Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[pooya87]

I don't get the point of doing inscriptions in bitcoin

The point is to make money by ripping people off!

You see what they call inscriptions and the advertisers of this scam method like to call it "token" or NFT is neither one of those in reality. It is arbitrary data, a junk that is injected into the chain by exploiting the Bitcoin protocol.
The only reason why these scammers insist on using bitcoin blockchain for it is to be able to hype up a dead concept (ICO) by associating it with the name Bitcoin and get some newbie victims who don't know any better to buy that fake garbage in a fake market so that they can make money!

As we know these scammers have been desperately changing the name of their scam every now and then to renew their victim pool:

Code:

ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT, Ordinals

Otherwise if they truly wanted to create tokens there are countless ways of doing it from using bitcoin side chains such as RootStock to actual token creation platforms such as Ethereum.

[1714514029]

1714514029

[1714514029]

1714514029

[1714514029]

1714514029

[franky1]

bitcoins white paper was not titled

"put whatever lame data you like that bypasses validity checks as long as you pay higher fee then other people, its allowed"

[HmmMAA]

demanding less transactions but higher fee premiums is not the economic dynamics of keeping the network useful and fruitful

How about demanding more transactions with lower fees by increasing blocksize ? Isn't the outcome of a block reward the same ? Who benefits from something like that ? Because the way i see it , current status only favors miners . If onchain transactions go down , this favors users . More transactions in each block would benefit both miners and users . But for sure the only entities that earn more than anybody else with current model are pools . It's basically free money for them .
An argument would be that there is no interest currently to transact on btc so no need to increase blocksize . Global transactions in crypto are hundreds of millions transactions per day . Merchants could use bitcoin instead of visa but as btc works you can't advertise it as an alternative method of payment . Of course , not everyone would be able to run a node , which is against maxis ethics .
By your logic , if blocksize never increases and subsidy is zero , network would still work fine . I'm not saying that it won't work , what i argue is that it won't be secure .

[franky1]

demanding less transactions but higher fee premiums is not the economic dynamics of keeping the network useful and fruitful

How about demanding more transactions with lower fees by increasing blocksize ? Isn't the outcome of a block reward the same ? Who benefits from something like that ? Because the way i see it , current status only favors miners . If onchain transactions go down , this favors users . More transactions in each block would benefit both miners and users . But for sure the only entities that earn more than anybody else with current model are pools . It's basically free money for them .
An argument would be that there is no interest currently to transact on btc so no need to increase blocksize . Global transactions in crypto are hundreds of millions transactions per day . Merchants could use bitcoin instead of visa but as btc works you can't advertise it as an alternative method of payment . Of course , not everyone would be able to run a node , which is against maxis ethics .
By your logic , if blocksize never increases and subsidy is zero , network would still work fine . I'm not saying that it won't work , what i argue is that it won't be secure .

when you learn how cores fee estimator works, then you will see how your notions fail

core doesnt count fees once tx confirmed.. it instead uses the UNCONFIRMED mempool transaction fees and how delayed they are of even getting in a block to estimate the fee new transactions should try to push a tx forward

meaning if the fee was high and pools declined to accept transactions below a certain rate, even if it meant doing part filled blocks/empty blocks... users wont be happy.. the more delayed a tx gets the higher fees go.snow ball effect because users wont transact if costs are high and still not getting in. and if pools are demanding high fee it helps no one

your "if onchain transactions go down, this favours users" doesnt play out if users are still paying huge fees which still sitting in mempool

as for the debunked comparison idiots make about visa.. please do get a new song sheet
only idiots use the visa song as a reason to suggest bitcoin shouldnt scale at all unless its to those extremes.. which isnt even scaling.. its exaggeratingly leaping.. and debunks itself to use leaping song to avoid scaling discussion/options

and you then go extremes of the opposite about not scaling at all, to then say it wont be secure
..and your other illogical fallacies...
you have been trained very (un)well to only assume the two options are do nothing or exaggerate to a huge leaping massive size

..
anyway back to my point
if the only users that can afford huge fee's enough to get accepted into a block are the scammers that overcharge victims on a scam market that 1sat is worth $10k, and need to pay $100 in fee to get the special sat.. then normal bitcoin users will stop transacting.. and all thats left is the scammy crap
(one scammer was willing to pay 83btc in fee just to get coins he hacked moved quickly)
no one will be able to outbid scammers.. and we should not condone the crap that end up penalising/costing all genuine users utility

[o_e_l_e_o]

Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction.

How do you propose bitcoin survives when the block subsidy is near zero and miners depend solely on transaction fees to sustain them, when even a modest increase in transaction fees is enough to make 99% of the community want to ban the transactions paying those fees? A tail emission? Merged mining?

I believe that removing ordinals is necessary to improve the scalability and efficiency of Bitcoin.

Banning transaction you don't like doesn't change bitcoin's efficiency whatsoever, it simply decreases the number of transactions in the mempool. If you want bitcoin to scale, then work on scaling, not on censorship.

It's not a censorship, they exploit bitcoin protocol, they find a loophole and what's wrong with feeling loopholes? Nothing.

As I've explained already in this thread, it is impossible to ban all methods of embedding arbitrary data in the blockchain without the solution being worse than the problem. We can only make it somewhat more expensive by forcing them to move the data from witnesses to public keys (or similar), and if slightly increased expense is enough to burn out the ordinal spam then we can equally do nothing and it will burn itself out anyway.

That is really a subjective but so is everything, absolutely everything is subjective because everything has positive and negative sides, absolutely everything!

Not at all. There are plenty of objective truths. We can objectively prove that we know the private key to an address by signing a message from that private key (because the chance of randomly generating a valid signature is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible). Whether or not a signature is valid does not depend on the opinion of the person verifying it. It is either valid or it isn't. Whether Transaction A is spam or not depends entirely on the viewpoint of the person looking at it. To us it is spam. To someone else it serves a purpose.

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded?

I'll pay the appropriate fee.

Bitcoin was created for P2P transactions, to get rid of 3rd parties but Ordinals are not real financial transactions. So, it's not a censorship.

And again, as I've said above, centralized exchanges are third parties and are not peer to peer. So if you are using those reasons to argue for banning ordinals, then you should be arguing to ban centralized exchanges as well. Can't pick and choose.

if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong.

Ok, so let's say we ban this method of embedding arbitrary data in to the blockchain. Ordinals then move to embedding data in to public keys instead, which takes up more space and so the spam problem gets worse, rather than better. That would be fair game at that point because embedding data in to public keys has been possible since day 1 of the protocol?

[ABCbits]

there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.

And that's fine.  But if people are going to advocate for continually moving the goalposts on what those limits are, purely because they want to prevent a certain type of transaction, that's still a road to disaster in my view.

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

In that case, limiting Taproot script size (probably 10K bytes following which used as older script type) and maximum data can be pushed inside witness data (80 bytes or higher based on OP_RETURN) shouldn't be much problem. Although FWIW those number i mentioned wouldn't stop BRC-20 at all.

Miners will need to find other ways to make money, such as through higher transaction fees for high-priority transactions or through other services like staking or mining pools.

Or perhaps premium services which include non-standard TX such as TX which contain OP_RETURN data higher than 80 bytes.

[mindrust]

I don't think that Ordinals are problem. Ordinals are basically shit but people are willing to pay lots of money in this shit. If someone wants to buy a shit for thousands of dollars, who am I to judge? Let them buy it. I think that number of Ordinals users will decline because those NFTs actually carry no value, absolutely no value and over time people will analyze that shit shouldn't be valued over good. But blockchain size is still a problem because as number of bitcoin users rise, number of transactions will rise too and it should be cost-effective for people to use frequently.

Do you realize you are exactly mimicking a no-coiner point of view in your post? Many no-coiners invest in bitcoin or any other crypto thinking the exact same thing. “If these morons are willing to pay their hard earned cash for these useless pixels, why shouldn’t I profit from their stupidity?”

If you truly think NFT’s are dogshit, then you should also support the removal of NFT’s from btc. Just because somebody is making money from selling dogshit, doesn’t mean that we all have to like eating dogshit.


I like to eat dogshit only if it is wrapped in catshit.

[nutildah]

come on franky. nutildah is a pretty smart person and knows alot about the ordinals and bitcoin ecosystems. but doesn't mean he buys and sells them. so i think you might be making a leap of logic there. but even if he did buy and sell them for profit, that's what they exist for is to make profit. that's why people are involved with them i would imagine. and maybe a few people just like having a picture of a monkey stored on the blockchain so they can tell their friends.  

You're right. I've never touched them, but that hasn't stopped me from wanting to learn about them. The underlying system is a brilliant idea that only one person had ever put forward before. Ordinals have reinvigorated interest & sparked lively debate in Bitcoin in a way that not much could, besides the Bitcoin ETF, which is kind of boring in comparison.

I've put franknbeans on ignore as all his arguments eventually devolve into a personal attack, if not immediately. He's not here to learn anything -- he's here to lecture all about his opinion. The problem is, on a technical level, he's often wrong. And he'll never admit it, which is why its not worth engaging with him.

I'm also more into Dogecoin in terms of what I do for a living, but I also never touched Doginals, even though its all the rage, currently filling Dogecoin blocks, and I'd be up big if I bought the 1st "DRC-20" tokens when I first heard about them.

Otherwise if they truly wanted to create tokens there are countless ways of doing it from using bitcoin side chains such as RootStock to actual token creation platforms such as Ethereum.

The entire allure of Ordinals rests on the idea that its data is directly embedded in Bitcoin, the world's most popular & secure blockchain. This is why they don't care about alternatives. I'm just trying to help you understand why things are the way that they are. You can continue to rail against it if you want, but we both know that won't change anything.

[franky1]

if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong.

Ok, so let's say we ban this method of embedding arbitrary data in to the blockchain. Ordinals then move to embedding data in to public keys instead, which takes up more space and so the spam problem gets worse, rather than better. That would be fair game at that point because embedding data in to public keys has been possible since day 1 of the protocol?

ordinals wasnt baked in since satoshis day.. ordinals only became possible later in bitcoin life
multisig wasnt baked in since satoshis day.. multisig only became possible later in bitcoin life


heck a bitcoin block wasnt even able to surpass 0.5mb until 2013 let alone 4mb of junk which was not even possible until 2017+
the ability to add upto 4Gigabyte of junk is not something that was baked in as an ability to utilise even in 2023..
i dare you or larry to even try and make a junk meme video of 4gigabyte and add it into the blockchain
you cant because rules that were baked in prevent it..
however over time the rules have been relaxed to by pass things, no longer even requiring consensus activations when opcodes were set as conditioned with rules. now idiots can use a whole class of opcodes that are unconditioned which in the olden days nodes would not even relay

You're right. I've never touched them, but that hasn't stopped me from wanting to learn about them. The underlying system is a brilliant idea that only one person had ever put forward before. Ordinals have reinvigorated interest & sparked lively debate in Bitcoin in a way that not much could, besides the Bitcoin ETF, which is kind of boring in comparison.

I've put franknbeans on ignore as all his arguments eventually devolve into a personal attack, if not immediately. He's not here to learn anything -- he's here to lecture all about his opinion. The problem is, on a technical level, he's often wrong. And he'll never admit it, which is why its not worth engaging with him.

nutildah doesnt want to learn. he doesnt even understand how they works still. not the code nor the economics. he just loves promoting them .. as he says entertaining his trollisms of discussion

its not a brilliant idea because its not even what it promises to be

as for him admitting to be ignorant by putting people on ignore when they try to show him the technical and economic flaws.. that is proof enough he doesnt care to learn.

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

In that case, limiting Taproot script size

remember the "promise" of taproot
'it wil look like a normal tx that only uses one signature length' pfft. promise broke from day one.

[serveria.com]

Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction.

How do you propose bitcoin survives when the block subsidy is near zero and miners depend solely on transaction fees to sustain them, when even a modest increase in transaction fees is enough to make 99% of the community want to ban the transactions paying those fees? A tail emission? Merged mining?

At this point I should ask: when block subsidy will be near zero? Near zero in BTC or near zero in fiat? I guess this block subsidy amount protection is built into Bitcoin, it was meant to work like that by design. If by the time block subsidy is say 0.0001 but Bitcoin price is $100.000.000 will miners be able to survive?  

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded?

I'll pay the appropriate fee.

I'm happy you can afford it, but think about Venezuelans trying to send money to their families, people from developing nations working here for sig campaigns on this forum unable to receive their pay (and for many it's their only source of income) etc etc... why these people have to suffer because of some person storing his dick pics and fart sounds on the blockchain?  

[HmmMAA]

when you learn how cores fee estimator works, then you will see how your notions fail

core doesnt count fees once tx confirmed.. it instead uses the UNCONFIRMED mempool transaction fees and how delayed they are of even getting in a block to estimate the fee new transactions should try to push a tx forward

meaning if the fee was high and pools declined to accept transactions below a certain rate, even if it meant doing part filled blocks/empty blocks... users wont be happy.. the more delayed a tx gets the higher fees go.snow ball effect because users wont transact if costs are high and still not getting in. and if pools are demanding high fee it helps no one

your "if onchain transactions go down, this favours users" doesnt play out if users are still paying huge fees which still sitting in mempool

as for the debunked comparison idiots make about visa.. please do get a new song sheet
only idiots use the visa song as a reason to suggest bitcoin shouldnt scale at all unless its to those extremes.. which isnt even scaling.. its exaggeratingly leaping.. and debunks itself to use leaping song to avoid scaling discussion/options

and you then go extremes of the opposite about not scaling at all, to then say it wont be secure
..and your other illogical fallacies...
you have been trained very (un)well to only assume the two options are do nothing or exaggerate to a huge leaping massive size

..
anyway back to my point
if the only users that can afford huge fee's enough to get accepted into a block are the scammers that overcharge victims on a scam market that 1sat is worth $10k, and need to pay $100 in fee to get the special sat.. then normal bitcoin users will stop transacting.. and all thats left is the scammy crap
(one scammer was willing to pay 83btc in fee just to get coins he hacked moved quickly)
no one will be able to outbid scammers.. and we should not condone the crap that end up penalising/costing all genuine users utility

You assumption is based on a mempool 0f 300 kb if i'm not wrong , correct ? What happens with a mempool of very big limit and a big blocksize ? Maybe i got things wrong , i'd like to hear your thoughts .

Edit . at what size do you think blocksize should be increased right now ? And why is idiotic to reach visa levels ? There's been 13 years of bitcoin existence , with billions of transaction across all projects , why would be idiotic to gather those transactions to the most secure blockchain ? People are willing to pay to transact , just not in btc .

[Abiky]

I really hope that the guys who are fighting against the Ordinals will succeed. Because this is a real problem! As you correctly wrote - many managers pay an additional commission to send out weekly rewards, some campaigns are closed - and all this is because of the stupid Ordinals.
I, like many crypto enthusiasts, love to trade Bitcoin and in order to transfer Bitcoin from my wallet to the exchange I had to pay 60 dollars! And there are no ways to get around this because swaps inside wallets do not work, and lightning and transaction accelerators cannot solve the problem. In general, as soon as the Ordinals are finished, it will be a big celebration.

I know high fees are a real problem. But there's nothing we can do about it, other than wait until the hype is over. Siding with developers to help reject/block Ordinals transactions would be nothing more than pure censorship. If you want to save money on fees, I'd suggest you choose a time when network congestion is low. Usually during the weekends early in the morning. I've paid around $2 -$3 in fees doing this.

The Lightning Network promises cheaper and faster payments, but still requires you to pay on-chain fees to open or close a channel. Besides that, the network is still experimental (full of bugs). As a last resort, you can switch to an altcoin with lower network congestion to save big on fees (Solana, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc). I'm hopeful the community will find a solution to make Bitcoin great again. As long as it stays decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters.

[franky1]

You assumption is based on a mempool 0f 300 kb if i'm not wrong , correct ? What happens with a mempool of very big limit and a big blocksize ? Maybe i got things wrong , i'd like to hear your thoughts .

Edit . at what size do you think blocksize should be increased right now ? And why is idiotic to reach visa levels ? There's been 13 years of bitcoin existence , with billions of transaction across all projects , why would be idiotic to gather those transactions to the most secure blockchain ? People are willing to pay to transact , just not in btc .

its got nothing to do with mempool size..

even if mempool was 500mb but only had 150mb of transactions in there. pools can still deny adding transactions below a threshold. leaving people waiting and needing to RBF to reach whatever threshold mining pools want

so in a 4decades in future scenario when mining pools are going to demand fee's they can just leave the cheap fee tx in mempool to fester for 2 weeks, causing people to RBF upbid their fees to get recognised

as for leaping to "visa levels"
that debate replaces "scaling" by suggesting the only option is "gigabyte blocks by midnight" to then argue that the network is not ready to even do that. to hope it ends the debate about any type of scaling.. and yea idiots been playing that bait trick for years

the actual scaling is not just "jump blocksize to XX"
its more nuanced
a. punish the frequent spammers: if it costs only them excess fee, they transact less. meaning more genuine people can take the space
b. leaner transactions: punish or prevent bloated transactions, meaning more genuine people can take the space
c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space
d. SCALE the blocksize in incremental amounts over time.. no sudden leaps to stupid amounts

[tread93]

Wow, I wonder how this will go for Ordinals and what will be the result of these actions. Certainly ordinals has sparked a bit of a following and many folks would be very sad if it was no more. I wonder how ordinals would do if this didn't happen, or even if it does....

[larry_vw_1955]

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded?

I'll pay the appropriate fee.

I'm happy you can afford it,

he didn't say he could afford it. he said he would pay it. i'm sure he doesn't want to pay a high fee but that's beside the point. he believes in bitcoin so he's willing to put his money where his mouth is and support the network. that's what he's saying.

but think about Venezuelans trying to send money to their families,

They could use something like Western Union or some other remittance service possibly.

people from developing nations working here for sig campaigns on this forum unable to receive their pay (and for many it's their only source of income) etc etc...

so you're saying the money they make is not even enough to pay the transaction fee? then why would someone waste their time doing that? that's like working for nothing.

c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space

that was a huge thing to allow into bitcoin. you would think that such a huge thing would have been discussed alot and written up about why it was being done. with analysis about the potential repercussions of it. but nothing like that seemed to happen. so here we are. not knowing if they intended for it to be this way or not. but it is this way. kind of crazy.

a feature like that should have been heavily discussed and debated prior to being implemented though and I'm sure someone would have brought up the issue that a single transaction could then consume an entire bitcoin block. and who would think that was a good thing?  

You're right. I've never touched them, but that hasn't stopped me from wanting to learn about them.

yeah but franky thinks just because you're learning about them that equals being involved in them DEEPLY.  amazing logic on his part i must say.

[HmmMAA]

its got nothing to do with mempool size..

even if mempool was 500mb but only had 150mb of transactions in there. pools can still deny adding transactions below a threshold. leaving people waiting and needing to RBF to reach whatever threshold mining pools want

so in a 4decades in future scenario when mining pools are going to demand fee's they can just leave the cheap fee tx in mempool to fester for 2 weeks, causing people to RBF upbid their fees to get recognised

I'm not talking about denying . Currently mempool is filled so miners do have to choose , even if they wanted to pass all transactions they can't . This is a condition which can happen with any mempool size . Even with 1 MB miners can deny to add transactions to blocks even if there are higher fees than what would be normal . In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .
So , without the option of denying , how would a mempool and blocksize increase would affect transaction fees ? 

as for leaping to "visa levels"
that debate replaces "scaling" by suggesting the only option is "gigabyte blocks by midnight" to then argue that the network is not ready to even do that. to hope it ends the debate about any type of scaling.. and yea idiots been playing that bait trick for years

the actual scaling is not just "jump blocksize to XX"
its more nuanced
a. punish the frequent spammers: if it costs only them excess fee, they transact less. meaning more genuine people can take the space
b. leaner transactions: punish or prevent bloated transactions, meaning more genuine people can take the space
c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space
d. SCALE the blocksize in incremental amounts over time.. no sudden leaps to stupid amounts

So , let's consider a real bussines . If you had a store with a range of customers would you punish the ones that prefer to buy from your store ? And you would try to reward the ones that buy from you occassionaly ?
And what genuine people means ? There are people waiting with their money in hand to have their transactions get into a block . What makes your  transaction more genuine than someone else's ?
As for the incremental scaling . There's been 13 years since the launch . 6 years since blocksize wars . I remember Adam Back , Lopp and others saying at that time it was ok to increase it . Right now ,  according to what most devs believed , blocksize should be at least 32 MB . How big do you think blocksize should be currently ?

[larry_vw_1955]

As for the incremental scaling . There's been 13 years since the launch . 6 years since blocksize wars . I remember Adam Back , Lopp and others saying at that time it was ok to increase it . Right now ,  according to what most devs believed , blocksize should be at least 32 MB . How big do you think blocksize should be currently ?

if you increase block sizes so more transactions can fit in each block then that would help bitcoin scale. but if you allow a single transaction to hog up all the blockspace that's not helping anything.

so if you could increase the blocksize to say 32MB and require each transaction to be less than say 1KB then that's progress. There's no way bitcoin can get world domination without blocksize increasing. Unless people are satisfied with using something like Lightning Network but I don't think some people want to use that.

even with the above restrictions people could still use bitcoin for ordinals and stuff. so it might not really change that aspect of things. it just might mean more of the same. 

[franky1]

its got nothing to do with mempool size..

even if mempool was 500mb but only had 150mb of transactions in there. pools can still deny adding transactions below a threshold. leaving people waiting and needing to RBF to reach whatever threshold mining pools want

so in a 4decades in future scenario when mining pools are going to demand fee's they can just leave the cheap fee tx in mempool to fester for 2 weeks, causing people to RBF upbid their fees to get recognised

I'm not talking about denying . Currently mempool is filled so miners do have to choose , even if they wanted to pass all transactions they can't . This is a condition which can happen with any mempool size . Even with 1 MB miners can deny to add transactions to blocks even if there are higher fees than what would be normal . In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .
So , without the option of denying , how would a mempool and blocksize increase would affect transaction fees ?  

as for leaping to "visa levels"
that debate replaces "scaling" by suggesting the only option is "gigabyte blocks by midnight" to then argue that the network is not ready to even do that. to hope it ends the debate about any type of scaling.. and yea idiots been playing that bait trick for years

the actual scaling is not just "jump blocksize to XX"
its more nuanced
a. punish the frequent spammers: if it costs only them excess fee, they transact less. meaning more genuine people can take the space
b. leaner transactions: punish or prevent bloated transactions, meaning more genuine people can take the space
c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space
d. SCALE the blocksize in incremental amounts over time.. no sudden leaps to stupid amounts

So , let's consider a real bussines . If you had a store with a range of customers would you punish the ones that prefer to buy from your store ? And you would try to reward the ones that buy from you occassionaly ?
And what genuine people means ? There are people waiting with their money in hand to have their transactions get into a block . What makes your  transaction more genuine than someone else's ?
As for the incremental scaling . There's been 13 years since the launch . 6 years since blocksize wars . I remember Adam Back , Lopp and others saying at that time it was ok to increase it . Right now ,  according to what most devs believed , blocksize should be at least 32 MB . How big do you think blocksize should be currently ?

ok lets consider a business
lets take some international postal/cargo businesses. for customers wanting to ship a army tank by sea or by air.
..should everyone pay more for a postage stamp? just because the tank is taking up alot of space.. or should the person trying to send the tank pay a super premium to slide infront of the queue at the ports
why should a tank be able to pay a postage stamp but cause all postage stamps for everyone else to become nearly a hundred dollars for everyone

as for the other stuff about scaling vs leaping.. read what i said and you will understand

right now core devs dont want any scaling/leaping of blocksize bigger then 4mb.. but here is the thing, currently there are other ways to scale onchain to allow more transaction per block before needing to twist their arms to get them to act like bitcoin devs again instead of their other side hustle sponsored projects they prefer

try to read a,b,c,d and you will see how things can be done without having to scream at devs for 'bigger blocks'.. and then when that cludge is sorted then scaling can happen above 4mb
(in short if they have built an ignorance chamber at the 4mb limit. then lets sort out and streamline the 4mb limit)

by the way. you keep talking about gb blocks EG "be like visa"
by the way. you keep talking about 32mb blocks
you keep talking in leaping speak

and its this leaping speak that just makes the debate end because its the same as asking a pregnant woman why dont you give birth to a 6foot tall fully adult son
.. because progressively growing is the logical and most common sense approach. not suddenly birthing large amounts

do you understand scaling yet or will you just reply with another random number
most people want scaling.. so please drop the leaping act. its not helping anyone

and by the way 2009-2013 blocks could only be 0.5mb
and by the way 2013-2016 blocks could only be 1mb
and by the way 2017-now blocks APPEAR as being able to be 4mb. but not all of that 4mb is lean legacy style tx that just do what bitcoin intended
3mb of the 4mb is bloated special scripting witness and other junk that are not even anything to do with signature proofs

so for 6+ years now things have slowed down. even when physical technology has sped up
they say: "but we gave you 3mb extra "bigger blocks", so why still ask for more"
response: "no that 3mb is mainly for junk and new bloaty scripts not even possible pre 2016. however the tx count of 2016 is not even 4x legacy tx count today. not even 2x today not even 1.1x more legacy tx count today, which shows how the so called "extra 3mb" has not actually given people proper scaling to transact more"

[ABCbits]

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

In that case, limiting Taproot script size

remember the "promise" of taproot
'it wil look like a normal tx that only uses one signature length' pfft. promise broke from day one.

You forget about part where only certain TX can be aggregated/merged.

c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space

that was a huge thing to allow into bitcoin. you would think that such a huge thing would have been discussed alot and written up about why it was being done. with analysis about the potential repercussions of it. but nothing like that seemed to happen. so here we are. not knowing if they intended for it to be this way or not. but it is this way. kind of crazy.

a feature like that should have been heavily discussed and debated prior to being implemented though and I'm sure someone would have brought up the issue that a single transaction could then consume an entire bitcoin block. and who would think that was a good thing?  

But with hard-fork frowned by majority of Bitcoin community, the choice at that time is either that or keep using bytes (which means no block size increase).

[Medusah]

In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .

... no?  The time it takes to calculate the merkle root is minimum.  It is really against their interest to not collect transaction fees.