen by thieves because it was hard to secure in a way that was impossible for others to access". Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation AND theft risk, I stored wealth in gold bars in a safe deposit box, but because I didn't visit for two years the bank auctioned off the content (or alternatively the FBI came and took it all because some OTHER customers were suspected of drug dealing)". Bitcoin fixes this.

"I wanted to buy a telescope but I couldn't convince my bank it wasn't fraud and they froze my account and it took me three days and a dozen phone calls to fix it" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to buy provocative comic books, but even though they are unambiguously legal where I live, the government leaned on payment providers to deplatform the vendor" Bitcoin solves this.

"I'm concerned that years down the line my country might be taken over by a theocracy and they'll get all the payment company records and start executing people who purchased birth control or subject them to some less dire punishment." Bitcoin can help here too.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  They're the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).  Use cases which aren't exclusive-- that any old alternative will do too are find, but they don't provide a reason for someone to use Bitcoin when they otherwise wouldn't-- instead Bitcoin will get used for those based on other factors like existing usage for the exclusive reasons or because Bitcoin is less expensive (but that is a pretty unlikely case for cases where a centralized alternative works, because centralized alternatives can always be cheaper if they choose to be).

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

[NotATether]

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

Honestly I'd much rather see BTC merge mining with doge+LTC than with any of this inefficient BRC20 crap. Maybe BIP301 is on to something. But then again our protocol development has basically stagnated because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues with each other and agrees on nothing.

At least DOGE and LTC are widely agreed on to have actual value. While the popularity of Ordinals and BRC20 is basically not guarrenteed to stay as it is because get-rich-quicker's will tire of it and move to the Next Big Thing(TM).