Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[o_e_l_e_o]

Meaning it wouldn't make Ordinals exploit invalid, it would only make it non-standard which means it still can NOT be censorship if the community is deciding to enforce these rules on the full node they run.

So if we all hate ordinals so much, then why are more people not rejecting them from their nodes? I'm sure I've seen you mention before that you reject them from your node, but you are the only person I've seen doing this until Knots. And I can see a grand total of 13 nodes running the newest version of Knots. Is the conclusion that node runners simply do not care and will just run whatever Core tells them to run?

And as we've seen with full RBF, we only need a minority of nodes to accept these transactions and they will broadcast through the network and reach miners largely unhindered.

[1714704383]

1714704383

[1714704383]

1714704383

[1714704383]

1714704383

[Synchronice]

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 think, we can be confident to say that when the block subsidy will be near zero, bitcoin will be a very popular and widely used currency with very high number of users and transactions. Let's say roughly that one block on average includes 3500 transactions, bitcoin's price is 40K and average transaction fee is $2. Number of bitcoin users are increasing, right? So the number of transactions should increase. If we have 200K upcoming transactions, we will have 400K upcoming transactions tomorrow, right? I assume this because if that's not gonna happen, then it means bitcoin failed which I don't think will fail. So, if there are upcoming 400K and millions of transactions, are going to wait for centuries and pay thousands of dollars to get it confirmed in next block instead of next months? No! We need to increase block size. For example, If transaction costs $2 today and miners collect $2000, if we double the block size, transaction will cost $1 and miners will still collect $2000 because the number of transactions will fill the blocks, because there is a demand. If we triple the block size and demand meets that, we will be able to pay 0.8$ and miners will collect $2400 in fees. So, if demand increase and block size gives us capability to get transactions confirmed and don't be in queue for months.

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.

If there is a 51% network attack on Bitcoin and we can avoid it via some code modification, would you support it or not? I think you support 100% total freedom, yes, that's good but you have to keep in mind that we don't touch freedom here, we touch those who abuse the bitcoin protocol. I think there is a difference between good and evil. Yes, something good can be evil for you and otherwise for me but is there anyone who thinks Ordinals are a normal thing and not an abuse of bitcoin protocol via a small bug? It will be censorship if we implement the support of blockchain analysis companies in Bitcoin network. It's not censorship to kill ordinals.

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.

To be honest, Bitcoin Ordinals are not problem for me because I am waiting for the time when people will stop paying thousands in dogshit. If they don't want to stop, I'm here just to laugh to see how stupid someone can be. But if there is a talk about removing ordinals, I would vote for it. By the way, every time problem is solved, another bigger problem comes up but that doesn't mean we shouldn't solve problem with the fear of another problem coming up.

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.

Is there any talk about bitcoin ordinals in bitcoin whitepaper? Bitcoin whitepaper says that Bitcoin is a purely peer-topeer version of electronic cash that allows online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Now explain, how would ordinal serves a purpose for someone else? Are we going to ignore bitcoin whitepaper? Arguing about this is like arguing that a person is a human but feels that his/her identity is old Persian horse. Doesn't make sense, right?

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded?

I'll pay the appropriate fee.

Is bitcoin for everyone who want to improve privacy and independence from financial institutes or is it only for rich people?

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.

Yeah, I agree with you that Centralized exchanges should be banned too but this game is not in our hands anymore.
By the way, answer to these problems is Monero. Centralized exchanges ban Monero and Monero is also the most privacy focused currency. Move on Monero.

[Medusah]

I think, we can be confident to say that when the block subsidy will be near zero, bitcoin will be a very popular and widely used currency with very high number of users and transactions.

I would not be so confident if we start rejecting random transactions we are ideologically opposed with.

If there is a 51% network attack on Bitcoin and we can avoid it via some code modification, would you support it or not?

There is virtually nothing that can protect us from a 51% attack other than the present game theory.  Whatever you modify, so long as the attacker owns the majority of the hash rate and uses it to reverse transactions, the entire concept has practically failed.

Is there any talk about bitcoin ordinals in bitcoin whitepaper?

Is there any talk about centralized exchanges in the whitepaper?  Or lightning channels?  Or segwit transactions?  Or coinjoin transactions?  No.

The default position is that all transactions are allowed.  

By the way, answer to these problems is Monero. Centralized exchanges ban Monero and Monero is also the most privacy focused currency. Move on Monero.

I am already there pal, and you should consider moving too.  But that does not mean I will support censorship on bitcoin.

[Gladitorcomeback]

Ordinance and others should leave our Bitcoin for us in peace, I don't know why some people would just come up with what would continue to be a problem for the network. It could be highly insane for the Bitcoin transaction fee to be as high as $12+, which was the highest I saw just last week, and this was still very little compared to the high fees experienced in July. It can be frustrating and annoying. I don't truly know how people would want to use the Bitcoin network for their businesses if it persis like this, and it would only be a matter of time before they will be turning their backs. Even on this forum, campaign managers are being forced to voice out and start suggesting alternatives to Bitcoin. If such frustration could happen in a Bitcoin forum, it can happen anywhere.

Unfortunately the inscription has caught the attention of people people and now I checked in the telegram channels that other chain Doge, near, solona inscription also started and people started minting spam NFTs People munted more than 100k NFTs in just matter of 3 days so can guess the hype. Well, one thing is that all people are those who don't know much about btc and there Mission is just to take short profit from current trend.

As for ORDI, I have not seen many dumps in it for now, it's still about x10 of the level that Binance enlisted it. Currently, at about $52, it's still not responding to any of the dumps as much but only retraced its former gains. This is a reason why I fear whether this project could ever push through. My major fear when I wanted to buy ORDi was the evil in the project and how it was affecting Bitcoin, but painfully, I had to lose all the earnings that it would have delivered into my account.

Now add one more token also Brc20 1000Sats which is recently listed in Binance and token price surges 150% after Binance announcement. I think Ordinal trend is going high day by day and Devolpers have to do something special to control otherwise normal use of btc for payment will be affected for long term.

"" No sooner had one grief averted than another came""

[franky1]

So if we all hate ordinals so much, then why are more people not rejecting them from their nodes?

because 99.99% of node users dont even read code to tweak code to reject such

by the way its not "their node" they didnt write the code.. dont deflect the issue to blame the user. (shameful act by you)
99.99% of users just run whatever code core throw at them. infact most node users cant even get to vote on consensus due to core abusing the "backward compatibility" of assumevalid/isvalid tricks that make nodes not even check and just let new funky junk pass into a block untested

yep CORE code done that.. not users.. not AI

yep core opened up the exploit even when 7 years ago they were told that it can be abused
(a few people including me were talking about how the check bypass of allowing (buzzword then) "anyonecanspend" to bypass checking what data is where signatures should be. allowed junk to be put where logical people would want the code to have policies to actualy check whats put there and that what is there has a function for proving ownership transfer privilege)

allowing funky tx's into the blockchain unchecked has been mentioned to core devs for many years as a risk.. they ignored it..
and now you want to pretend its not their fault. but users fault... (facepalm)

the reason core dont want to disable it, is because it means disabling unconditioned opcodes. meaning core cant just trojan in new features anytime they like. and instead they would have to comply to old concepts of consensus where they would need to get majority of users to upgrade to a new version of core that understands a new feature. then core activates utility of the feature once network is secure.. and core dont want to have to rely on community to vote a new feature in before it can be used

[pooya87]

So if we all hate ordinals so much, then why are more people not rejecting them from their nodes?

That's the point, when the software that 98.97% of the network run does not have the option to reject these transactions we can't know how many people "hate ordinals" and how many want it.
It's like wanting to vote for a soft-fork while your client doesn't support voting for it!!!

I'm sure I've seen you mention before that you reject them from your node, but you are the only person I've seen doing this until Knots.

I'm not exactly running a full node, it's more of an experimental implementation of Bitcoin which is in its early stages but can be a full node which I modified to reject these spam transactions.

Is the conclusion that node runners simply do not care and will just run whatever Core tells them to run?

I wouldn't say they don't care, it's just that they don't have any other choice.
The alternatives are either exact copy/translation of core with same behavior and no extra control for cases like this or are unpopular and insecure to use.

[DooMAD]

remember doomad and oeleo do not support bitcoin scaling..

i don't know franky. i'm not even sure what we mean by "scaling" but i thought it meant "larger blocksize" basically. i don't know their views on that but since i respect them both a great deal, i would respect their opinion on the matter. just like i can respect yours.

The pattern goes like this:  Every time I don't agree with franky1's attempts to completely distort and butcher the definition of a word, he claims I don't believe in or don't support that thing.

He did it with 'consensus'.  Because I won't accept his entirely made-up and sociopathic definition of consensus (i.e. "everyone has to ask franky1's consent before they can code anything"), he says I don't believe in consensus.  I absolutely do believe in consensus, which I interpret as "everyone can code and run what they want.  Those running compatible code will be matched up with people who want the same thing and they'll build a network together".  I would argue that reality more closely reflects my definition than franky1's definition in terms of how Bitcoin and the various forkcoins work, but I'll leave you and anyone else reading this to be the judge of that.

And now he's trying to do the same with 'scaling'.  He means "linear growth" but he says "scaling" as if that were somehow the sole extent of what scaling means.  He will *only* accept "linear growth" and point-blank refuses to accept any other forms of scaling.  Some would argue that repeated linear growth doesn't even count as scaling.  Perhaps if I were in a charitable mood, I might call it weak scaling at best.  I'm not entirely opposed to *some* linear growth, but I don't think doing it forever (like he does) is remotely viable and I would only endorse it when those securing the network are prepared to carry that additional load.  It's certainly not a "solution" to the problem and there are serious trade-offs to consider.  

Scaling primarily occurs when technology advances and there's a noticeable difference in performance.  People don't run multiple dial-up connections, they use things like fibre optics and 5g, because technology got better.  People don't carry hundreds of 1.44mb floppy disks to make data portable, they use USB sticks and mobile phones / cellphones, because technology got better.  That's what scaling looks like in reality.  But franky1 is seemingly always at odds with reality and just wants to play make-believe and be a pathological liar.  He just wants to take the "carry more floppy disks" approach.  It's asinine when technology has far greater potential.  Yet he resists every attempt to explore such options.

And I just don't have the patience for that kind of childish nonsense anymore.  Engaging with him is a waste of your time.  All he will do is lie to you and then berate you when you eventually disagree with his bizarre and unrealistic delusions.  Given enough encounters with franky1, sooner or later, everyone will tire of his toxic and obnoxious behaviour.  And for that reason, he's not a threat.  He'll go through life gradually alienating everyone he comes across.  To the point where literally no one will listen to his insane technobabble anymore.  That's why he's now on my ignore list.  That's the sum extent of what he has to offer.  Lies, delusions and toxic behaviour.  Literally nothing of value.

[o_e_l_e_o]

If there is a 51% network attack on Bitcoin and we can avoid it via some code modification, would you support it or not?

If we need developers to dictate which chain is the "correct" chain, rather than the network, then bitcoin has failed. You can already have this kind of centralized "developers decide" approach with the vast majority of altcoins.

It will be censorship if we implement the support of blockchain analysis companies in Bitcoin network. It's not censorship to kill ordinals.

In your opinion.

Are we going to ignore bitcoin whitepaper?

Every development in bitcoin in the last 10 years isn't mentioned in the whitepaper. If we only went on the whitepaper, we wouldn't even be using addresses, only pubkeys.

Is bitcoin for everyone who want to improve privacy and independence from financial institutes or is it only for rich people?

And is bitcoin for everyone who wants to use it, or is it only for people who use it in the ways that we decide are acceptable?

That's the point, when the software that 98.97% of the network run does not have the option to reject these transactions we can't know how many people "hate ordinals" and how many want it.

Dashjr published some code months ago which anyone could simply paste in to their copy of Core in order to start filtering out ordinal transactions from their mempool. The most likely thing is that most people do not care either way, and will simply run whatever Core implements without a second thought.

[apogio]

However, there is something unique with Bitcoin. Everyone is able to "not comply with the rules" running whatever they want. Then the only thing they need to do is to convince other users to use the same set of rules.

Personal Opinion:
I am personally in favour of not dropping ordinals now, but if the majority chooses to reject ordinals, I will have to obey to this. I will still be able to run a version that allows ordinals, but in fact it won't matter because the majority will reject them.
Finally, I hate ordinals, but it is not safe to run specific code to reject them, because it will also impact other features that I (and perhaps many other users) need.

[franky1]

in response to troll doomad

doomad is the one that wants to stick to only a couple floppy disk era data. his post history speaks for itself
he then uses "GB by midnight" as the exaggerated oxymoron approach to suggest bitcoin cant cope with scaling as the reason to stick with a few floppy disk amounts limits that should not be changed unless core greenlight it

again he mis represent everything and even assumes scaling is just linear or "leaping" and he adjusts his troll posts to go from one exaggeration to the other to avoid any real rational discussion of improvements

linear is going like 1mb, 2mb,3mb,4mb
exponential is going 1mb, 2mb,4mb, 8mb, 16mb, 32mb, 64mb, 128mb
leaping/exaggerating is going 1mb, 4mb, 1gb, visa

my post history has shown my opinions has never been "linear" nor "leaping"

my post history has been more nuanced:
things like:
a. fee formulae to punish and dis-incentivise spammers/junkers from using soo much of blockspace to allow more use for genuine bitcoiners
b. decludging the blockspace to get back to real byte counts of transactions and blockspace to fully utilise allowed realms of blockspace limits
c. making transactions leaner so that 5tx couldnt fill a block pre 2017 and 1tx couldnt fill a block post 2017
d. and as for the progressive adjustments to bitcoin blocksize limits. i have never actually claimed judgements on any number. instead i have said idea's around progressive adjustments

in regards to (d). there are many ways to do this
much like how bitcoin difficulty doesnt adjust by a fixed linear/exponential amount. bitcoin blocksize doesnt either
it can adjust, without dev politic decisions, to grow based on the data of the blockchain

taking details like blockfill % and fee to make a calculations that shows how much over-demand there is for blockspace to then adjust by a varying amount from 25%-400%

based completely on blockdata not dev decided politics

as for doomads trolling pretending that i lie to him about the events of bitcoin history.. i can back up my description of events using code and blockdata. he can only quote social drama and fanclub leaders words and their broken promises

ill stick to the facts of immutable blockdata that cant edit history and the code that helped produce it, thank you very much

doomad post history of 2015-16 was more open minded. he wanted dynamic block increases he wanted people to continue to be able to buy coffee onchain. he wanted fee's to be moderate per user but total enough to keep the network happy WHEN the network needed the extra subsidy(not this decade)
he even didnt want the spam
..
however he completely flipped the script in 2017 and went full core affiliate program, selling their empty promises and repeating dead scripts that could not be backed up by data or code.. he became a sellout in the 2017+ era

by the way doomad has lost a recruit in his clubhouse(blackhatcoiner) so is desperate to hire another idiot to kiss his ass and be obediently loyal to his trollism narrative,, dont become one... its not healthy for you

do your own research(based on data and code, not social drama/politics of core roadmap of broken promises) and dont just sound like an echo of a troll.. think for yourself based on real data not social drama/ass kissery of previous and future broken promises they offer

[larry_vw_1955]

 But i guess even developer don't expect witness data would be used to store arbitrary data.

yeah that's the problematic thing. something like bitcoin shouldn't be the result of unintended and unexpected consequences. so if they would have put in the specification that "NOTE: people can store arbitrary data in the witness now and that is how it is meant to be and how we want it to be" then that's one thing but I don't think people would have understood the reason for that stance. unless they also said "This is an unavoidable consequence of segwit and there's nothing we can do about it. Sorry!". but then people would say it's poorly designed and needs further work...

[franky1]

 But i guess even developer don't expect witness data would be used to store arbitrary data.

yeah that's the problematic thing. something like bitcoin shouldn't be the result of unintended and unexpected consequences.

yawn.. "unexpected",, pfft   note the dates of these quotes.. yep pre segwit, talking about how segwit opens up the exploit

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

..
when core implemented the upgrade publicly from november 2016.. there were good reasons why the community did not vote above 45% even upto june 2017..
there were however dev politics and dev sponsorship reasons why MANDATED economic node(NYA agreement) forced/pushed/blackmailed the networks mining pools into an unnatural 100% compliance/activation by august 2017.. bypassing a real natural community vote process

its is also proven by blockdata and code of the version bits of june-july-august, of it happening

also to debunk the troll you "respect"

also are you presume bitcoin is going to jump in utility by a factor of 20, in days, weeks, months, years..?
seems your opinion is that its going to jump in days-months and so your upset that bitcoin cant cope.. yet RATIONALLY bitcoin utility will grow over YEARS and in those YEARS larger blocks would be happily relayable.

the main community is not saying jump to 20mb in weeks-months. its instead asking for a rational growth over rational time without having to beg devs "can i have some more" every couple years. by allowing the growth to be dynamic and not controlled by a team of people paid by banks.

see i was talking about dynamic progress(scaling) not linear nor exponential and not requiring dev politics to decide.. but here we are 7 years later discussing how errors made 7 years ago have come to fruition via the exploits mentioned 7 years ago about junk arbitrary data. and how scaling still is being demanded but not achieved, and we have trolls trying to make other exaggerations about how exponential and linear wont solve anything to avoid rational discussions about real solutions

[larry_vw_1955]

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

wow franky you were pretty spot on in your prediction. i mean you saw monkeys coming from a mile away! uncanny how you predicted exactly what was going to happen to the T. 

[franky1]

not exactly foreseeing monkey images.. i was thinking more like people writing the bible into the blockchain, or the encyclopaedia or the full series of harry potter..

but yea, it pays to actually read and scrutinise and review code, and look at how things work. instead of just reading social/blog posts of confirmation bias trolls who just want to ass kiss devs like gods promoting uptopian fluffy cloud empty promises of heaven.. and then those trolls form social groups to all agree that they love core devs and agree that no one should dare read, scrutinise or review code as it goes against devs ambitions and hurts devs feelings. and use each other as proofs of each others narratives by quoting each other in an echo chamber

when idiots say that the community should not requests devs to do something. pretending asking devs to do something is authoritarianism.. the truth is letting devs do as devs want without question, scrutiny, critique is the true authoritarianism

i was not the only one that seen problems with segwits implementation.. its why it only got 45% over 8 months(nov-june) where core devs were hoping to reach consensus in one month(nov-dec).
they by june realised their 12 month deadline was approaching, and instead of accepting defeat and going back to the drawing board to offer something the community could actually fully get behind, they done some bait and switch empty promise marketing campaigns of mandates and mining pool blackmails via their sponsors(NYA agreement) to push it through, just so that the devs can collect their 12 month sponsor deadline reward when activated

[Synchronice]

I think, we can be confident to say that when the block subsidy will be near zero, bitcoin will be a very popular and widely used currency with very high number of users and transactions.

I would not be so confident if we start rejecting random transactions we are ideologically opposed with.

Ordinals are not part of traditional bitcoin transactions, they just abuse the bug. Is it really censorship if we don't let others to abuse the bug? Ordinals are damaging the bitcoin and you guys protect the ordinals, doesn't make sense for me. Even in censorship-free world, abusers should be punished.

By the way, answer to these problems is Monero. Centralized exchanges ban Monero and Monero is also the most privacy focused currency. Move on Monero.

I am already there pal, and you should consider moving too.  But that does not mean I will support censorship on bitcoin.

Censorship, censorship. 100% censorship-free is a failure and we already reap the results.

Is bitcoin for everyone who want to improve privacy and independence from financial institutes or is it only for rich people?

And is bitcoin for everyone who wants to use it, or is it only for people who use it in the ways that we decide are acceptable?

I highly respect your every opinion but I can't agree with you on this particular task. You say that bitcoin is for everyone but Ordinals kill it for everyone. I, like many people, can't use Bitcoin because of ordinals. Now ordinals spammers use bitcoin instead of genuine bitcoin users. Imagine you live in a world where everyone protects rules but there is a guy who robs and kills people, should that person be punished or not despite the fact that everyone else protects rules? Someone might argue with me that it will be censorship to get rid of that one bad person but if you don't get rid of him/her, he/she will get rid of all of you. 100% censorship-free system is impossible, even for Bitcoin. Ordinal spammers abuse network, they are abusers.

[larry_vw_1955]

not exactly foreseeing monkey images.. i was thinking more like people writing the bible into the blockchain, or the encyclopaedia or the full series of harry potter..

how could you not expect images, audio and maybe even short video clips to appear? wouldn't that logically follow? i don't think there's been too much storing of audio and video but there has been some. people never stop at just text. i'm sure you know that. 

i was not the only one that seen problems with segwits implementation.. its why it only got 45% over 8 months(nov-june) where core devs were hoping to reach consensus in one month(nov-dec).

so there was other people that were against it for the same reasons as you? to me that's hard to believe since i don't think most people have any idea about the code. or what it would allow. i just don't believe people would have known about the arbitrary data being put into the witness issue. i guess i could be wrong but i'd need to see their posts from the relevant time period to know for sure. because as i said, i don't think most people know much about those kind of details.

[franky1]

not exactly foreseeing monkey images.. i was thinking more like people writing the bible into the blockchain, or the encyclopaedia or the full series of harry potter..

how could you not expect images, audio and maybe even short video clips to appear? wouldn't that logically follow? i don't think there's been too much storing of audio and video but there has been some. people never stop at just text. i'm sure you know that.  

back then no one was talking about NFT, art copywriting or tokenisations. they were just talking about immutable whitepaper and wikileaks publishing

i was not the only one that seen problems with segwits implementation.. its why it only got 45% over 8 months(nov-june) where core devs were hoping to reach consensus in one month(nov-dec).

so there was other people that were against it for the same reasons as you? to me that's hard to believe since i don't think most people have any idea about the code. or what it would allow. i just don't believe people would have known about the arbitrary data being put into the witness issue. i guess i could be wrong but i'd need to see their posts from the relevant time period to know for sure. because as i said, i don't think most people know much about those kind of details.

node users are not part of consensus voting anymore.. there was not such a thing as "user assisted" even in 2017
using the old fashioned consensus has died off in recent years. definitions of what is defined as "consensus activation" has changed
though some trolls will think that consensus always has been some lame trick user recently.. reality is it hasnt, consensus was stronger in earlier years to activate important stuff.. but now consensus has gone soft

it was mining pools and services(economic nodes) which are a certain subset of bitcoin community that had the strength of a recognised vote/allegiance to a certain codebase(research the NYA agreement/mandated activation)

USERS whether they upgrade or not would not be able to stop or activate a feature(research backward compatibility).. a "user assisted activation" has not been a thing for a long time.. (and although troll promoted as such, user assisted was not the mechanism used in 2017.. which you can learn by looking at the block flags and bips and code of what actually activated the 2017 upgrade (economic node NYA+ mandated mining pool blakmail)

[nutildah]

how could you not expect images, audio and maybe even short video clips to appear? wouldn't that logically follow? i don't think there's been too much storing of audio and video but there has been some. people never stop at just text. i'm sure you know that.  

In retrospect, we can see that it did logically follow. However, almost nobody was thinking about using the blockchain for anything other than payments for its first several years.

Story time:

Nobody had the foresight to use Bitcoin for digitally recreating physical items outside of money, such as trading cards or artwork, until 2015. There were the famous BitLen / Ben Bernanke ASCII images that was embedded into a transaction in 2011, but they weren't transferrable.

The first time a piece of art was embedded in Bitcoin and associated with a transferrable, Bitcoin-based asset was August 2015, when NFT pioneer JP Janssen made a Counterparty broadcast containing a HEX-encoded thumbnail-sized image for his OLGA token. This was accomplished by splitting the image data into multiple outputs, which were eventually spent.

JP also created one of the first wallets that made it easy to transfer & organize Spells of Genesis tokens, which is widely considered to be the first digital trading card collection:

Just released a special version of CounterTools; Spells of Genesis Edition - https://youtu.be/f9mUWeXpaoc

How many people reading this have heard of any of these things? Outside of knowing about 'BitLen', I'm guessing not many.

The point is, virtually nobody had the foresight to use Bitcoin for image storage until well after NFTs were a thing, and it was only recently enabled because of Taproot. Before that it was limited to postage stamp-sized images.

Here's a really good article that covers all these early experiments:

https://medium.com/kaleidoscope-xcp/the-early-evolution-of-art-on-the-blockchain-part-1-d52d1454e34b

[Synchronice]

If we don't kill ordinals, ordinals will kill us. Some might argue that we shouldn't remove ordinals because we have to remain 100% censorship-free but don't these transaction fees affect your pocket? We want to use bitcoin for p2p transactions but some people use it for sending JPEGs and some crazy dudes are willing to pay millions in these crazy JPEG files. So, many of you can't use Bitcoin in everyday life because fees are super high. Do you guys want massive adoption? Do you really support crypto payments? Do you want to buy things with crypto? How are you going to do that? To pay $50 on each $5 transaction and go bankrupt quickly while miners will spend their holidays in Ibiza?
Natural selection works in cryptocurrencies too. More and more people move on altcoins while more and more ordinal guys move on Bitcoins. Soon there will be 100 censorship-free bitcoin full of useless JPEG files while the financial world will move on altcoins. Is this what we want? This forum will probably be changed by ordinaltalk and Casey Rodarmor will be a new satoshi. Is this really what we want? Or should we stop arguing that if some people think black is white, maybe they are right bullshit? Ordinals are spam, it doesn't need arguing or if it needs, good luck with using Bitcoin alone with JPEG fanatics.

[Medusah]

If we don't kill ordinals, ordinals will kill us. Some might argue that we shouldn't remove ordinals because we have to remain 100% censorship-free but don't these transaction fees affect your pocket?

Turn the question the other way around.  Don't the rest of the transactions affect your pocket?  Would you ever consider to censor the rest for the sake of maintaining a low median fee?