Bitcoin Civil War

[be.open]

<This post does not quality for sig campaign payments per my request, if that makes your astute mind feel better.>

Your gesture is commendable, but it has little effect on the overall balance of power in this issue of pro and contra. I don't want your sacrifice, make money while you have the opportunity, I just don't want the fear of losing this source of income to interfere with your ability to adequately assess the possible negative side effects of your proposed hasty decisions.

[1713523175]

1713523175

[1713523175]

1713523175

[1713523175]

1713523175

[Artemis3]

There is no war. Just a bug being exploited. Lets kick the spam out. they can go elsewhere, no one is stopping them to make their own spam blockchain.



Ordisrespector

[franky1]

There is no war. Just a bug being exploited. Lets kick the spam out. they can go elsewhere, no one is stopping them to make their own spam blockchain.


Ordisrespector

that is not a fix but a weak bypass. it just makes nodes not relay zero confirms p2p. yet most of the ordinal scumbags are doing pushtx direct with mining pools, evading the zero confirm p2p relay. so it wont stop it

a true fix is to have devs actually only enable opcodes that have rules and conditions of use. where if the content after the opcode doesnt fit the rules then its rejected. thus no random data can be put into witness

whereby blocks can be rejected if they put in tx that dont fit the rules.. as bitcoin should be (having proper consensus rules)

[be.open]

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.

the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled
a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature
they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits

if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be

letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse.
if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make
years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled

they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box

reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it.
before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development.
it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now
going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes

and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content

You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap.

[franky1]

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.

the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled
a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature
they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits

if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be

letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse.
if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make
years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled

they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box

reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it.
before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development.
it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now
going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes

and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content

You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap.

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

[Dunamisx]

The truth is that everyone want ordinals to be cancelled in it entirety otherwise they find a lasting Solution to it

I believe that to build a bigger ecosystem, brighter future for Bitcoin, we need to have bigger communities, more use cases for its network.

Coming to a solution to block Bitcoin Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens, smart contracts are very last solutions which are not best idea and solution for all. It is kind of censorship on use cases and if Bitcoin developers, communities can do such censorship this time, they will be able to repeat same in future.

In addition, if we believe that in future, Bitcoin adoption will be bigger, demand to use on-chain transactions will be bigger to a level which is similar to the current one even without Ordinals, BRC20 tokens, we must deeply think of other solutions, technically rather than simply censor any use case we don't like.

Yes, you're right and i like the fact that you specifically quoted the aspect that i mentioned "provided there will be a lasting solution to it" it's bot about kicking against ordinals that solves the entire problem because we can't predict the future on what's coming next after this on bitcoin network and the transaction fee, we can give ordinals a two method of approach, first is the use case of bitcoin which has increased through the introduction of ordinals on the bitcoin blockspace.

But should that be a threat to users by inflating them with high fees while the external users are enjoying the pump on their token at our own expenses? Secondly if we are to eliminate Ordinals, does that gives a permanent solution to any means of increased transaction fee in the future? I also finally agrees that we are trying to secure the network from future attack through this by kicking against ordinals, to me we have to give a good attention to the both sides and think twice before the new solution arrives.

[be.open]

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale.

[franky1]

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale.

you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them
(i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally)

so here is my response
before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016

GO learn

oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing

these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern
its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system

another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too"
the rebuttal of that is simple
back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk.

opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned..

unlike the situation in the recent years
yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them..
well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do

and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script
i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research

[be.open]

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale.

you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them
(i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally)

so here is my response
before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016

GO learn

oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing

these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern
its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system

another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too"
the rebuttal of that is simple
back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk.

opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned..

unlike the situation in the recent years
yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them..
well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do

and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script
i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research

Dude, you are too fixated on specific implementation details and it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. It is possible to ban a particular implementation at the cost of several years of progress towards scaling, a split in the community, and perhaps even at the cost of the success of the bitcoin project as a whole. But it is impossible to forbid the very fundamental possibility of adding arbitrary data to the bitcoin blockchain, because it has existed since the start of the network. You forbid one implementation - sooner or later there will be another. But then you will not be able to say in a conversation with friends over a glass of whiskey that this network is resistant to censorship and anti-fragile. Think about it at your leisure.

[franky1]

your soo fixated on letting devs loosen consensus for their benefit of not having to wait for the community to be ready to activate a new opcode/ruleset.. and not fix their stupidity. that you will let them make more future stupid implementations that allow newer future exploits

ever heard the term bug fixes, patches, .. i guess not
you do realise that things can be fixed without halting genuine progress

devs own message about enabling lots of opcodes was that they would when utility of such was needed they would then apply rules to opcodes.. thus avoid a activation process in the middle by flipping the paradigm
however guess what these unassigned opcodes that had no rules are being used so devs should now be assigning rules .. BUT THEY ARE NOT. thus breaking more promises


take your scripts and shred them. and then go do some research, learn the code learn how things worked and how they work now. stop reading some cave dweller chest thumping words and actually learn bitcoin

you are putting more care into what certain devs should be allowed to do unhindered rather than thinking about BITCOIN that should protect itself from human exploitation of code

dont defend a dev. defend the code from devs
if devs make a mistake they should undo that mistake

there are ways to code rules that dont hinder development.. its called rules..  yep code is rules.
the current bypass and assume valid lack of rules is a flaw not a feature

[Agbe]

Will actions be taken to insulate bitcoin users from high fees? Yes.

Any action that can be taken to make the high Bitcoin transaction fee from the blockchain by the developers should be done with immediate action. People are not happy about the stuff. The fee right now is abnormal to the average users of bitcoin.

Should these blokes be taken seriously? No.

But they are affecting the whole system, so if there is any way out then... action should be taken.

But should they be challenged anyway? Yes, because if we don't, newbies will be caught in their disinformation net.

It is not only newbies that will enter the disinformation net but also those who are not aware of the news will be affected. Therefore challenging them is one of the best approach to free the system.

[Poker Player]

Any action that can be taken to make the high Bitcoin transaction fee from the blockchain by the developers should be done with immediate action. People are not happy about the stuff. The fee right now is abnormal to the average users of bitcoin.

I might agree with you if you were talking about kicking spam off the blockchain, but simply because prices go up in a supply and demand environment, trying to regulate them down is a mistake that has been known since Diocletian's edict, no matter how much certain politicians insist on forgetting history. So what happens when fees go up in a mass adoption environment? Or in the future when the block reward is minimal?

[DooMAD]

Ordisrespector

that is not a fix but a weak bypass. it just makes nodes not relay zero confirms p2p. yet most of the ordinal scumbags are doing pushtx direct with mining pools, evading the zero confirm p2p relay. so it wont stop it

But it's all you're likely going to get for the time being.  The devs can't even agree between themselves what the "right" course of action is.  I don't think they'll be intervening directly in the very near future.  And clearly the miners won't have much interest in stopping all this extra income they're getting.  I suggest you try to "make do" with what you've got.  

Or, at the risk of suggesting something utterly futile, you could code something yourself and release it (but we both know that's never going to happen and you're too entitled to do anything yourself when you could simply whine about it and accomplish nothing, as per usual).

Any action that can be taken to make the high Bitcoin transaction fee from the blockchain by the developers should be done with immediate action. People are not happy about the stuff.

a true fix is to have devs actually only enable opcodes that have rules and conditions of use

What you both need to keep in mind is that the Devs you are referring to are not directly beholden to you.  It's unreasonable to expect them to take any action that would appease you but upset others in the process.  I'd like to think I'm not the only one who cares about censorship resistance and I would find it deeply troubling if we abandon that principle at the first sign of a problem.  I'm fully aware that neither of you care in the slightest about my concerns, but just try to keep in mind that you don't speak for everyone.  I have zero personal interest in silly pictures, but I don't see it as my place to police what others can or can't do.  

If you believe it is your place to dictate how others can transact, then I sincerely hope Karma bites you in the arse at some point in the future and someone tells you that your usage of the blockchain isn't acceptable to them and they intervene to stop you transacting in the way you want to.  And if it reached that stage, I'd be long gone, because BTC would be well and truly dead in my view.  And your totalitarian mentality would have been what killed it.

Permissionless freedom or bust.  I'm never budging on that, so either get used to sharing a blockchain with me or fork off.  Your call.  

[CryptSafe]

Do you guys think I should email these bozos and tell them who's really behind the "war declaration?" 😂

I do not think it is necessary telling them who declared the war. This should be a good strategy to get them confused as to where the pressure is coming from so they do not know and channel the revenge and retaliation against you.
This is a good way of attacking the enemy. Let them never know it is coming from you while you sit and watch them fighting themselves.

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

It is quite unfortunate what has happened the past few days.  The network congestion was something else. Very frustrating and dissappointing. If not spamming, I would have preferred it to be called BRC20 bot attack on bitcoin chain. It was very devastating that the delay caused a lot of set backs and backlogs of transactions to be confirmed coupled with the high transaction fee charges which did not go down well with bitcoin enthusiasts.
I support the motion for actions to be taken against the BRC20 bots before they overwhelm the whole system with their greedy and selfish interest.

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

The battle line has already been drawn.  Either way, I believe bitcoin enthusiasts on Twitter are releasing their arsenals against them.
This is a good war to demoralizing them before hand and making them feel the pains they already caused verbally and through the social media outlets while the others carry on the war from the other zone.
"Ceteris paribus"

[BlackHatCoiner]

Disappointed. Really disappointed.

What are you going to do if they send them to miners? Soft fork? What then? What if they embed them in non-standard OP_RETURN transactions? Ban the op code? What if they send them in 256-bit chunks, as if the metadata is divided in multi-sig addresses?

And who had me signed that I should make transactions only if they help on Bitcoin adoption? Misplaced meme.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Will there be a fork? No.

I believe the miners will be in the other side of the "civil war".

Miners fees currently went up in the market, so as to keep them encouraged following their recent halas. This is according to recent reports trailing the current Bitcoin price having gone down by a percent. We are experiencing a time where Bitcoin management is stepping up to make the exchange better.  Ordinals or not, the system can only grow if we trust it would work.
The war would mostly be effected by miners, even with our output on media, only those who really impact its development will cause the fork if not with one mind and it would ruin whatever ideology was thought out for the whole concept of a BTC decentralized system.

[dragonvslinux]

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.

But sure, you can just blame shitcoiners, basement dwellers (whatever that really means) and anyone you don't like as those who are supportive of ordinals. Even though probably the majority of Bitcoin users are currently opposed to them, what you have to remember is that Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about it's users. It only cares about those who are following the rules of the network and paying the appropriate fees.

Often people forget that users can complain as much as like like, just like in 2017 with the civil war over block size. But ultimately it doesn't matter how many people bitch and moan like babies and cry about high fees, the miners will keep on mining, the devs will keep on coding. Those who aren't willing or able to pay high fees will get left behind. Bitcoin doesn't wait for any cry babies I'm afraid. Harsh but true. My only real fear/concern if that those opposed to ordinals and inscriptions will begin to promote the hard fork approach, and it will be like 2017 all over again, with new BTC-based shitcoiners born every minute.

I'm not even someone who's supportive of ordinals or BRC20 in general, I think Ethereum is a better designed network for these type of endeavours if that's what you're into. But what I am opposed to is the amount of people complaining about how popular Bitcoin currently is, which I have no issues with personally. Calling ordinals spam when it's neither advertising, phising or malware - so by definition can't generally be considered spam - this is just a matter of perception. One persons idea of spam is others idea of something they want to buy, own or find value in. Doesn't matter how many times you call it spam, it doesn't make it so.

Rant over. TL:DR: I take the Bitcoin maxi view of Michael Saylor in favour of Bitcoin usage.

[Volgastallion]

Anyone can think in the poor El Salvador people who use BTC in her normal day?

Do you imaging paying $10 usd fee for one kg of bread?.

Well i know nobody use in the day to day BTC its only a "joke".

[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

he wants people to move away from bitcoin and use another network. so ofcourse he doesnt want bitcoin exploits fixed

the thing is many have used LN seen its flaws and moved out of LN. there are more people using other subnetwork bridges. becasue of the simple fact that LN is flawed and limited and doesnt meets its promises/purpose/function that people were told it could

LN will never handle bitcoin value amounts. its always going to be a small niche service for the penny pinchers to borrow value between each other and steal that borrowed value from others

Anyone can think in the poor El Salvador people who use BTC in her normal day?

el salvador was scammed/duped into using LN because they were told "it was bitcoin".. after 3 months. they seen the flaws and liquidity issues. they instead went with something else

the promoter that duped them then ran off and tried his game in africa. who also seen the same flaws..
they too are trying something else

i do hope devs dont waste another 6 years trying to force people over to broken LN and instead try to plug the bitcoin exploit or start afresh on a different subnetwork bridge that is actually useful.. because the solution/salvation is not going to be LN

[dragonvslinux]

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.

Anyway, I'm not going to suggest that Lightning is the solution to everyone's problems right now, I've been hearing an increasing amount of issues with it, but I'm not going to rule it out either as Bitcoin had enough issues in it's first few years as well. There are also better L2 solutions right now but they lack the liquidity as well as development. So whether this high fee era increases Lightning adoption, or otherwise increases adoption of other L2s, I still think it's all generally healthy. Even if it means these L2s need a LOT of work to become more functional, which I believe they do, it will also encourage this which is well overdue.

Also I've noticed that in these ordinals type of threads there are a lot of respectable members avoiding sharing their opinions on this issue (whereas they often do in this board without hesitation). I assume a lot of Bitcoiners, if not most, are actually on the fence at the moment (neutral), and instead most of the voices are wanting some form of censorship, as opposed to it being an actual majority of Bitcoiners wanting this type of censorship. Possibly because in a few weeks or months this ordinals "craze" might pass, just like the high fees at the end of 2017, or otherwise during 2021. Just a thought.

Finally many Bitcoiners remember how divisive it was talking about changing the network during the high fees of 2017, which led to a hard fork. Most people don't want another hard fork.