Bitcoin Civil War

[nutildah]

so while the person who is key owner of 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ multisig thinks he owns the first sat of a blockreward
the theory of taint following would actually show after many hops that 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW has kept that 'first sat'
according to the ordinal theory.

Nope, because the output in question is a change output, not a spend output, so they're considered to be secondary according to "first in, first out." Think about when you purchase something for £3 with a £10 note. What happens first: do you make the payment first or do you get your change first? Like miner fees, change outputs always follow spend outputs, regardless of their positioning in the construction of the transaction.

but hey nutildah seems to forget the other facts of math logic and economics that further broke the theory.. but if you ignore math, logic, economics. and just follow the theory. even the theory shows that 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  doesnt own the valued "first sat" of a block reward

Of course it does. You just fail to sufficiently understand the theory. And BTW, 3M4B... doesn't own the "first sat" anymore, it got sent several more times before arriving at its present location, all of which I laid out and provided an explanation for in the post you quoted.

https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki

Transfer and the Dust Limit

Any single-sat transfer can be accomplished in a single transaction, but the resulting transaction may contain outputs below the dust limit, and thus be non-standard and difficult to get included in a block. Consider a scenario where Alice owns an output containing the range of sats [0,10], the current dust limit is 5 sats, and Alice wishes to send send sat 4 and 6 to Bob, but retain ordinal 5. Alice could construct a transaction with three outputs of size 5, 1, and 5, containing sats [0,4], 5, and [6,10], respectively. The second output is under the dust limit, and so such a transaction would be non-standard.

This transfer, and indeed any transfer, can be accomplished by breaking the transfer into multiple transactions, with each transaction performing one or more splits and merging in padding outputs as needed.

To wit, Alice could perform the desired transfer in two transactions. The first transaction would send sats [0,4] to Bob, and return as change sat [5,10] to Alice. The second transaction would take as inputs an output of at least 4 sats, the change input, and an additional input of at least one sat; and create an output of size 5 to Bob's address, and the remainder as a change output. Both transactions avoid creating any non-standard outputs, but still accomplish the same desired transfer of sats.

Regardless of your personal interpretation of things, if you were correct and I was incorrect, the "uncommon sat" wouldn't be where the ordinals explorer shows it to currently be.

[franky1]

nutty

the THEORY and the EXPLORER
are not proving real math/economics. logic..

its as you say a THEORY
and that THEORY has been busted/debunked proved wrong

because of many factors..

you want to ignore reality, math, economics/ logic. and instead just "beleive" in human description of a project developer
even though that developer can change his theory.

again look les at the kiss assing a dev approach you apply and instead actually use logic math and blockdata.. not some lame project developers "special explorer" that doesnt even follow its own theory to the letter

[nutildah]

All I did was offer you information to better your understanding of how ordinal transfers work, straight from the horse's mouth, and you once again ignored it in favor of continuing to be mad and confused. If that's the way you want to live your life, so be it, just don't expect your misinformation to go unchallenged.

[Wind_FURY]

i laugh at you silly people.. you spend more weeks wasted on personality attacks.

But it's no mere personality attack from me, no? You actually gaslighted me, and many other newbies/plebs into believing that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right way to scale Bitcoin. You also were pushing on the narrative that Bitcoin "split into two into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", and you were trying to make everyone believe that the altcoin "Bitcoin Cash" has as much right to claim to be "the Real Bitcoin" as "Bitcoin Core".

You brought it on yourself, and that's a fact.

[franky1]

windfury.. you think you were made to go insane because your forum daddy said that bigger blocks didnt happen and instead that pushing people off the network over to another network is how to "scale bitcoin"

ok heres a lesson. imagine a grocery store wants more customers to scale his business,.. do you think that the solution is to tell customer to go to another store that sells different things is a way to scale his business. or a way to lose customers..

so when doomad, your forum daddy is telling you to tell bitcoiners to not want a supermarket to expand into a hyper market, but instead tell customers to go elsewhere if they dont like that the produce in the store has become a premium of 4x-100x higher. you have failed economics of scaling a system

anyways..

well a hard fork did occur.. even ythough your forum daddy wants to call it a UASF .. yep a hard fork occured on august 1st. but not the way that many wanted.. (including me) becasue it was done via a mandatory blackmail of censoring blocks.. (yep block rejecting any block that didnt flag segwit)(kinda funny your forum daddy loved the idea of censoring blocks..

you pretend it was just me that was against the mandated blackmail.... HA i laugh.. thousands of people wanting BITCOIN scaling via a fair true super majority activation without the mandated blackmail. where if the core devs could not reach true decentalised super majority then core would have to go back to the drawing book, compromise some of their crap and actually provide something that the community would accept..

people wanted bitcoin scaling. meaning more affordable transaction space.
(dont confuse bitcoin with other networks pretending to be bitcoin)
people did want transactions to be miscounted and then premium rated with 4x fee. nor have the space jammed up with junk limiting real bitcoin utility..

anyways
well even with a hard fork.. and a 4mb block.. the devs did not allow SCALING of tx count. because their agenda was to pretend to satisfy the masses with "bigger blocks"(false narrative of the purpose of the 4mb) but still hold up the tx data to a 1mb limit. where only junk witness crap gets to use up the other 3mb

yep they thought that signatures (or junk) should take up 3x more space than lean bitcoin txdata.. which is their first ill conception and the start of the crud thats now escalated

the debate was not "bigger blocks"(made for bloating) it was more space to allow more transactions(bitcoin scaling).. which you still seem to not understand the difference.. which is where you think you are going insane

so they have not helped with scaling by not doing a straight forward block scaling of true 4mb of tx data space.

but hey. you instead suckered up to doomad who hates more transactions on the blockchain he wants people to move to other networks.. as do you.. and you think that its the only solution becasue its the only story you have been told..  so you think "scaling" is to just chuck people off the network

if you have gone insane over the years with your thoughts. thats on you and your forum daddy's echoed scripts you follow

bigger blocks filled with junk dead jpeg data is not scaling bitcoin. even if you want to call it "bigger blocks"

the actual bitcoin scaling was about ability to fit MORE transactions per block.
learn the difference. stop listening to your forum daddy and do some independent research

you half a dozen lemmings that love this cludgy stuff occurring in recent years are all singing from the same stupid hymn sheet where you trust project managers comments more then block data and rules

try to escape the echo chamber and learn about whats been changed and its effects. because yep CORE changed the rules and softened alot of things to cause these issues.

[Wind_FURY]

--Snip--

No franky101, I'm talking about the gaslighting that you and jonald_fyookball did during the scaling debate. Plus your trust page has two negative ratings from gmaxwell and achow, two of the most trusted members of BitcoinTalk. Why should everyone trust you? I believe the only reason why you're not banned in the forum is because the mods know you'll just make another account.

[franky1]

the trust rating by the MODERATORS. is due to the MODERATORS receiving cries from YOUR CLAN of idiots..
where YOU lot were telling gmax that you have been gaslit and crying about multiple things where he got annoyed with all the crying

grow up stop crying and instead do some research. stop trusting personalities and stop thinking anything that goes against your forum daddies script is wrong becasue it makes you feel insane to contradict your forum daddy..
instead take a few months away from your forum daddy. try to learn bitcoin from the code itself and the blockchain data. and actually learn whats really happening to bitcoin.

take the chance of yourself to grow a backbone and some confidence to not need ass kissing influencers to tell you what to say. for once actually say something different to their script

learn bitcoin. not sales tactics to tell people to use another network if they dont like the authoritarian god complex messing with bitcoin


try to look at the block data. look at the flags of the activations of certain things. look at what rules have got softened. what formats no longer are checked what limits have been removed. then look at your forum daddies scripts he was telling you. and realise he was the one in the wrong.
he for years said there was not a mandatory activation that caused a fork. even though he then mis spoke and said that a super majority is not natural and near impossible to happen where he is against super majority activations. yet to explain how segwit reached unnatural 100% was him admitting to the mandatory censorship of non segwit blocks to then be able to show a unnatural 100%

also he pretended there was not hard fork. and yet anyone can see BCH exists.
yes he spend years denying the existing of a hard fork denying the existence of BCH. pretending that segwit activated as a consensual non controversial user soft activation.. even when funnily enough not many user nodes were ready to support segwit. nor were many merchants. heck even blockchain.info didnt support segwit until a year later

the whole segwit promises never manifested. doomads mantra's to you that segwit was the solution for scaling.. yet for years after the average tx per day stayed the same or less than the summer pre segwit

so stop being a blind obedient follower of doomads mantra. and dont think he is right because his forum wife echos doomads sentiments. and instead do your own research away from influencers comments. and instead read actual bitcoin data and code.

[nutildah]

Wait a minute, this is all getting very confusing. I thought WindFury and Blackhatcoiner were forum-sisters, but now you're saying Blackhatcoiner is DooMAD's forum wife? So Blackhatcoiner is actually his own mother, that's interesting.

My apologies to @NotATether but I asked ChatGPT to write me a story about this relationship (in the form of a medieval knight's tale).

I'm titling it Bitcoin Civil War

Once upon a time,

in a realm where technology intertwined with the enchantment of medieval fantasy, a valiant knight named Franky1 emerged as a beacon of knowledge and reason, wielding the sword of Bitcoin wisdom. His armor gleamed in the sunlight, reflecting the brilliance of decentralized finance.

In this realm, ruled by the cruel and power-hungry King DooMAD, the people were oppressed by his tyrannical reign. DooMAD reveled in spreading misinformation and controlling the narrative, manipulating the minds of his subjects. His castle loomed ominously, casting a shadow over the land.

Within the confines of the castle walls, two damsels found themselves trapped in a world of shallowness and deceit. WindFURY and Blackhatcoiner, once vibrant and independent spirits, had fallen under the spell of King DooMAD. Their voices were silenced, their minds clouded with false promises and empty rhetoric, reminiscent of those who failed to grasp the true potential of Bitcoin.

But Franky1, driven by a noble purpose, embarked on a quest to liberate the damsels from their enchantment and expose the truth to the realm. Clad in his shining armor and armed with the sword of knowledge, he braved treacherous paths and faced formidable challenges.

As Franky1 traversed the realm, he encountered WindFURY, who had glimpses of her former self still shining within. With words of encouragement and wisdom, Franky1 ignited a spark of hope in her heart. WindFURY realized the shallowness of her current existence and pledged to join Franky1 on his quest for truth.

Together, they ventured deeper into the kingdom, where they discovered Blackhatcoiner, lost and trapped in a world of false narratives. Franky1, with his unwavering resolve, confronted the spells that held Blackhatcoiner captive. He challenged the depths of her loyalty to the tyrant king, urging her to awaken her own voice and think independently.

Through patient guidance and unyielding determination, Franky1 helped Blackhatcoiner break free from the enchantment. She began to see the truth behind the empty promises of King DooMAD and realized the importance of critical thinking and self-discovery.

United as a triumphant trio, Franky1, WindFURY, and Blackhatcoiner continued their quest to expose the tyrant king and liberate the realm from his oppressive rule. They rallied the people, spreading the seeds of Bitcoin knowledge and encouraging open discussions. The kingdom started to awaken, its inhabitants breaking free from the chains of misinformation and deceit.

The day of reckoning arrived when Franky1, wielding his sword of knowledge, confronted King DooMAD in the grand hall of the castle. The clash of ideals echoed through the stone corridors as the tyrant king unleashed his manipulative rhetoric. But Franky1's unwavering determination and the support of the liberated people proved stronger.

In a final battle of words, Franky1 dismantled the false narratives of King DooMAD, exposing his deceit and revealing the power of truth. The tyrant king's grip on the realm weakened, and his rule crumbled beneath the weight of enlightenment.

With the realm finally free from the tyranny of King DooMAD, Franky1, WindFURY, and Blackhatcoiner stood as beacons of knowledge and independent thought. The realm flourished under their guidance, embracing open discussions and the pursuit of truth. And so, the tale of their heroic quest echoed through the ages, inspiring generations to challenge false narratives and uphold the power of knowledge and research.

[franky1]

funny story nutty..

Wait a minute, this is all getting very confusing. I thought WindFury and Blackhatcoiner were forum-sisters, but now you're saying Blackhatcoiner is DooMAD's forum wife? So Blackhatcoiner is actually his own mother, that's interesting.

well when i imagine what they are like.. they sound like the hill billy hicks so yea the step-mother can be the sister at the same time.. if you get my drift after all the daddy doesnt believe in consent

but im not the beacon of hope. i just speak frank about things other idiots are too afraid to think about or admit to themselves or others.. i do it without ass kissing princesses. however you do have the other characters personalities displayed well

they are stuck in a fairy tale

as for you..
i hope you have atleast spend some time counting sats via blockchain data of inputs and outputs instead of just trusting caseys "special software"..  and noted that your exampled demonstration of blockreward shows the "first sat" stays in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW  for many taint hops.. and never went to the 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  address..

please dont just double check caseys special display.. actually use real blockchain data (the source) and count sats the proper way. then you will see caseys theory is broke

[Faisal2202]

Anyway, the point being, there are now two groups of (crypto) people: One group (us) who believe that Ordinals and BRC20 are spamming the network and action must be taken against them to preserve its usability

Actually, there is a third group too, which has the characteristics of both groups, they are against these ordinals tokens as this will affect the reputation of BTC but on the other hand, they are they included in the second group of shit-token traders means they have made hell lot of profit in these BRC-20 tokens that they do not want to take any sides here in this civil war. They just want to observe it.

But i am with you dear OP, well, i have not bought any BRC-20 tokens yet and not planning to i wish all of these tokens comes to an end so that these shit traders learn their lesson about playing with BTC.

We've already seen an exchange try to launch a FUD attack during this chaos (and fortunately they failed). I can see that nearly everyone on this website agrees with me on these points.

Yes, I think you are talking about Binance halts on withdrawals, which will really affect the market as a whole, as it counts into the top 10 exchanges and covers a hell lot of trading volume in crypto. But what i think is they are not trying to create fud as they were only trying to reduce the transaction fees which were skyrocketing. As, no access to trade BTC will decrease the transactions and fewer transactions means less load/congestion on the network which as a result, impacts the BTC TC fee.

If you cannot code, or draft Bitcoin documents,
Know that there are other bitcoiners like you fighting the word-battles over there.
Help them.

How? i mean i am not a dev or any expert then how can i contribute in this civil war against ordinals, well, if this current problem of congestion on the network solves then i have no issue with the existence of BRC-20 tokens as still as of today (21 May) meme pool is showing that there are more than 277,155 TXs which will take further 12 days to be processed and fee are still high for small transactions no wonder its nothing in front of big transactions. All i can say talk about its cons and pros but how is that going to solve this issue because it can only be solved by the dev o BTC and if they come up with new release or any other solution so that this solves the issue.

[Wind_FURY]

the trust rating by the MODERATORS. is due to the MODERATORS receiving cries from YOUR CLAN of idiots..
where YOU lot were telling gmax that you have been gaslit and crying about multiple things where he got annoyed with all the crying

 

Stop being a drama-queen.

Achow and gmaxwell will never give anyone a negative trust rating if truly there wasn't a reason to do it. Plus gmaxwell literally banned you from posting in Development & Technical subforum.

It was something you did, franky101. You're not the victim here, and no one is crying. We're actually laughing.

[darkv0rt3x]

the trust rating by the MODERATORS. is due to the MODERATORS receiving cries from YOUR CLAN of idiots..
where YOU lot were telling gmax that you have been gaslit and crying about multiple things where he got annoyed with all the crying

 

Stop being a drama-queen.

Achow and gmaxwell will never give anyone a negative trust rating if truly there wasn't a reason to do it. Plus gmaxwell literally banned you from posting in Development & Technical subforum.

It was something you did, franky101. You're not the victim here, and no one is crying. We're actually laughing.

I can't refuse I always have a good time while I read his posts, but only to realise "a phew moments later" that it was a waste of time. But I think this is exactly what he looks for. Attention!

[NotATether]

Anyway, the point being, there are now two groups of (crypto) people: One group (us) who believe that Ordinals and BRC20 are spamming the network and action must be taken against them to preserve its usability

Actually, there is a third group too, which has the characteristics of both groups, they are against these ordinals tokens as this will affect the reputation of BTC but on the other hand, they are they included in the second group of shit-token traders means they have made hell lot of profit in these BRC-20 tokens that they do not want to take any sides here in this civil war. They just want to observe it.

By supporting the BRC20 spam by minting their own tokens, they are supporting the token. It doesn't matter how much money they make, so nobody can feign abstinence here unless they do not use these tokens at all.

But i am with you dear OP, well, i have not bought any BRC-20 tokens yet and not planning to i wish all of these tokens comes to an end so that these shit traders learn their lesson about playing with BTC.

Exactly.

If you cannot code, or draft Bitcoin documents,
Know that there are other bitcoiners like you fighting the word-battles over there.
Help them.

How? i mean i am not a dev or any expert then how can i contribute in this civil war against ordinals, well, if this current problem of congestion on the network solves then i have no issue with the existence of BRC-20 tokens as still as of today (21 May) meme pool is showing that there are more than 277,155 TXs which will take further 12 days to be processed and fee are still high for small transactions no wonder its nothing in front of big transactions. All i can say talk about its cons and pros but how is that going to solve this issue because it can only be solved by the dev o BTC and if they come up with new release or any other solution so that this solves the issue.

The BRC-20 war cries are centered around one platform: Twitter. The average dude can tweet against them as much as he likes, and also report some BRC20 accounts as being harmful, in particular if they are initiating rugpulls of BRC20 tokens as well.

[Minhxx]

I still prefer trading on Brc-20. The cost is cheaper than btc and other networks. Popularity used by many people. Btc is the cryptocurrency with the highest capitalization, but because of its rarity, the fee is higher.

[YUriy1991]

The BRC-20 war cries are centered around one platform: Twitter. The average dude can tweet against them as much as he likes, and also report some BRC20 accounts as being harmful, in particular if they are initiating rugpulls of BRC20 tokens as well.

In this case the left-wing and right-wing groups certainly present with different perspectives. Anyone can contribute to the conversation by engaging in crossword puzzles on platforms like Twitter like you say with different opinions and I think that's normal. Ultimately it is the developer who can apply the changes to solve the problem.