Bitcoin Civil War

[franky1]

Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.

saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi
he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's

Pretty sure MSTR hold their BTC holdings on the mainnet, in cold storage, without any intent on selling it, while having 0% shitcoin holdings. So if that's not being a maxi, I don't know what is.

Are you suggesting that his support of lightning means he's no longer a maxi? That sounds ridiculous, especially to all the maxis out there that support and use lightning. It seems more likely there are maxis that support L2s and those that don't. Simply claiming that the "purest" way to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin only is to support it's mainnet and nothing else just sounds ridiculous to me, as well as many other maxis. Especially when now the mainnet is being used for inscriptions and now apparently you can't even be a maxi unless you support censoring these valid transactions. Maxis can't keep moving the goal posts like this.

when you realise that he does not promote bitcoin but stores it. but does promote scams and schemes and another network that is not bitcoins blockchain nor something that will be the salvation.. he is not a maxi. he is a bitcoin hoarder but not a maxi
...
you do need to realise that those transactions you assume valid are not containing bitcoin rules.. they use a opcode that assumes validity by a "isvalid" bypass thatavoids standard bitcoin checks. which bypasses normal bitcoin format rules

yep thats how the junk gets let in, by bypassing normal standard bitcoin rules
yep the inscriptions are non-standard

..
funny part is maxi means maxi. but its you that wants to dilute(move the goalpost) its meaning to be middi. where you think someone that supports another network is still maxi. even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network

please learn maxi is short for maximum. meaning top, highest level. meaning yes its the purists.. not the average or altnet supporters that just happen to hoard bitcoin

[be.open]

Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.

saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi
he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's

Pretty sure MSTR hold their BTC holdings on the mainnet, in cold storage, without any intent on selling it, while having 0% shitcoin holdings. So if that's not being a maxi, I don't know what is.

Are you suggesting that his support of lightning means he's no longer a maxi? That sounds ridiculous, especially to all the maxis out there that support and use lightning. It seems more likely there are maxis that support L2s and those that don't. Simply claiming that the "purest" way to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin only is to support it's mainnet and nothing else just sounds ridiculous to me, as well as many other maxis. Especially when now the mainnet is being used for inscriptions and now apparently you can't even be a maxi unless you support censoring these valid transactions. Maxis can't keep moving the goal posts like this.

when you realise that he does not promote bitcoin but stores it. but does promote scams and schemes and another network that is not bitcoins blockchain nor something that will be the salvation.. he is not a maxi. he is a bitcoin hoarder but not a maxi
...
you do need to realise that those transactions you assume valid are not containing bitcoin rules.. they use a opcode that assumes validity by a "isvalid" bypass thatavoids standard bitcoin checks. which bypasses normal bitcoin format rules

yep thats how the junk gets let in, by bypassing normal standard bitcoin rules
yep the inscriptions are non-standard

..
funny part is maxi means maxi. but its you that wants to dilute(move the goalpost) its meaning to be middi. where you think someone that supports another network is still maxi. even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network

please learn maxi is short for maximum. meaning top, highest level. meaning yes its the purists.. not the average or altnet supporters that just happen to hoard bitcoin

If any idea, even initially sound, is elevated to an absolute, it becomes absurd. How far are you willing to go in bitcoin maximalism?
Hey, this is a ordinals transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a lightning network transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a mixed transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a segwit transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Only old school addresses starting with one correspond to the true vision of Satoshi. Sieg heil!

[DooMAD]

If any idea, even initially sound, is elevated to an absolute, it becomes absurd. How far are you willing to go in bitcoin maximalism?
Hey, this is a ordinals transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a lightning network transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a mixed transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a segwit transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Only old school addresses starting with one correspond to the true vision of Satoshi. Sieg heil!

You might be joking, but that's actually pretty close to how franky1 thinks.  He wants to be a part of this network whilst at the same time disagreeing with every choice the users of this network have ever made.  If he had all the rules set as he would want, he'd be the only user on a very lonely chain.  Compromise is a key part of collaboration and most users understand this fact.  But it's entirely lost on frankenfuhrer1.

[BlackHatCoiner]

yep the inscriptions are non-standard

No it isn't. I agree that it should, and that it's by accident standard. But it's pretty much of a fact that Ordinal transactions are standard. I'm also of the opinion that standardness is of little matter, especially when there's real demand for Ordinals. With one way or another, standard or non-standard, they'd find their way on the chain.

even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network

Comparably to your "proposals" of "fixing" Bitcoin, I'd consider absolute Bitcoin maximalism to support lightning.

[Wind_FURY]

so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security

The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history.

It's because some people are turning it into a more ideological debate than a technical one. I personally don't like dick pics and fart sounds too, but if those transactions are following the consensus rules, and pay their fees to have there transactions mined in a block, how can we truly say they can't use the network.

BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.

[be.open]

BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.

Perhaps here I agree with you. How beautiful and elegant is the very idea of ordinals, which does not produce unnecessary entities, so as not to cause the anger of Occam with a razor, but only makes the implicit explicit. And just as shitty are these BRC-20 tokens, which are almost a direct insult and spit in the face. It's like when a teenager is first allowed to draw anything on a blank wall and he draws just the first thing that comes to his mind - boobs and a big dick. Did you expect to find Claude Monet's lilies there?

If we're going to stick with our censorship resistance strategy, we're going to have to open our mouths wide and eat this elephant whole, with a hundredweight of shit inside it. Because everyone has different tastes (and even coprophages also exist) and if we start trying to separate the more delicious from the less tasty, we will never come to a consensus that suits everyone. The wave of hype will subside and time itself will separate the assimilated and the rejected.

[NotATether]

The other group is comprised of the shit-token traders themselves, and also a legion of basement dwellers, shitcoiners, and FUD enthusiasts who are proclaiming loudly People have the right to spam the network with BRC20 and Ordinals but refuse to actually do anything about the problem except for bitch and moan like a horde of wild orc[-20]s.

Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.

Not to mention you are ignoring the core devs that appear relatively neutral right now. No doubt because their job is to fix bugs and ordinals isn't a bug. Or otherwise improve the network, while there is no urgent need to improve the network, as it is functioning exactly as programmed. They've already done segwit and taproot in recent years, so not going to rush a soft fork obviously, these take months, even years to code.

I had auto-included all of those people in the first group:

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

this also includes miners and other users who like BRC20 for the fees but would be happy to support any network projects that alleviate the stress on Layer 1, as well as said developers themselves, and people who like the idea of Ordinals but are not happy with the backlog it's causing

While they are not necessarily seeking to stop BRC-20 tokens, it can generally be agreed that all these people passively acknowledge the inherent scaling problem present in Bitcoin and would be happy to lend themselves to solutions for that.

I guess I did not make this section clear. Apologies for that.

[Wind_FURY]

BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.

Perhaps here I agree with you. How beautiful and elegant is the very idea of ordinals, which does not produce unnecessary entities, so as not to cause the anger of Occam with a razor, but only makes the implicit explicit. And just as shitty are these BRC-20 tokens, which are almost a direct insult and spit in the face. It's like when a teenager is first allowed to draw anything on a blank wall and he draws just the first thing that comes to his mind - boobs and a big dick. Did you expect to find Claude Monet's lilies there?

If we're going to stick with our censorship resistance strategy, we're going to have to open our mouths wide and eat this elephant whole, with a hundredweight of shit inside it. Because everyone has different tastes (and even coprophages also exist) and if we start trying to separate the more delicious from the less tasty, we will never come to a consensus that suits everyone. The wave of hype will subside and time itself will separate the assimilated and the rejected.

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

[be.open]

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

[franky1]

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

most of the meme sales are not real sales between individuals. they are supported sales between a group selling to each other to mark a price on sites marking prices. this then creates the 'value" which they then use to scam people by pretending its worth

stories like the one you mentioned make people think they can buy a crap meme not even worth $1 for $250 because the idiot victims think they can then resell for $8million

the actual reality is that the creator wants thousands of idiot victims hand over a minimum of $250+ because all those small scams add up to alot of profit for the creator. while being too small per victim for the victim to fight for a refund via a lawsuit

[Wind_FURY]

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment.

Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi?

Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.

This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

Like scammers?

 

[retreat]

It's hilarious to see these bozos think they've managed to increase the adoption of Bitcoin with the junk they grow. They have absolutely no impact on Bitcoin adoption, instead they make the Bitcoin network more saturated and they should leave this network and create their own community. Moreover, I think that Bitcoin developers should pay special attention to the Bitcoin network in the future and not let such communities in the future do what they want and exploit the main network and cause chaos. Because if Bitcoin developers keep letting things like this happen, how can they possibly aim higher and grow the community well.

[be.open]

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment.

Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi?

Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.

This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

Like scammers?

 

It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog. What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture? I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally?

[bittraffic]

While I can agree there should have no forking. And not forcing the dev to do something then we all might just have to create NFTs on the blockchain and just don't mind the transactions to be confirmed for days.

I have to bring up that this will obviously hurt the network and less useful as well which I do think the dev team can come up with something. Otherwise the government learns how vulnerable BTC and the network with just this simple issue.

[Kakmakr]

I just want to say... "There is a fine line between protecting the network AND censoring transactions."

I do not own any of these shit tokens and I will also not defend something that are causing congestion on the network, but I will lift my hand and try to highlight the fact that caution must be taken that filtering measures should not be applied, if the transactions are not deliberate to attack the network.

Bitcoin are not like some Alt coins, where they "authorize" ..what transactions are legit and which needs to be filtered or blocked.  

[DooMAD]

I just want to say... "There is a fine line between protecting the network AND censoring transactions."

I do not own any of these shit tokens and I will also not defend something that are causing congestion on the network, but I will lift my hand and try to highlight the fact that caution must be taken that filtering measures should not be applied, if the transactions are not deliberate to attack the network.

Bitcoin are not like some Alt coins, where they "authorize" ..what transactions are legit and which needs to be filtered or blocked.  

Or to take that line of reasoning a step further, there are clearly some who feel that the very suggestion of implementing censorship is an attempt to (perhaps unwittingly) attack the fundamental nature of the Bitcoin network.

I get the distinct impression that some people don't even realise that asking for censorship would make Bitcoin weaker.  Not stronger.  Once that line is crossed, it sets a dangerous precedent.  If you help pave the way to censor others, they may later find it easier to censor you.  Be very careful what you wish for.  

he wants peoples posts deleted and people banned.

You're sub-human, nazi trash.  You don't qualify as "people".  You're just a lowly shit-smear.

[franky1]

doomad pretends to be anti-censorship but is always telling people to not do research. not talk. and disapear. he wants peoples posts deleted and people banned.
oh he also doesnt want people transacting below certain value and wants the blockchain pruned


how about actually think about real fixes EG each byte have true meaning and reason for being in a transaction. where each byte is counted and actually checked for validity. non of this cludgy bypass crap

but no idiots like doomad want to soften the rules, make nodes not validate all transactions and prune them off just as quickly so that the blockchain is a cluster-f**k of data that is not complete or correct in all full nodes

all because he wants bitcoin to get ruined from many points of attack, lack of utility and expense.. all so he can advertise his other networks he adores so much he prefers people to use instead

[Wind_FURY]

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment.

Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi?

Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.

This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

Like scammers?

 

It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog.

What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture?

I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally?

I'm not debating if something like the Pepe is a scam. I'm debating if the developers of BRC-20, because as I understood you said they are merely riding the hype-wave, are acting like scammers.

Because from a developers viewpoint it wouldn't be rational to build something that wouldn't be making it more efficient/better. Let's be frank, what they're developing won't make trading tokens better. In fact, they're making it more inefficient and more expensive. If the incentive is just "profit now", then they're like scammers?

[dragonvslinux]

I just want to say... "There is a fine line between protecting the network AND censoring transactions."

I do not own any of these shit tokens and I will also not defend something that are causing congestion on the network, but I will lift my hand and try to highlight the fact that caution must be taken that filtering measures should not be applied, if the transactions are not deliberate to attack the network.

Bitcoin are not like some Alt coins, where they "authorize" ..what transactions are legit and which needs to be filtered or blocked.  

I get the distinct impression that some people don't even realise that asking for censorship would make Bitcoin weaker.  Not stronger.  Once that line is crossed, it sets a dangerous precedent.  If you help pave the way to censor others, they may later find it easier to censor you.  Be very careful what you wish for.  

This is basically the bottom line that many people don't get. First for example it's censoring BRC20's, next up it can be wills, testaments and other important data inscribed onto the blockchain. Notably no-one complained when data was ever previously inscribed onto the blockchain, instead it was celebrated as being creative/diverse use of the Bitcoin network, it was only when the fees increased people started complaining and calling it spam. It seems hypocritical when back in 2017 during the equally high fees period (if not higher), people were instead sensibly talking about the need for L2 solutions and adoption, not censorship.

[davis196]

I agree with your point, OP.
This Ordinals BS being portrayed as some kind of attack over the Bitcoin Core blockchain is something that annoys me.
It's not an attack. It's just a bunch of NFT holders, who don't care about congesting the blockchain with transactions and paying higher transaction fees. I'm not blockchain developer or expert, but my proposal is to impose a high minimum fee for the Ordinals transactions.
Let's see if those NFT holders will be so happy to pay 100-200 or 300 USD fee per transaction and keep congesting the blockchain.