Bitcoin Civil War

[DooMAD]

Pretty sure the only "war" going on here is 'deluded people' versus 'reality'.  Reality always wins.

doomad loves low acceptance rate he hates super majority. he loves contention. he things the only options is to fork networks where people have to create altcoins. where only core can control policy. where no one should ask core to do something for the community

In the sense that devs are leaving policy matters for those securing the chain to decide for themselves, sure.  In any other sense, you're talking out of your arse.

You're the one asking devs to dictate policy by requesting that they implement rules to set the network policy so that it would prevent people transacting in ways you don't approve of (except it wouldn't).  You then argue that Core have too much power to set network policy and yet your solution to that perceived problem is to give them more power to set policy!?  What is wrong with your brain?  Besides which, devs have no desire to become arbiters of what constitutes "acceptable use".  You're just spouting populist nonsense.  

there are many opcodes that can be changed.

Then go ahead and change them.  You claim everyone feels the same way you do, so surely people would run code with your preferred changes to these opcodes.  If you believe Core's product isn't good enough and that your changes are undeniably better, make the code already.  You act like you have all the answers, but you're just an obnoxious gasbag who won't lift a finger to enact the change he claims "everyone wants".  You claim Core aren't doing a good enough job, but you won't do ANY job.  You can literally say whatever you like because you know you'll never have to prove it in practice.  And that's precisely why you'll never code anything.  Because if you did produce code, it would reveal you as the utter fraud that you are.  Because all you know how to do is spout populist nonsense.

On the one hand we have a team of devs who produce code that people freely choose to run.  On the other hand, we have a whiny malcontent who produces endless pages of whiny bullshit and absolutely nothing of value.  Take a wild guess as to which one is going to have more influence on the outcome of this situation.  The malcontent could change things if he had a competitive product of his own.  But he only has pages upon pages of crybaby screeching.

the idiot brigade have pretended that bitcoin was always soft weak and open to abuse. yet if they dared even try to bloat a legacy transaction they would learn the hard way that bitcoin was not always like this.
if they even dared research outside of the spoonfed narrative they all recite and echo to each other like a cult. they would finally learn a thing or two about what actually happened, when it happened, how it was caused and how it can be fixed.

You've been researching for years and still have nothing tangible to show for it.  You can spend all your life forming opinions based on what you think you've learned, but if you don't spend at least a small amount of time and effort putting what you've learned into practice, you'll never accomplish any of your goals.  

Telling people to "do research" and then do nothing else other than asking for devs to do stuff for them is weak advice at best (particularly if you've spent the last who-knows-how-many-years insulting the devs who you're now asking for assistance from).  

What I'd suggest is that people do their research AND THEN ACT UPON THEIR FINDINGS.  Run some code once you know what it does.  Make some code.  DO SOMETHING.  If people aren't willing to act or make any actual changes based on what they've learned, they'll likely just turn into bitter, feeble, whiny sad-sacks, like franky1, who spend their entire, pathetic lives achieving absolutely nothing (and having just one of those around here is more than enough already, thank you).  

so when a new opcode is desired devs PROPOSE an opcode and code it. and while in review the network users can download a copy fo also self review and when they flag they are ready to use it. that flag then shows consensus readiness that its at a safe enough level of network readiness to activate the opcode. and the opcode goes live knowing enough of the network is ready to validate the new feature. as what is suppose to happen.

Social contract.  Unenforceable.  That process can easily be ignored.  You can "suppose" all you like, but it's beyond apparent that you've completely lost all grip on reality.  

Reality happens.  Your demented suppositions don't.

Not only is it impossible to force someone to adhere to such a process, there isn't even an incentive to do so.  Aside from which, backwards-compatible changes can easily be activated if only a small portion of the network wish to use them (If 5 people agree to have burgers, putting ketchup on 2 of the burgers is still 5 people having burgers, ketchup is opt-in and doesn't require a majority).  

And, as ordinals demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt, external third-party scripts have even less developmental oversight and can be coded by anyone and hosted anywhere to allow anyone to inject just about anything into the blockchain.  Protocol be damned.  And it's nothing to do with "soft rules" either, because people are injecting stuff into other blockchains which don't have any of the "soft rules" that franky1 bitches about.  

It's all just pie-in-the-sky franky1 populist drivel.

Cry more.

[1714255058]

1714255058

[1714255058]

1714255058

[1714255058]

1714255058

[BlackHatCoiner]

well the solution is not "put up with it or f**k off to another network"

Indeed, it's not. But if you're watching yourself repeating the same things all over again, in every page of this board, every day with absolutely no positive response, regardless of whether you're right or not, you might need to rethink the solution. If nobody agrees with you, or only some inadequate minority, perhaps trying to convince everyone to adopt your notion is utter waste of time for you.

I get that you happened to enter Bitcoin early, and must be retired already, but honestly: don't you have something better to do? You're doing the same shit for 7 years straight, and the feedback is mostly negative.

[franky1]

blackhat

you are reciting your forum-wife mantra.. it doesnt mean his mantra is right because its echoed. nor right if it comes with ass kissery

what i said here is not "frankys solution" nor is it something i have been saying for the last 7 years
its standard common sense

as for my negative feedback
the same idiots you ass kiss are the ones circling the same feedback.. so its not even genuine

take your forum wife doomad
he cannot understand the concept of consent
i gave him a real world example of what consent is and he cried that i even mentioned it

as for gmax, he commented about that your clan went crying to him.. so its all your lil group not the wider community

as for you wanting me to not discuss certain things relevant.. eg core and code and bitcoin exploits are very relevant
plus this is a discussion form not a "f**k off away from bitcoin" forum

[be.open]

well the solution is not "put up with it or f**k off to another network"
that false solution is the idiot brigades thoughts on their only option to present

many topics talk about actual solutions
the main one that does not break bitcoin is tat from block 7XX,XXX opcodes need to show formatting conditions, expectations of data used with an opcode. and defined lengths of expected data.

this will make transaction byte data efficient and purposeful something that can be validated and verified. like it previously did

as for generating new opcode. well thats simple too. full nodes are suppose to validate all data. this includes the fullnodes mining pools use to manage block templates and what the network then validates to fit active rules to be an accepted block of accepted data.

so when a new opcode is desired devs PROPOSE an opcode and code it. and while in review the network users can download a copy fo also self review and when they flag they are ready to use it. that flag then shows consensus readiness that its at a safe enough level of network readiness to activate the opcode. and the opcode goes live knowing enough of the network is ready to validate the new feature. as what is suppose to happen.

yep full nodes are suppose to be ready to validate things. thats their point. they are not suppose to have blind bypasses of just calling things non standard and treat as valid without check just becasue someone called it a validation pass.

having opcodes that are tested. reviewed and have node readiness is a security feature.. bypasses allowing trojan data is an exploit/bug

I didn’t understand shit from what you propose to solve this issue, so I’ll ask differently. Suppose a conditional idiot uploaded a picture with his favorite meme to the bitcoin blockchain and paid for this transaction at the market price, it was confirmed. As a result of what you propose to do, will he still be able to transfer this picture to another owner, again paying for the transaction at the market price?

I put the question in this aspect, because the problem that has arisen is not entirely of a technical nature. If the downloaded image has lost its value over time, this is acceptable, a common investment risk. If an evil hacker hacked into a hardware wallet, took possession of private keys and transferred the picture to his address, this is also acceptable, a common information security risk. But if you change the consensus rules to tighten them up and a valid entry in the blockchain becomes invalid, this is unacceptable.

[franky1]

firstly..
ordinals do not transfer ownership.. forget caseys description of his project and understand how bitcoin works. not caseys crud.. especially becasue his crud is about explorer display decision. not block data rules

the ordinal meme spam junk sits in witness. but nothing in that witness suggested what output it tags too
becasue the witness is associated to the inputs not the outputs

so a tx of
BC1PJUNKUTXO 0.0001  ->  BC1POUTPUT1 0.00000001
                                          BC1POUTPUT2 0.00000999
signed key: BC1PJUNKUTXO
extrabloatmeme
(tx fee 9000sat)

that extra bloat meme is not locked to any output. so none of those outputs actually own the meme
so thats the first problem.. the meme is just dead data of the now spent BC1PJUNKUTXO

secondly

if rules came back limiting witness space to only include real signatures that actually associate to the utxo spend input where by nothing other then signature proofs can belong in the witness area...
then a tx would be rejected at relay and not appear in a block IF THE RULES WERE ENFORCED AGAIN
meaning no more junk spam containing memes

thus no more junk spam = no more junk spam..!

as for you caring about moving ownership of junk spam.. again it is never proven in blockchain data that junk belongs to particular output.. never has.. thus its never been a NFT or a ownership thing..
the junk spam data has just always been dead data added to witness area and just sits there as dead data.

worded a different way
ordinals never had real intrinsic value because its just junk spam dead data of no purpose apart from to fill blocks with dead data.
the whole illusion of value. is just a scam of ripping people off. getting idiots to pay for something they can never truly own. because it doesnt follow any real world economic flow nor even any blockchain proof of transfer. its an illusion of transfer without proof within the blockchain data.

casey can say this month all memes move via first output.. .. but thats not locked and secured by blockdata proof to suggest output1 . no proof thats the case nor always be true to be the case...
casey can without changing block data decide all memes belong to output 2. and suddenly the hopeful/delusional person of output 1. now realises he didnt own the meme. becasue now in CASEYS VIEW output 2 owned it historically

for a real proof of transfer the proof needs to be part of the block data and locked in a form that cant be changed after the fact.

caseys scam is that his proposed transfer is not locked in blockchain proof. but done as a after effect of a user interface decision that can change by just changing what the user interface decides. which does not require blockchain data proof decision changes. just a explorer decision.(which can change without affecting data) thus its not proof at all

[panganib999]

Not trying to play the Devil's advocate here but I don't think the problem is ordinals itself, I think the problem is the fact that no one in their right minds (sorry devs) accounted for the scalability issue that expansion could bring when it does come. I'm pretty positive that even if ordinals didn't come around, some other enterprise that would challenge bitcoin's capabilities will, and sadly it wasn't able to pass the challenge. On the other hand, it's a little concerning how massive the repercussions of Ordinals' existence brought, you wouldn't see such high fees and wait times in other networks and projects, makes me think what in the hell are they doing over there that makes every transaction in the BRC-20 that heavy. Far as I know they only work with a single sat for the main NFT itself, and a couple more to work on the transaction. If anybody could shed a light on this one that's going to be awesome.

[dragonvslinux]

Not trying to play the Devil's advocate here but I don't think the problem is ordinals itself, I think the problem is the fact that no one in their right minds (sorry devs) accounted for the scalability issue that expansion could bring when it does come. I'm pretty positive that even if ordinals didn't come around, some other enterprise that would challenge bitcoin's capabilities will, and sadly it wasn't able to pass the challenge.

I'm not one to blame devs either, but I think you're right here. Bitcoin was always going to be tested as it were, and ordinals is simply that first test (likely of many, so best get used to it). All it required was an incentive to inscribe data for high value on the blockchain, which was satisfied by the demand of those wanting these inscriptions such as Ordinals. Otherwise, without the financial incentive, this wouldn't be happening.

On the other hand, it's a little concerning how massive the repercussions of Ordinals' existence brought, you wouldn't see such high fees and wait times in other networks and projects

Actually, we saw exactly this with Ethereum in the past (and even recently/currently). During the NFT boom in 2021 the cost of transactions went through the roof, much higher than Bitcoin's fees have ever reached. It's not that comparable though as Ethereum isn't an immutable blockchain, but to say this doesn't happen in other networks simply isn't the case. The only relevance is that fees did eventually die down on ETH after the NFT boom, nothing to do with any upgrades either, and most importantly the high fees didn't "destroy" the network either like many naive participants suspect is possible for Bitcoin.

[be.open]

thus no more junk spam = no more junk spam/..

as for you caring about moving ownership of junk spam.. it is never proven in blockchain data that junk belongs to  particular output.. never has.. thus its never been a NFT or a ownership thing..
the junk spam data has just always been dead data added to witness area and just sits there as dead data.

I think that I, you, the developers of the core, and any user of the bitcoin network, have the right to have a private opinion whether the pictures of frogs uploaded to the network are useless garbage or malicious spam, and even have the right to express this opinion publicly (but for the developers of the core, it is in their own interests best to be as careful as possible). But we can't ban it just because we don't like it. Because the owner of the picture with the frog will say that bitcoin is a scam, promised to keep its value and did not fulfill the promise - and we will have nothing to object to him. Who in their right mind would entrust their value to a network that, over time, could change the rules of the game and declare that value invalid garbage?

[franky1]

most of the "[not]NFT market" and the fee .. is actually not real cost..

the NFT market is not real millions of people randomly buying junk.. its a small group colluding and collaborating together.. you can spot this becasue if it was random people. then the movements would be constant. however any simple analysis can see that the memes dropped nearly all precisely on the same day. and suddenly the new scam(brc) started a couple days later. which means unless millions of people just randomly all decided at the same time to throw memes off a cliff and jump onto BRC .. then thats a miracle. however instead it was a small group of the meme creators selling and posting fake priced and trading to themselves to cause a fake market hoping to dupe idiots..

luckily not many idiots bought into it which is why it died off a cliff so quick

now with the brc crap. its again not some massive market of millions of people. its a small group of idiot creators again spamming to each other to fake a market demand. ..

though these scams will die out when idiots wise up.. the problem remains.. keeping the security gates open just means new spam wil start. new rounds of different spam different junk different scams
{brc20}{brc721}{brc777}{brc1155} .. and whatever next may come to scam people whilst bloating the blockchain with nonsense data

. all pretending to offer value. while all they are actually doing is bloating the blocks with dead useless data.

im just glad not many suckers got suckered into handing money to these scammers. and as proven by how fast the memes dropped off in recent months. just shows how little did the scam work

[be.open]

most of the "NFT market" and the fee .. is actually not real cost..

the NFT market is not real millions of people randomly buying junk.. its a small group colluding and collaborating together.. you can spot this becasue if it was random people. then the movements would be constant. however any simple analysis can see that the memes dropped nearly all precisely on the same day. and suddenly the new scam(brc) started a couple days later. which means unless millions of people just randomly all decided at the same time to throw memes off a cliff and jump onto BRC .. then thats a miracle. however instead it was a small group of the meme creators selling and posting fake priced and trading to themselves to cause a fake market hoping to dupe idiots..

luckily not many idiots bought into it which is why it died off a cliff so quick

now with the brc crap. its again not some massive market of millions of people. its a small group of idiot creators again spamming to each other to fake a market demand. ..

though these scams will die out when idiots wise up.. the problem remains.. keeping the security gates open just means new spam wil start. new rounds of different spam different junk different scams . all pretending to offer value. while all they are actually doing is bloating the blocks with dead useless data.

Perhaps our common problem and the reason for the misunderstanding is that neither you nor I have uploaded a single picture with frogs to the Bitcoin blockchain (I certainly have not). But if I understand correctly, the main difference from NFT on Ethereum is that it is not links to an external image that are loaded, but the image itself - it gets into the block, it is integrated into the block chain, and from an ordinary digital picture it becomes a unique digital entity, which cannot be copied, but can be transferred to another owner by making a new transaction. In this case, it is no longer garbage, regardless of the content of the picture and your attitude towards it. Well, or all bitcoin is garbage.

[franky1]

it is integrated into the block chain, and from an ordinary digital picture it becomes a unique digital entity, which cannot be copied, but can be transferred to another owner by making a new transaction. In this case, it is no longer garbage, regardless of the content of the picture and your attitude towards it. Well, or all bitcoin is garbage.

appearing in the blockchain is one thing... that is called DEAD DATA

however the "transfer" part. is not proven in blockdata.
because the data is in witness of the inputs signature association.. but it does not tag to which output deserves the transfer

there actually is a way to prove it. .. BUT they are not using a true proof of transfer. thus there is no transfer proof.

take this concept..

you write a contract on paper
the contract says Bill has 1000 sats
he pays 100 to Chris
he pays 400 to Dave
and 500 is lost to the contract notary for confirming the contract
its signed by bill and then bill puts a smiley face next to his signature

no where on the contract has the contract stated that the smiley face belongs to chris or dave or the notary

yet bill vocally says on his website(separate thing) that he thinks this month chris should own the smiley face
even if the smiley face is not put against chris's part of the contract. not is the smiley face written to be chrises within the contract itself

yes its on the piece of paper below the signature. but its not beside chrises part of the contract so no proof the smiley face belongs to chris specifically..
.. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

next month Bill can decide without changing the contract.. that actually dave owned it all along.
even though still. to all outsiders and rational people.. .. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

[be.open]

it is integrated into the block chain, and from an ordinary digital picture it becomes a unique digital entity, which cannot be copied, but can be transferred to another owner by making a new transaction. In this case, it is no longer garbage, regardless of the content of the picture and your attitude towards it. Well, or all bitcoin is garbage.

appearing in the blockchain is one thing... that is called DEAD DATA

however the "transfer" part. is not proven in blockdata.
because the data is in witness of the inputs signature association.. but it does not tag to which output deserves the transfer

there actually is a way to prove it. .. BUT they are not using a true proof of transfer. thus there is no transfer proof.

take this concept..

you write a contract on paper
the contract says Bill has 1000 sats
he pays 100 to Chris
he pays 400 to Dave
and 500 is lost to the contract notary for confirming the contract
its signed by bill and then bill puts a smiley face next to his signature

no where on the contract has the contract stated that the smiley face belongs to chris or dave or the notary

yet bill vocally says on his website(separate thing) that he thinks this month chris should own the smiley face
even if the smiley face is not put against chris's part of the contract. not is the smiley face written to be chrises within the contract itself

yes its on the piece of paper below the signature. but its not beside chrises part of the contract so no proof the smiley face belongs to chris specifically..
.. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

next month Bill can decide without changing the contract.. that actually dave owned it all along.
even though still. to all outsiders and rational people.. .. its just a random smiley face beside the signature that can mean anything to anyone

Are you saying that if I want to transfer ownership of a picture of a frog uploaded to the bitcoin blockchain, then I do not have to physically move this picture to the address of the new owner? That the change of ownership will not be reflected in the bitcoin blockchain in any way and the picture with the frog will remain at my address, where I originally uploaded it, and only the entry on some external site will change? If so, then this is really some kind of shit and I need to learn more about the brc-20 token protocol.

[nutildah]

franky1 is once again trying to push his misunderstanding of how Ordinals works as the truth. For whatever reason he is fixated on the notion that something must be done according to how he thinks it should be done in order for it to be valid. This seems to be a recurring theme throughout his history on the forum.

Are you saying that if I want to transfer ownership of a picture of a frog uploaded to the bitcoin blockchain, then I do not have to physically move this picture to the address of the new owner? That the change of ownership will not be reflected in the bitcoin blockchain in any way and the picture with the frog will remain at my address, where I originally uploaded it, and only the entry on some external site will change? If so, then this is really some kind of shit and I need to learn more about the brc-20 token protocol.

You can't transfer the picture, physically or digitally, as it is "inscribed" in immovable space (witness data). You've never needed to be able to transfer it in order for the Ordinals protocol to function. Ownership of the picture is assigned to a particular satoshi (otherwise known as an "ordinal") during the inscription process. When the satoshi is transferred to a new address, that address becomes the owner of the inscribed data per the rules of the protocol.

Insisting that the inscription data has to also be transferred for the Ordinals NFT system to function is ridiculous, and here's why:

If I make an NFT and upload the image for it to imgur or something, nobody needs to transfer that image to a new web address each time the NFT is transferred. Nobody has ever thought this had to happen for NFTs to work, so why would the same not apply to Ordinals?

The main two differences with Ordinals are:

1) Instead of using a traditional, external file host, it uses the bitcoin blockchain as the host.
2) Instead of using a tokenization protocol ala ERC721 or Counterparty, it uses a colored coins system, assigning properties to individual satoshis.

Its actually pretty simple to understand if you are willing to understand it.

[serveria.com]

thus no more junk spam = no more junk spam/..

as for you caring about moving ownership of junk spam.. it is never proven in blockchain data that junk belongs to  particular output.. never has.. thus its never been a NFT or a ownership thing..
the junk spam data has just always been dead data added to witness area and just sits there as dead data.

I think that I, you, the developers of the core, and any user of the bitcoin network, have the right to have a private opinion whether the pictures of frogs uploaded to the network are useless garbage or malicious spam, and even have the right to express this opinion publicly (but for the developers of the core, it is in their own interests best to be as careful as possible). But we can't ban it just because we don't like it. Because the owner of the picture with the frog will say that bitcoin is a scam, promised to keep its value and did not fulfill the promise - and we will have nothing to object to him. Who in their right mind would entrust their value to a network that, over time, could change the rules of the game and declare that value invalid garbage?

Well if there's a double spend bug and some users manage to double their Bitcoin holdings using the loophole, tell me, when the bug is fixed, can these users keep their doubled stashes?    You're trying to put it in such a way to make people think these NFT actually have value (which they don't). So how can they lose value if they don't have any value? And another thing: Bitcoin doesn't promise anything to anyone. It doesn't promise you will earn anything or even keep the money you invested. Theoretically, Bitcoin can go to 0 any moment. So, saying Bitcoin should keep some promise to the NFT owners is simply laughable. 

And I really think that Bitcoin devs are not stopping this madness because somebody on the internet forum may think they're abusing their power or freedom is threatened but just because for some reason they don't consider it a threat to Bitcoin and it's health (yet). 

[be.open]

thus no more junk spam = no more junk spam/..

as for you caring about moving ownership of junk spam.. it is never proven in blockchain data that junk belongs to  particular output.. never has.. thus its never been a NFT or a ownership thing..
the junk spam data has just always been dead data added to witness area and just sits there as dead data.

I think that I, you, the developers of the core, and any user of the bitcoin network, have the right to have a private opinion whether the pictures of frogs uploaded to the network are useless garbage or malicious spam, and even have the right to express this opinion publicly (but for the developers of the core, it is in their own interests best to be as careful as possible). But we can't ban it just because we don't like it. Because the owner of the picture with the frog will say that bitcoin is a scam, promised to keep its value and did not fulfill the promise - and we will have nothing to object to him. Who in their right mind would entrust their value to a network that, over time, could change the rules of the game and declare that value invalid garbage?

Well if there's a double spend bug and some users manage to double their Bitcoin holdings using the loophole, tell me, when the bug is fixed, can these users keep their doubled stashes?    You're trying to put it in such a way to make people think these NFT actually have value (which they don't). So how can they lose value if they don't have any value? And another thing: Bitcoin doesn't promise anything to anyone. It doesn't promise you will earn anything or even keep the money you invested. Theoretically, Bitcoin can go to 0 any moment. So, saying Bitcoin should keep some promise to the NFT owners is simply laughable.  

And I really think that Bitcoin devs are not stopping this madness because somebody on the internet forum may think they're abusing their power or freedom is threatened but just because for some reason they don't consider it a threat to Bitcoin and it's health (yet).  

You seem to underestimate this weird meme economy and the size of the meme community. When Coinbase recently stated that Pepe frogs are “co-opted as a hate symbol by alt-right groups”, it caused such a flurry of indignation that they had to publicly apologize. Or take the same doge, this is initially an absolutely useless coin created as a joke and mined for change from litecoin, however, it has a huge army of fans, a stable place in the top 10 and a capitalization of $ 10 billion. I also find this strange, but I would be careful not to underestimate the power of a mob of idiots. Everyone has different value systems.

I think for 90% the general public, bitcoin is considered a kind of ponzi scheme, for them, bitcoin is garbage, and not just garbage, but environmentally harmful garbage that burns electricity in vain and does nothing useful, so moderate your meme snobbery, for most people lovers of meme tokens and bitcoin-maximalists are the same idiots.

[franky1]

The main two differences with Ordinals are:

1) Instead of using a traditional, external file host, it uses the bitcoin blockchain as the host.
2) Instead of using a tokenization protocol ala ERC721 or Counterparty, it uses a colored coins system, assigning properties to individual satoshis.

Its actually pretty simple to understand if you are willing to understand it.

yet you dont understand

for instance
the assigning properties to individual satoshis:
firstly his counting policy is OFF(miscounting. miss associating to which sats go where)..
secondly he can change his counting policy without affecting the block data.
thirdly the blockdata does not link witness of the input to any specific satoshi.. HIS UX(GUI/EXPLORER/DISPLAY/USER INTERFACE does) meaning as i said secondly.. he can change his counting policy without having to change the blockdata. but the result of changing at user display (his easy scam) means ownership changes even without changing the block data

i tried to simplify it down to ELI-5 (Explain Like Im 5) because some people just cant understand technical stuff.. they ask for it to be explained to them more simply
because when i do mention technical detail people cry that they cant understand it.

so i then explain it simply.. then we have the idiots crying again that they dont want to believe the truth because i am not talking to them like grown ups. even though they asked for it to be simplified and treat them as toddlers becasue of their tantrums and not showing any desire to learn as adults.

how about instead of crying both ways to deny the truth, to stay in dream land. can you actually do some research, math, economics, data flow scenarios. reading block data. and learn something. from real data. not caseys described scam wording

you seem to waste weeks finding ways to deny the illusion. rather than just spend hours doing the research..
look away from what casey says about his scams method of counting. and instead look at the real block data. the structure of monetary policy and spends. and proofs(lack of).

instead of using "trust in human because buddy X kissed me", try to use logic, math, code, economics, real data to guide you
trust the blockchain data and math.. not a project manager(that can change the way he counts(bad math))

again i do find it strange that nutildah continually says he is not financially motivated to promote ordinals.. yet is hell bent on making people believe caseys bad maths as being more factual than the actual blockdata/monetary policy/economics value flow.. that does not even count sats in the way casey does

for instance.
when spending value. the mining pools take the value first. where the transactions listed afterward show the outputs  signifying where the 'change' (remainder) should return/go to.

this means when a coinbase reward is being spent. the "first sat" of a block reward actually goes back to the block which contains and spending transaction. because the fee takes the "first sat"

yep economics and maths beats caseys deception and miscount

..
but if you want to believe that ordinals are associated with a outputs sats..(according to caseys explorer counting method display)
there are already alot of inscriptions in transactions where the outputs value is ZERO sats. thus. not even following any sats. yet are listed in inscriptions with an index.. thus the inscription index count is also off..

[Wind_FURY]

so now windfury is denying the existing of these meme bloat.. and denying that core devs are devs..
soo who is mis informing??

core are bitcoin devs that softened consensus and even your forum daddy admits core done it. he loves promoting their role in it.

so if you are denying it. then you are denying your daddy. again you sway in one direction when the scripts written for you say A then you change to script B denying A when the script changes

how about look at code. look at block data instead of your silly influencer social drama of trusting people.

LOOK AT THE DATA. do your research.  

Okay, you're right. The developers of the core have been quite consistent in easing the initially tight restrictions of bitcoin, this has had its consequences, both positive and negative. With this we figured out, to the question "who is to blame?" the correct answer is found, now let's move on to the question "what to do?". Because it's easy and fun to loosen restrictions - it entails promising prospects in terms of scaling and rapid success in terms of breadth of adoption. But there is a nuance, once a weakened restriction can no longer be strengthened back without at least a partial loss of backward compatibility. Someone will inevitably suffer in this case - simply because yesterday it was still possible, but today it has become impossible. What do you propose to do about it, other than pointless grumbling on the forum?

He proposes nothing. He merely wants to gaslight everyone into believing that the Core Developers are "evil", and that they should be replaced as the stewards of the network. That has ALWAYS been the big blockers' agenda. Roger Ver and Jihan Wu have given up and hard forked to the altcoin Bitcoin Cash, but some of the members of their Flat-Earthers association has obviously not given up.

 

so now windfury is denying the existing of these meme bloat.. and denying that core devs are devs..
soo who is mis-informing??

Putting words in my mouth again, franky101?

This is what I said,

You're a forum drama-queen. But what's the solution franky101? A hard fork the bigger blocks to "scale onchain" and end with us having an unscalable, bloated blockchain? Because that's always been your stance, and probably also the removal of the Core Developers as the stewards of the network. Your gaslighting might work on newbies, but it will never work on the forum-sisters. Hahaha.

Frankly (no pun intended) I don't understand why he even bothers... He's wrong on a technical level a decent deal of the time so its not like he's really "here to educate." He's here to derail topics and crack heads, specifically those of people who believe in milli-sats.

Gaslighting and disinformation. I could personally say that it truly works on plebs/newbies, because I was one of those plebs/newbies who thought that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right solution to scale Bitcoin during the days of the scaling debate, thanks to franky101 and jonald_fyookball. They did a good job in convincing many many people that the "Evil Core Developers" were acting in their own self-interest by regulating the block size. But everyone already knows it was FUD, and ignorant comments. I don't know why people in the forum vote him every year as the "Anti-Hero". Hahaha.

The major difference between villain and antagonist (anti hero) is that a villain is a dark or wicked character who opposes the story's hero, whereas an anti-hero is a protagonist who lacks heroic characteristics.

https://gobookmart.com/the-major-difference-between-villain-and-antagonist-anti-hero/

[franky1]

i laugh at you silly people.. you spend more weeks wasted on personality attacks. rather then using brain to learn bitcoin

let me guess. you dont want to learn about bitcoin becasue "franky said to learn it" .. is that your excuse?
goodluck with that

i feel sorry that your only on this forum to talk about franky. and evade talking about bitcoin..
but atleast your methods explain why your still penny pinching for sats using forum sig campaigns rather then being self sustaining wealthy by understanding more,
maybe if you tried to learn a thing or two about how things work you would not need to penny pinch for scraps. and instead actually earn a proper comfortable living situation

so just for once try to learn bitcoin not "project managers kiss ass techniques"

[nutildah]

We've been over all this too many times before. What it boils down to is your refusal to either learn or accept the rules of the protocol for what they are. You think things have to work according to how they work in your head, and they do not.

"But the rules could change at any moment!" isn't a valid argument. The rules of this forum could change at any moment, yet people still continue to use it. Coming up with "But what ifs" is just a way to avoid admitting that you don't really understand how ordinal transfers works, despite multiple hand-holding attempts to explain it to you.

And your whole "nutildah is secretly invested in ordinals" scenario is just another dumb "what if." People can believe me when I say I've never purchased one and never will, or not. You're continuing to bring it up because you can't actually debate your points on a technical level.

The only reason I said anything here is because you continue to spew misinformation about how Ordinals works. You're intent on miseducating people for reasons beyond my understanding.

[franky1]

BITCOIN is a system where once the blockchain data is set. that is then confirmed immutible data that cannot change because it fits the rules and the rules fit the data

by softening the rules to let junk in. and then say that some project managers explorer display of said junk is the rules even though their display can change at a moment notice.. that is not a rule. that is just a display for noobs who the project manager wants to scam

caseys description of "ownership" can change because casey can say in his "special explorer" the meme in transactionXXX of block 7XX,XXX now belongs to output 2 instead of one. then thats not a rule


so instead of trusting a project managers special website comments.. instead follow the block data and logic and math. not some project managers weak soft description of what his "special explorer" weakly suggests. which can change at a moments notice to suggest something else

trust math, data, economics, logic, not project managers website comments
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

im not even asking you to trust me. im asking you to do your own research away from comments on websites

i do laugh that nutildah. pretends to debunk by using an example. yet the examples he uses debunks him
he then says how blockdata doesnt show ownership and that it requires a "special explorer" to show it.

again debunking his original premiss that its real proof on the blockchain

ok lets try this one more time lets use nutildahs own example against him

youe own post gave the descriptor of "uncommon"
yet the example you then gave was not uncommon

Read the location of the sat in the Ordinals explorer. Its the tx hash of the UTXO in the address of the Emblem Vault.

As I mentioned previously its the first sat that was mined in block 781,463. To track where it goes, you just need to follow the first output each time it is spent, as sats move on a First In, First Out basis per Ordinals Theory.

Let's follow the sat from the block from which it was mined, with the output destination for each tx:

https://www.blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1d6cee0a930e327eacf74fae751613665091f5ecead34317510593c861e446cd - 1CK6KHY6MHgYvmRQ4PAafKYDrg1ejbH1cE (block reward)
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd - 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/03737c93d2996ebac8a5ba0a204df21ab430ca7cb4644144eeb6f11d19935de2 - 14UuoFXK89DEFqpAW9iYJ51o2N9PUFAVW5

first (wrong)theory. is that first sat goes to output1..
well economics, math, monetary policy is that first sat actually goes to fee's and the remainder goes to the destination(people call it the 'change'(left over denomination) after a transaction)

but lets do a nutildah and ignore economic basics. and for hypothetical example just roll with his pretense he beleives.

so the reward went to
128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

by which the spend of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
is not the first in but the 4th. meaning there is 0.16738313 extra added to the mix before the "first sat of block reward" gets spent.
meaning if you follow the value (ignoring fee spends for this theory) the 0.16738314th sat of the 5btc is the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

(at this point its not important as the next spend of the first output is 5btc so somewhere within that 5btc is the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount)
again lets ignore that some sats are lost as fees .. and just follow the output taint(lets pretend the theory had economic logic(it doesnt but lets pretend.)

so now the "block reward first sat" is in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
which nutildah thinks now strangely moved to 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

however.. reading the actual data
the majority of the 5btc moves to ITSELF (1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW again)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd

yep the majority of the 5btc (which includes the funds of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og go straight back to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW ,, not 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

then
that spend
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/f6a0b019ee7bfaf05fc76de299cce67bb3438fb8a9a5e6ffbd4a2ae84cc483ef
does not give the value to 1AEX2g1o1z9yzqsNfwamcktVCdTgfvTThb because that first output has not spent more then 0.16738313 to reach the 0.16738314th sat to be the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount
so the first sat of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/6399520d225392af07662472b5ed33d07f46b8a244b878f16cb664b84b6948a4
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/7f11edada5069a03e3d430a0c64f2ecf10b422909f302a8c81b8614dfdc21917
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again

and this continues for many many taint hops wher the "first sat" remains according to casey theory.. in the !GQ address
..
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.
..
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