Bitcoin Civil War

[Wind_FURY]

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.

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance. The fact that developers are willing to build inefficient apps on the Bitcoin blockchain that doesn't solve anything, or doesn't push the network technologically forward, should tell us that these "improvements" are laughable from a development perspective.

[1715402280]

1715402280

[1715402280]

1715402280

[1715402280]

1715402280

[1715402280]

1715402280

[nutildah]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

Yeah but its not though.

Its literally just a bunch of degens who are using Bitcoin blockspace for their latest round of Ponzi hot potato passing. Once they grow bored of it, and they will, they'll simply move on to the next thing and fees will go back to normal (or at least substantially lower). I have heard the conspiracy theory that BSV people are behind it, and there are indeed developers from there working on ordinals and BRC20 stuff, but that's simply because its more profitable to work on BTC than BSV.

[NotATether]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

Yeah but its not though.

Its literally just a bunch of degens who are using Bitcoin blockspace for their latest round of Ponzi hot potato passing. Once they grow bored of it, and they will, they'll simply move on to the next thing and fees will go back to normal (or at least substantially lower). I have heard the conspiracy theory that BSV people are behind it, and there are indeed developers from there working on ordinals and BRC20 stuff, but that's simply because its more profitable to work on BTC than BSV.

I don't believe these conspiracy theories about BSV developers using BRC20 as an attack vector - they strike me more like the people who say "Oh so Russia attacked Ukraine? It's WWIII now!" ^{(then why aren't you in your bunker?)}.

In other words, complete non-sense.

[Wind_FURY]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

Yeah but its not though.

Its literally just a bunch of degens who are using Bitcoin blockspace for their latest round of Ponzi hot potato passing. Once they grow bored of it, and they will, they'll simply move on to the next thing and fees will go back to normal (or at least substantially lower). I have heard the conspiracy theory that BSV people are behind it, and there are indeed developers from there working on ordinals and BRC20 stuff, but that's simply because its more profitable to work on BTC than BSV.

I never said anything is/was an "attack", I merely said that Ordinals "could be" used to attack the network. Because from a technical and practical standpoint in any software application - the more features it has, the more attack vectors it will also have. It's a fact.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

I get that it can be annoying to pay the miner an extra dollar, but how exactly can it attack the principles of Bitcoin? It's just a bunch of greater fool theory worthless tokens which don't hurt anyone but the one buying them last.

I don't believe these conspiracy theories about BSV developers using BRC20 as an attack vector

Calling them "developers" somewhat insults the rest of the developers in the programming community. What was the last time they made a big commitment? By opening up the repository I only see just a seemingly dumped Bitcoin Core fork. Didn't expect more to be honest.

[franky1]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

I get that it can be annoying to pay the miner an extra dollar, but how exactly can it attack the principles of Bitcoin?

you two fools are both forum-sisters pretending to fight but just trying to distract from the real conversation. your shitty buzzwords pretending bitcoin shouldnt have rules is where you both fail. bitcoin only works due to rules.

the relaxation/removal and softening of rules is whats causing the problem. devs caused that.
asics do not program the bitcoin network. nor do asics choose the transactions. nor do asics choose the fee's so just stop with the "miner to blame" stuff.. its not logical

so you not realise your about 12 years out of date of blaming solo miners..

you want to pretend its user error or miner fault. but its not. its devs that created an exploit which is causing this nonsense useless bloat

bitcoin was invented WITH STRICT RULES.
every byte had a purpose and a validycheck rule for its utility.. over time those rules have been removed, relaxed , softened

your forum wife is the ultimate idiot feeding you both stupid narratives to social drama over to deflect from the real cause. and you both foolishly just follow his scripts like idiots.

bitcoins rules have been relaxed which is bad. grow up realise it and care more about bitcoin and less about kissing dev ass.. devs come and go so defending a dev while promoting the breaking of bitcoin rules is not a good trait. but heck you both are not bitcoiners you both love other networks. so i dont see you actually caring any time soon about the future of bitcoin. as long as you both continue hoping to recruit people over to your other prefered systems.

it is funny how 6 years ago your clan said that rejecting blocks was not censorship (mandatory segwit flagging)
it is funny how 6 years ago your clan said that excess transactions without meme/json bloat was an attack..

but now you are saying the opposite. you dont want blocks rejected for X. and you think spam of junk memes/json meaningless data is not an attack

the only time you pretend its meaningless data is when you see you fanbase move away from kissing your ass so you have to change your narrative to recruit people back..

you both cant even pick a narrative and stick with it. you just both follow whatever script was spoonfed to you.

[Wind_FURY]

But be careful with the narrative debating that "it's not an attack", because Ordinals could be used as an attack that could hide itself behind Bitcoin's very ethos of permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

I get that it can be annoying to pay the miner an extra dollar, but how exactly can it attack the principles of Bitcoin?

you two fools are both forum-sisters pretending to fight but just trying to distract from the real conversation. your shitty buzzwords pretending bitcoin shouldnt have rules is where you both fail. bitcoin only works due to rules.

the relaxation/removal and softening of rules is whats causing the problem. devs caused that.
asics do not program the bitcoin network. nor do asics choose the transactions. nor do asics choose the fee's so just stop with the "miner to blame" stuff.. its not logical

so you not realise your about 12 years out of date of blaming solo miners..

you want to pretend its user error or miner fault. but its not. its devs that created an exploit which is causing this nonsense useless bloat

bitcoin was invented WITH STRICT RULES.
every byte had a purpose and a validycheck rule for its utility.. over time those rules have been removed, relaxed , softened

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.

[nutildah]

Calling them "developers" somewhat insults the rest of the developers in the programming community. What was the last time they made a big commitment? By opening up the repository I only see just a seemingly dumped Bitcoin Core fork. Didn't expect more to be honest.

When I used the term I was referencing people who decided to build on top of BSV (as dumb of a choice as that may have been, some have seen the err of their ways and reverted back to BTC or moved to other blockchains).

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.

you both cant even pick a narrative and stick with it. you just both follow whatever script was spoonfed to you.

so you're saying the script doesn't have a narrative?

[NotATether]

For the record, there are a ton of power users who fork codebases left and right, and I don't consider any of them as developers. Same if you don't actually know how to code and you use a Generative AI to write all of your code.

Now then, forking a huge codebase and applying a few dozen commits doesn't bring your power levels up to 9000, which would be the case if they had actually made 9000 useful commits (that actually accomplish something that users/other devs need), which is also not the case

[franky1]

the idiot brigade above have no clue they dont want the exploits fixed because they cant explain how to fix one.. all they think of is "forks" so thats all they want to mention(create new networks) as their possible option..

however exploits can be fixed without a fork.

forks (2 divided chains than sustain) happen when there is contention.. EG low acceptance rate of one side (no super majority)
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

however there can be a high consensus acceptance rate, without a secondary chain creation.
there can be rule changes that after block X witness area needs to be lean. with expected data that fits specifications..
there are many opcodes that can be changed. many limits many formats. its not just "put up with it or fork"

rules that expect formatting, expect actual signature proofs to belong in witness area is not censorship. its called efficient use of blockspace. people can still transact. but without having junk push their tx out of mempools.

all doomad cares about is the devs that patented a secondary network get to mess with bitcoin to push peoples transactions into such a premium and such a hassle that people give up using bitcoin to use the secondary network doomad prefers. because that secondary network (which has alot more bugs, flaws) is a network where middle men take a cut of the fee's people pay to use the middle men just to get them to accept their payments


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. but all they instead want to shout is "put up with it or f**k off to another network"

its the latest updates that became exploitable, not ones from decade ago. and they dont know this so wont admit this because all they have been told is stupid stories about how blocks have always been exploitable.. all becasue their silly puppet masters dont want them to know the real cause and dont want them to talk about how it was core devs cause.. not miners. how it should be core devs that take responsibility and fix their errors

core have become too centralised.. any dev thats not the "core" half dozen maintainers are treated as opposition if they even tried to fix the exploits. thats how centralised things have become. total elitist authoritarianism and yet the script puppets want to pretend its those that didnt code the exploits being called the authoritarians.. which is absolutely illogical narrative.

[Artemis3]

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.  

So Bitcoin belongs to you to do whatever you want with it and its the end of discussion.

[be.open]

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.  

So Bitcoin belongs to you to do whatever you want with it and its the end of discussion.

Bitcoin belongs to anyone who is willing to pay the market price for a transaction. But for some reason you demand special preferences for yourself, and it seems your best argument is that transactions used to be cheaper than they are now. That's funny.

[Volgastallion]

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.  

So Bitcoin belongs to you to do whatever you want with it and its the end of discussion.

Bitcoin belongs to anyone who is willing to pay the market price for a transaction. But for some reason you demand special preferences for yourself, and it seems your best argument is that transactions used to be cheaper than they are now. That's funny.

I was going to make a replication to your last comment, but i learn you are TROLLING a high level. Its doesnt worth to waste energy in a answer to that last claim.

I hope nobody keep feeding this troll. DONT FEED THE TROLL.

[be.open]

I was going to make a replication to your last comment, but i learn you are TROLLING a high level. Its doesnt worth to waste energy in a answer to that last claim.

I hope nobody keep feeding this troll. DONT FEED THE TROLL.

You have nothing to say in essence and you decided to get personal? Cute. I have more Merits in 120 days than you. I don't hide my face and don't try to lick ass on a price watch thread. So shut up and go fuck yourself.

[Wind_FURY]

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]

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.  

[be.open]

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?

[franky1]

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

[Haunebu]

Damn. This whole thread is filled with members literally fighting for various reasons. Personally, I was stunned to see BTC TX times and fees getting screwed thanks to NFT bullshit which I thought was dead sometime back.

Luckily, BTC TX times and fees have almost gone back to normal pretty quickly which is the silver lining basically.

[NotATether]

Damn. This whole thread is filled with members literally fighting for various reasons. Personally, I was stunned to see BTC TX times and fees getting screwed thanks to NFT bullshit which I thought was dead sometime back.

I left this thread open so that it can demonstrate the point that Bitcoin consensus really is decentralized and is not a censor as some hooligans on Twitter and Youtube claim