Eligius pool is back under the new name Ocean

[cryptosize]

"Valid" points indeed, zero personal bullshit:

I did not say he brings nothing but valid points, so not sure what are you trying to do here, there valid points, and I summarized some of them in my previous post, do you have any actual argument against them?

Can you you put HmmMAA on ignore so none of his posts show to you and then explain why you called us big blockers and how can you counter our arguments?

HmmMAA doesn't give a shit about BTC, his "interest" (concern trolling at its finest) regarding BTC censorship is 100% fake. In fact he loves it and would love it even more if BTC was destroyed.

But sure, you can listen to him if you want...

ps: I never called you a big blocker. Learn to read more carefully:

Because big blockers hate him and they have to "remind" us that he's a religious fanatic and/or dog-cat eater.

And yet, you felt "offended" somehow...

I'm only responsible for what I write, not for what you understand.

[1714607548]

1714607548

[mikeywith]

And yet, you felt "offended" somehow...

Not at all, i do not think calling for larger blocks is a crime, and so i do not think of "big blockers' as an insult, i simply asked why would you call us as such in your response.

Now after a few posts back and forth i can see that you are not interested in having a constructive conversation, just name calling and drama, likely because you have zero clue on the actual subject.

[HmmMAA]

I did not say he brings nothing but valid points, so not sure what are you trying to do here, there valid points, and I summarized some of them in my previous post, do you have any actual argument against them?

Can you you put HmmMAA on ignore so none of his posts show to you and then explain why you called us big blockers and how can you counter our arguments?

Everyone that is outside of the cult and uses his brain , according to cryptosize don't want the good of bitcoin ( as he imagines bitcoin ) . He bite the maxis narrative that btc will worth millions and that's what he's only interested about . We had many arguments in the past ( until i put him on ignore with his "friend" blackhatcoiner which when he disagreed at some point cryptosize decided to almost doxx him ) and there were no valid points from his side other than insults . We had extensive talks in the greek subforum about fee market and why the model is not sustainable , the future of bitcoin , how btc has became centralised through a group of devs deciding what's good or bad etc . It was tiring to interact with him and he is one of the persons that brandolini's law appies the most .  
I love bitcoin , i got into bitcoin because i thought it could change the world as we know it . And i still believe it , it's just that btc doesn't provide that anymore . If btc wasn't taken over by the maxis cult and offered a solution to everyone in the world to use it i would still be in the btc camp . But unfortunately btc has become a tool only to profit , no real advancement for years . Nothing is build anymore , devs are too focused in L2 . Ordinals and brc-20's is the only thing for years that moves btc forward . And it's a perfect example of how wrong maxis were , a project that can not be taken down by countries faces huge problems due to a couple of guys that decided to use it as it was intended to be used and that's not just as money . Transactions can be about anything , from money to data or anything else we can - or not yet - imagine .  
  

[Artemis3]

You can't compare apples to oranges.
Marathon pool complying with OFAC sanctions has nothing to do with filtering out ordinal transactions.
The government of the U.S. has nothing against Ordinals and inscriptions.

But there are good arguments towards pointing that inscriptions are actually a valid exploit of bitcoin's protocol and should be patched or at least filtered to the maximum extent.

The u.s. gov would be very happy to let us destroy BTC on our own I am sure.

ANY American company can be served a gag order at any moment on "National Security" grounds, and they are not allowed to speak about it. They can easily obtain it point "address x is linked to terrorist group y" and that's the end of it. Of course the OFAC rules have to be followed as well or else they get basically unable to operate anymore, so its not even a choice they have.

I'm sure govs and bankers are super happy that this exploit exists and is rapidly deteriorating Bitcoin reputation as an alternative to fiat, and the spammers making a quick buck at it while promoting their altcoins; win/win.

Linux distro wars (i.e. Ubuntu vs Debian = which one is the "true" GNU/Linux?) are not all that different compared to block size wars.

Gentoo obviously, where you can get the knots patch for bitcoind or reject it by adding a little flag, because surprise surprise, who maintains the bitcoind package? Yup


Those who use the word "censorship" fail to realize it is our freedom to block whatever we want from our nodes, or propose the template blocks we want from our mining. Blocking the spam entirely from Bitcoin is basically impossible, but the devs CAN make it harder/more expensive for the spam vs normal transactions, that is, actual bitcoin the "Electronic Cash System" not the p2p database of spam of late. The valid argument is that it was made much easier lately for spammers vs regular transactions as demonstrated all this year starting with ordinals but a bunch of other spammers trolls and anti bitcoiners who want to see the project die joined.

[mikeywith]

Those who use the word "censorship" fail to realize it is our freedom to block whatever we want from our nodes

Everyone has the freedom to block any transactions they want, but how does it not fit into censorship? it still does,  and nobody can stop you from doing so, but when you sell your mining pool as a saviour from censorship and still block certain transactions, it's normal for people to call you out.

Blocking the spam entirely from Bitcoin is basically impossible, but the devs CAN make it harder/more expensive for the spam vs normal transactions

How do you define spam? I could argue that transactions that pay high fees are not done to spam the blockchain, otherwise, if someone wants to "spam" the blockchain they can do so using only what you call "normal transactions".

Millions of $ were spent on ordinals and BRC-20 transactions, you could say they are worthless which I would agree with, but they sure are not the best definition of spam, but then let's just say that we all agree on calling them "spam", let's say they have been effectively blocked entirely, on a node level not just a few pools blocking them, something extreme that you would need to fork BTC to make such transactions valid.

What is going to happen next when those "spammers" start spending the same amount of $ on fees for actual spam transactions, i.e. transactions that are generated for the sole purpose of spam, what are you going to do about them? block any transactions that pay> x sat/vbyte? KYC all Bitcoin users to limit their transactions?

Transacting on the blockchain is not cheap, it's a fact we have to live with, if 1% of the world transactions start happening on BTC, you will miss the 500 sat/Vbyte era, so how are you going to solve this? what other types of transactions you are going to have to censor to save Bitcoin form failing?

[stompix]

Every time something Luke talks about is brought up people will have to remind everyone of his religion.
Why?

Because he keeps shoving it into people's faces?
Besides, just so you know m family is catholic (old continent catholic, if you know what I mean), and I still believe this guy is nuts and should juts shut up!

The discussion on how inscriptions abuse bugs in Bitcoin code is a very serious discussion

One coulda argue that internet speed and packets that allow you to stream and store porn when computers should be just used for programing and emails are bugs to the system. Have you seen the carbon footprint of porn?   Imagine there would be no more porn downloaded and uploaded, how cheap will the internet be then if we ban that! See the f* slippery slope when you call everything bugs and ask to ban what you don't like?

What is going to happen next when those "spammers" start spending the same amount of $ on fees for actual spam transactions, i.e. transactions that are generated for the sole purpose of spam, what are you going to do about them? block any transactions that pay> x sat/vbyte? KYC all Bitcoin users to limit their transactions?

More crying and arguing on a forum or social media?
Total reward from fees was 136.93 BTC last day, so this include "legit" transactions but let's ignore that, so for some malevolent entity to spam the network into making it almost unusable it needs around 5 million a day, Manchester City alone spent close to 3 million a day on running cost , wage plus whatever the others thigs are. We're still day dreaming (some of us) of a system to replace banks and Visa and other non-sense when it could be bought down to its knees by some jpg monkeys and a the budget of a football team. And yeah, some think we could win a war with a f** country!

[mikeywith]

More crying and arguing on a forum or social media?
Total reward from fees was 136.93 BTC last day, so this include "legit" transactions but let's ignore that, so for some malevolent entity to spam the network into making it almost unusable it needs around 5 million a day, Manchester City alone spent close to 3 million a day on running cost , wage plus whatever the others thigs are. We're still day dreaming (some of us) of a system to replace banks and Visa and other non-sense when it could be bought down to its knees by some jpg monkeys and a the budget of a football team. And yeah, some think we could win a war with a f** country!

Ban coffee transactions and you will be good to go. but ya all jokes aside, I have a very hard time believing that all these cries are actually related to the fact that they think "jpegs actually hurt bitcoin" because I am convinced that -- it's only because those jpegs are increasing the fees.

I mean two different scenarios with different outcomes. 

Scenario one: magically Ordis and BRC-20 transitions could actually reduce transaction fees for "normal transactions" would we get the same volume of complaints? sure not, most people don't even run their own node so they can't even be bettered with more disk space or anything of that nature, they just want to transact for cheap whenever possible, despite the fact that they very seldom use BTC anyway.

Scenario two: No ordis, no Apes, but we start writing news on the blockchain

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" X1000

Scnerio there: People have started to actually use Bitcoin, there are roughly 2 billion credit card transactions per day (no counting every other payment method on planet Earth), 1% of that would be 20,000,000, or 20M transactions, compare that to the current transactions of BTC which are roughly 0.5M transactions, that's 3900% more transactions, even with the assumption that all of these will be "normal transactions" with a single input and two outputs, the fee floor for such volume with probably be the 1k sat/ Vbye range, which is a lot worse than all these Ordis can do.

What is going to be the argument then? what is average Joe going to complain about in scnerio 3? You want adoption -- there you go, but now you have to compete with the rest of the world, so your 2 sat/ Vbyte transactions are something from the past, how are you going to solve it? what are you going to censor?

I have said this a dozen times, BTC will always be a store of value and not something fit for daily transactions, this is how the majority of people view it, nobody is willing to spend dear sats for a cup of coffee, they would always use their bad money and preserve their good bitcoins, I treat BTC as a store of value, I am not ashamed of saying it out loud, I know most people treat it as such but they just want to stir that "P2P e-cash" concept to attack everyone else who wants to use BTC differently.

People could keep on daydreaming about BTC being widely adopted, worth 10M$ / BTC while transaction fees are 1 sat per byte, but these three things can't happen together, you will have to least sacrifice one of your dreams, transactions can only be cheap if nobody uses BTC, if nobody uses it -- it can't be worth 10M.


I like these debates, and I do want the best for BTC, but it seems like in this forum, every time you raise a reasonable concern, you will be attacked and viewed as an enemy, look at the comment above "YOU BIG BLOCKERS DEVILS" , you can't even propose or support the idea of raising block size, I wonder -- what will these people do when core devs actually raise block size, are they going to insult them and call them big blockers scums?

[cryptosize]

More crying and arguing on a forum or social media?
Total reward from fees was 136.93 BTC last day, so this include "legit" transactions but let's ignore that, so for some malevolent entity to spam the network into making it almost unusable it needs around 5 million a day, Manchester City alone spent close to 3 million a day on running cost , wage plus whatever the others thigs are. We're still day dreaming (some of us) of a system to replace banks and Visa and other non-sense when it could be bought down to its knees by some jpg monkeys and a the budget of a football team. And yeah, some think we could win a war with a f** country!

Ban coffee transactions and you will be good to go. but ya all jokes aside, I have a very hard time believing that all these cries are actually related to the fact that they think "jpegs actually hurt bitcoin" because I am convinced that -- it's only because those jpegs are increasing the fees.

I mean two different scenarios with different outcomes. 

Scenario one: magically Ordis and BRC-20 transitions could actually reduce transaction fees for "normal transactions" would we get the same volume of complaints? sure not, most people don't even run their own node so they can't even be bettered with more disk space or anything of that nature, they just want to transact for cheap whenever possible, despite the fact that they very seldom use BTC anyway.

Scenario two: No ordis, no Apes, but we start writing news on the blockchain

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" X1000

Scnerio there: People have started to actually use Bitcoin, there are roughly 2 billion credit card transactions per day (no counting every other payment method on planet Earth), 1% of that would be 20,000,000, or 20M transactions, compare that to the current transactions of BTC which are roughly 0.5M transactions, that's 3900% more transactions, even with the assumption that all of these will be "normal transactions" with a single input and two outputs, the fee floor for such volume with probably be the 1k sat/ Vbye range, which is a lot worse than all these Ordis can do.

What is going to be the argument then? what is average Joe going to complain about in scnerio 3? You want adoption -- there you go, but now you have to compete with the rest of the world, so your 2 sat/ Vbyte transactions are something from the past, how are you going to solve it? what are you going to censor?

I have said this a dozen times, BTC will always be a store of value and not something fit for daily transactions, this is how the majority of people view it, nobody is willing to spend dear sats for a cup of coffee, they would always use their bad money and preserve their good bitcoins, I treat BTC as a store of value, I am not ashamed of saying it out loud, I know most people treat it as such but they just want to stir that "P2P e-cash" concept to attack everyone else who wants to use BTC differently.

People could keep on daydreaming about BTC being widely adopted, worth 10M$ / BTC while transaction fees are 1 sat per byte, but these three things can't happen together, you will have to least sacrifice one of your dreams, transactions can only be cheap if nobody uses BTC, if nobody uses it -- it can't be worth 10M.


I like these debates, and I do want the best for BTC, but it seems like in this forum, every time you raise a reasonable concern, you will be attacked and viewed as an enemy, look at the comment above "YOU BIG BLOCKERS DEVILS" , you can't even propose or support the idea of raising block size, I wonder -- what will these people do when core devs actually raise block size, are they going to insult them and call them big blockers scums?

If BTC becomes a store of value (like gold), then there is no need for big blocks.

I thought this would be obvious to you, but apparently it isn't... gold is expensive to move for a reason. BTC might become digital gold (store of value as you said) and equally expensive to move (despite being digital).

In general I agree with your post, minus the last sentence.

Either BTC becomes a store of value with expensive fees or p2p ecash with big blocks and cheap fees. Pick one.

ps: BTC devs can do whatever they want, but there is no guarantee that the hard fork won't be considered yet another altcoin (like BCH/BSV). There is no guarantee that miners will follow the new chain. How can you be so sure that they will abandon the old chain? BlockStream isn't so powerful as some folks think it is.

I have presented my technical arguments many times before (BTC is akin to IPv4, BSV is akin to IPv6 -> which one the dominant internet protocol?), but feel free to assume I've never had technical discussions before.

[mikeywith]

If BTC becomes a store of value (like gold), then there is no need for big blocks.

I think we have gone past the "if" speculation with BTC, it is indeed a store of value, the percentage of people who use it it for other purposes rounded to the nearest whole number is exactly ZERO, and yes, as it stands right now -- there is no need for big blocks, in fact, big blocks are never going to solve the fundamental issues, they would just reduce the size of the problem, of course, while creating other potential issues.

Transacting on the most secured blockchain has to be expensive, it is what it is, people need to accept that, it's up to them to use BTC however they want to, a store of value, e-cash system, or even for fun, it does not matter, they just need to accept that using the main blockchain is expensive, but many people don't want to accept this fact, they just want to eliminate competition so that they can use the blockchain for free -- which won't work.

Either BTC becomes a store of value with expensive fees or p2p ecash with big blocks and cheap fees. Pick one.

You are now repeating what I just said above, you can't have it all, the best of everything in one place is just not going to be there, BTC is indeed treated as a store of value for the most part, AND it's expected and normal for fees to be high --  I understand that and I am prepared to live with it -- those who don't should look for ways to solve their problems, or to least improve them, wether they ask for bigger blocks or 1 min average block time is up to them -- I see no problem with how things operate right now, it's a free market where the highest bidders get their transactions accepted, I don't go around asking to censor other transactions so that my transactions fee become cheaper.

ps: BTC devs can do whatever they want, but there is no guarantee that the hard fork won't be considered yet another altcoin (like BCH/BSV). There is no guarantee that miners will follow the new chain. How can you be so sure that they will abandon the old chain? BlockStream isn't so powerful as some folks think it is.

Allow me to quote you just for reference:

Because big blockers

And yet, you felt "offended" somehow...

You could say

I'm only responsible for what I write, not for what you understand.

But then again, you comments cleary show that you use that big blockers as in insult, at least you think of it as such, it's very common here to consider anyone who asks for bigger blocks to be an enemy of BTC, and as it stands right now -- you too seem to have issues with big blockers, so my question is simple, if core devs raised the block size, do they get a pass or are they going to be harassed just like everyone else?

[cryptosize]

Allow me to quote you just for reference:

Because big blockers

And yet, you felt "offended" somehow...

You could say

I'm only responsible for what I write, not for what you understand.

But then again, you comments cleary show that you use that big blockers as in insult, at least you think of it as such, it's very common here to consider anyone who asks for bigger blocks to be an enemy of BTC, and as it stands right now -- you too seem to have issues with big blockers, so my question is simple, if core devs raised the block size, do they get a pass or are they going to be harassed just like everyone else?

Have you read my IPv4 vs IPv6 posts? You clearly haven't.

For me big blockers are like IPv6 proponents. That's fine and dandy, but care to explain HOW do you plan to make IPv6 the dominant internet protocol?

Still waiting since 1995... how many more years decades do I have to wait?

See my point? Big block blockchains (BSV) are the equivalent of IPv6 in the Bitcoin space.

You CANNOT force everyone to abandon IPv4 (small blocks/small 32-bit addresses) in favor of IPv6 (big blocks/big 128-bit addresses).

Nobody in this forum has any compelling arguments about why the superior IPv6 still has inferior network effect compared to IPv4.

And yes, I'm only responsible for what I write, not for what you understand. You see insults out of nowhere. Not my fault.

People who are IT-savvy understand that backwards compatibility always wins in the IT space.

Look at x86 (i386). AMD extended it to 64 bits (AMD64/x86-64). Huge success compared to Intel's failed Itanium experiment.

4MB blocks in BTC are basically the same in a sense... it's 1MB legacy + 3MB extension (optional). Just like AMD's 64-bit extension is totally optional, unlike Itanium's brand new architecture!

You can also have a look at RFC 1918 and try to understand how NAT solved the IPv4 32-bit limitation (4 billion addresses/devices). It's like SegWit for IPv4.

Do you need more technical arguments for me, or is that enough for now?

ps: I've already responded about BTC devs (BlockStream), look it up. No need to repeat myself.

[mikeywith]

Have you read my IPv4 vs IPv6 posts? You clearly haven't.

I did and I ignored it because I didn't see where the argument was, IPv6 adoption was at 45% last sep, and is very likely to go past 50% next year, where BSV vs BTC is just a long shot, also, the reason why IPv6 exited in the first place is fundamentally different than the reasons BSV existed, so you are comparing apples vs oranges here.

Do you need more technical arguments for me, or is that enough for now?

I have yet to see any technical argument in regards to banning/censoring BRC-20 on the blockchain, and whether you think it's a good thing for BTC and why or why not? the main reason why you engaged in this topic was to insult us for saying something "bad" about Luke, I am still waiting for your technical argument that supports Luke's actions, something specific to the topic in question, not IPv6, not Luke's religion, not big blockers, just the topic of censoring those transactions.

[cryptosize]

I did and I ignored it because I didn't see where the argument was, IPv6 adoption was at 45% last sep, and is very likely to go past 50% next year, where BSV vs BTC is just a long shot, also, the reason why IPv6 exited in the first place is fundamentally different than the reasons BSV existed, so you are comparing apples vs oranges here.

45-50% is nothing 3 decades later on, considering the fact IPv4 has 100% adoption.

You also don't understand that IPv6 provides more (address) space to accommodate more users, just like BSV provides more (block) space to accommodate more users, so no, it's not apples vs oranges.

You also deliberately ignored my x86/NAT/SegWit references, so I think I'm done here. There's nothing more to be said, it will be a waste of my time once again.

Carry on

[philipma1957]

Every time something Luke talks about is brought up people will have to remind everyone of his religion.
Why? We are not in a Christian or religious debate forum. Literally nobody should care about this.

The discussion on how inscriptions abuse bugs in Bitcoin code is a very serious discussion on its own and whoever conflates it with irrelevant points and assassinations of character is actively doing a disservice to bitcoin's future.
And like, ok, I get that some people here have conflicting interests like for example someone running a competing pool to Luke' OCEAN now... But for Bitcoin users? Increasing bitcoin's transactional utility is literally good for everyone.

Wait a minute no one cares what religion I am.  Why why why that seems like the song that got John Lennon killed.

R.I. P. John as he was shot on Dec 8th in 1980. Hmm seems like yesterday to me. oh another song title.


I used to like Luke quite a bit but he drifted very sideways over time.


BTW

no one has solved

scrypt 12 blocks  LTC+Doge
sha 256 1 block   BTC


basically it is unsolvable.

best thin BTC can do for now is ban all BTC sends under 0.0001 for 1 having and see if that works.

It should act to flood scrypt with smaller sends and allow LN to be correctly setup in BTC as a subset of core wallet

[mikeywith]

You also don't understand that IPv6 provides more (address) space to accommodate more users, just like BSV provides more (block) space to accommodate more users, so no, it's not apples vs oranges.

It's funny how you want to argue about what I understand and what I don't. There is a fundamental difference between the two upgrades. Nobody woke up to find that they don't have an IP address and needed to shop for one. The 3.7 billion-something IPs on IPv4 were not fully utilized when IPv6 came into existence, not even close. IPv6 was there to solve a problem that would emerge in the future. Now, when the future has come, the problem is getting fixed easily and smoothly, IPv6 was a proactive approach.

With BTC, the problem is current and has been there for years. In 2017, the blockchain was unusable for most people for a good while. There were no NFTs and no BRC-20 b.s on the blockchain. What did we do to solve it? We let the free market do its thing a few months later—problem solved. Fast forward every couple of months from then until now, and the problem emerges. People complain: BTC is not usable. These spammers need to be banned. Bitmain/Antpool is spamming the blockchain. No, it's BSV folks doing it. No, it's these weird BRC-20 tokens. Ban this, ban that. Don't look for scalability solutions; just stop other people from using the blockchain so we can use it for free.

I have yet to see a whole month without someone complaining about transaction fees. But I don't see people complaining about not getting a public IP address. Do you see why you are doing apples vs. tomatoes here? What is your proposal to fix the high fees? Do you think we should ban/censor any types of transactions? Why or why not? Still waiting for your answer.

[cryptosize]

But I don't see people complaining about not getting a public IP address. Do you see why you are doing apples vs. tomatoes here?

You obviously don't know what CGNAT is.

Try to use a p2p app (Bitcoin node, BitTorrent) and see if you can upload anything to anyone... maybe then you'll understand.

ps: I'm not going to spoon feed you, you can use forum search to find my posts.

[alani123]

Every day I spend on this debate I keep thinking that those talking about censorship are either concern trolling (perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves even) or have a personal gripe with Luke for some reason.

Some people beef to put whatever beef with whatever Luke might have done to sadden them in the past aside for a second and consider some of the facts for once.

First of all, banning inscriptions from Bitcoin on a protocol level is not a Luke Dashjr issue. It's a Bitcoin Core issue.
There needs to be a discussion about this entirely independent of who Luke is and what he has done, because regardless of his opinions, this issue isn't concerning him. It's concerning everyone using Bitcoin.
Think about it, when SegWit and later Taproot were introduced, were Ordinals a use the developers had predicted?
Some examination of historical evidence leads to the contrary conclusion. SegWit developers probably had never predicted that certain OP_codes could have allowed for large data inclusions in transactions, and therefore hadn't considered the fee discounts would be getting abused to that extent.
Likewise for Taproot developers, who released OP_return without setting good spam limits.
Since these started getting abused, naturally developers of Bitcoin have become concerned and are now considering imposing some limits. This is only natural and follows the course that Satoshi set. Given the nuance of Bitcoin as a piece of software, many mistakes had to be corrected on the fly historically.


Now, what Luke is doing with OCEAN as a pool, is to merely offer miners a choise on what transactions they confirm.
Especially given that many pools openly receive off-band payments in a centralized way, only to confirm certain transactions... Payments that are more often than not not stared with miners, there are some very concerning trends on how pool operators have power over actual miners. OCEAN pool sets out to change that by eventually allowing people to pick their own block templates on how they confirm transactions.

So mining with ocean, arguably there will be absolutely not even a possibility for transaction censorship, as miners will be absolutely fee to pick what gets confirmed, as opposed to any other pool, where only the operator decides.

Edit: I am not affiliated with OCEAN in any way but from listening to the staff talks, I feel like they aren't even very fond of blocking ordinals at the protocol level. If you ACTUALLY pay attention to what Luke says, he has acknowledged multiple times that people can keep putting data in the Blockchain as they wish, he just says that they should be paying block fees for that space normally, without being allowed to abuse certain features to get discounts. And that's very likely to also end the ordinals craze.

[mikeywith]

Try to use a p2p app (Bitcoin node, BitTorrent) and see if you can upload anything to anyone... maybe then you'll understand.
[

I can, i got my own public ip, if you don't -- go complain to your ISP as to why they put you behind a NAT, or pay for a public IP oh, i forgot, you want everything for free.

[digaran]

Censoring transactions, ordinals, and other garbage is bad however you look at it, the best course of action is to make them ordinal/NFTs as expensive as possible, but if they are incompetent to develop a method to do that, then it would be a good idea to dump them from the scene.

Ever since he got hacked, he has changed, maybe they found something on him to blackmail, we don't know. even though I very much like the way ord/nft/garbage is limited, but it's wrong, they should be allowed but expensive.

He will either repent and correct his path, or he will have to answer to God for such oppression against financial freedom of millions of people, I guess he didn't think of that.

[philipma1957]

Every day I spend on this debate I keep thinking that those talking about censorship are either concern trolling (perhaps even unbeknownst to themselves even) or have a personal gripe with Luke for some reason.

Some people beef to put whatever beef with whatever Luke might have done to sadden them in the past aside for a second and consider some of the facts for once.

First of all, banning inscriptions from Bitcoin on a protocol level is not a Luke Dashjr issue. It's a Bitcoin Core issue.
There needs to be a discussion about this entirely independent of who Luke is and what he has done, because regardless of his opinions, this issue isn't concerning him. It's concerning everyone using Bitcoin.
Think about it, when SegWit and later Taproot were introduced, were Ordinals a use the developers had predicted?
Some examination of historical evidence leads to the contrary conclusion. SegWit developers probably had never predicted that certain OP_codes could have allowed for large data inclusions in transactions, and therefore hadn't considered the fee discounts would be getting abused to that extent.
Likewise for Taproot developers, who released OP_return without setting good spam limits.
Since these started getting abused, naturally developers of Bitcoin have become concerned and are now considering imposing some limits. This is only natural and follows the course that Satoshi set. Given the nuance of Bitcoin as a piece of software, many mistakes had to be corrected on the fly historically.


Now, what Luke is doing with OCEAN as a pool, is to merely offer miners a choise on what transactions they confirm.
Especially given that many pools openly receive off-band payments in a centralized way, only to confirm certain transactions... Payments that are more often than not not stared with miners, there are some very concerning trends on how pool operators have power over actual miners. OCEAN pool sets out to change that by eventually allowing people to pick their own block templates on how they confirm transactions.

So mining with ocean, arguably there will be absolutely not even a possibility for transaction censorship, as miners will be absolutely fee to pick what gets confirmed, as opposed to any other pool, where only the operator decides.

Edit: I am not affiliated with OCEAN in any way but from listening to the staff talks, I feel like they aren't even very fond of blocking ordinals at the protocol level. If you ACTUALLY pay attention to what Luke says, he has acknowledged multiple times that people can keep putting data in the Blockchain as they wish, he just says that they should be paying block fees for that space normally, without being allowed to abuse certain features to get discounts. And that's very likely to also end the ordinals craze.

you are missing the point completely if you think ordinals are the point.

LN is not easy peasy way to avoid high fees. .  and the blockchain can be clogged in many ways.

Miners want higher fees as rewards shrink = fact    this is what the battle is.

Miners are able to make fees higher in so many profitable ways Luke is playing whack a mole.

So the solution is not banning any transaction on the block in any manner except by value.

This will make it too costly to use the block chain for small sends.

do it for ½ ing while you make LN really work.

build an LN type address into core.  

It pulls out 10% of your normal wallet.  and you can do small sends with it.

And for the next 4 years develop the fuck out of  scaling.


this is simple economics

scrypt has longer worth while ability to send small sends with ease.

banning select transactions like Luke wants to does not remove the economic desires by miners to clog the btc blockchain up.


here 148 blocks I am foundry.

I deliberately drop my hash rate on days 10 11 12 13 14  of a diff jump.

I can make on average 48 blocks a day if I mine one.

If I drop to 40 blocks a day right now I lose 8 x 6.25 = 50 coins

but I triple fees due to clogging the chain.

and the fee is 3 coins vs .5 coins. so 40 x 2.5 = 100 coins and I spend less power.

Lukes idea does not fix this.

and in the next ½ ing those raised fees would mean

8 x 3.125 coins lost or 25 coins lost.

and if they raise fees by .5 to just 2.5  40 x 2 = 80 coins

so this just gets worse with each ½ ing

and Lukes idea does not stop this.

I can know zero about code and zero about pc's.

I do know value. and if I can lose 50 coins to earn 100 coins plus cut power costs by 16% I am doing it.

or after the ½ ing if I can lose 25 coins to earn 80 coins plus cost my power costs by 16% I am doing it.


I have been talking about fee issues for over 5 years no make it 6 years

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0


this issue ain't getting fixed by Lukes idea.

I can demonstrate many ways big pools can clog the main chain.


I can also tell you Lukes idea is a fail. as pools will do shit like I am describing and they are too big .

Developers need to make it too costly for the pool to be clogged by the ones that want it clogged.


Good luck with it.

BTW
 ltc makes 288 blocks today value of 1800 LTC about $140,400>> ½ ing is done
doge makes 1440 blocks today value of 1,440,000 >>>>>>>>> no ½ ing at all

total value of 1,580,400 a day

btc made 144 blocks at 7.25 coins = 1044 coins = 43,000,000

nice edge for btc but ½ ing drops it to 21,500,000 a day if fees remain at a coin

edge is greatly lowered. big miners will do every trick they can to boost fees. to make that edge up.

and it will be worse in 2028

[alani123]

Though out its existence, Bitcoin has never been attacked by miners contributing to an increase in the difficulty and then dropping their hashrate (or the opposite). If that was to become a recurring problem however, it's not like there are't viable solutions. Many altcoins had this issue with profit-hopping miners 10 years ago. It was fixed with solutions like Kimoto's gravity well. Bitcoin being the biggest crypto doesn't really face this issue. Yes miners have power to cause issues with the difficulty but I don't see how that's relevant to inscriptions taking too much space in blocks.