Stop adding features to Bitcoin that don't facilitate its use as electronic cash

[we-btc]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

[1715351957]

1715351957

[1715351957]

1715351957

[Helena Yu]

What are those features?

[we-btc]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

[criptoevangelista]

Even though we don't agree with Ordinals and all kinds of things in the Blockchain, we have to accept it, because the freedom that bitcoin creates also brings things that we don't like very much... So time and the market itself to say what will survive or not... And not there is nothing we can do but let time tell who is right.

[Helena Yu]

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

Those aren't features in Bitcoin, but shitcoins projects that want to attack Bitcoin. Fortunately, I don't see any discussion or hype about this shitcoins anymore, so it's good most people are now forget about ordinals.

I thought you want to answer the feature from Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, that's why I ask which one.

[we-btc]

Even though we don't agree with Ordinals and all kinds of things in the Blockchain, we have to accept it, because the freedom that bitcoin creates also brings things that we don't like very much... So time and the market itself to say what will survive or not... And not there is nothing we can do but let time tell who is right.

You make a valid argument.

But I will restate what I think is the core issue here: Bitcoin is a system of electronic cash. As a system of electronic cash it has transformative power.  Let's keep it that way.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

Well, as much as I will love to agree with you, let's also not forget that high bitcoin transaction fees have existed even far before ordinals and all of other features you mentioned came into the picture.

And sorry to also say this, if you really think that bitcoin can only serve as an electronic payment system, even at this point; bud, wake up from sleep for you must be day-dreaming.
With all the current developments around bitcoin, with all its achievements so far, it is crystal clear that the majority of bitcoin buyers are not buying to spend it on goods or use it to pay for services, but majority are buying bitcoin for and as investment, if not all actually.. Go around town, many people hold bitcoin, and there are several outlets willing to accept bitcoin, but still, customers prefer to pay with fiat, and keep their bitcoin as investment for future profit.

And personally, I would rather sell a small part of my bitcoin, convert it to fiat and pay for what ever I want to purchase, than spend bitcoin to buy it, yeah, the white paper said "electronic peer to peer cash system", but bitcoin as achieved and surpassed that.

[batang_bitcoin]

I think you also mean about Bitcoin as an investment, asset or a store of value. If these things that I've mentioned are also those features that you're pointing out.
There's no way to stop it because of its nature, supply limit and design, these features are inborn to Bitcoin and we as users, investors, holders or whatever you call yourself, we have to adopt it and use it with what we're comfortable of. No one stops us from using it as a p2p e-cash and the same goes for the other features. But, I hate ordinals. 

[Charles-Tim]

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

Bitcoin developers pave way to the development of Ordinals and BRC20 tokens but they are not the developers of the tokens. It was later seen as a bug but which might intentionally be included by bitcoin developers.

With the existence of the tokens, the developers and miners can make fast and low fee transactions possible but that is not what is happening, but it is possible.

[DooMAD]

Short of switching to closed-source code (which I hope will never happen), I don't see how such things are meant to be controlled.  Anyone can build what they want and there isn't a way to stop them.  Bitcoin doesn't have a hierarchy where you ask for permission to do stuff.  If someone writes code and then other people run that code, things can happen.  Even if other people disagree.

If you want more features that facilitate usage as a currency, either get coding, or pay some developers to write some code you do want to see.  That's the only way things get done.

[BlackHatCoiner]

"Added features" is a bit of an improper way to put it. There are no features added, apart from softforks like Segwit and Taproot of course. Ordinals is a concept that makes use of the already existent features.

You don't like paying high fees. None of us does. However, it is the nature of the system such that the demand and supply of the block space defines the transaction fees. Censoring a transaction you don't like is a thing that happens in fiat. Not in here.

[alani123]

Indeed Ordinals and Runes are very antithetical to Bitcoin's purpose. Adding trash data to the Blockchain makes no sense especially provided that there's no monetary value attached to these transactions, instead they act as a pointer to an artificial "token" or image file, which is a gross abuse of a distributed ledger. Some things like image storage make much more sense with more centralized infrastructure.

On the one hand Core developers have been very slow to quell this abuse of bugs and overlooked features that are prone to abuse. Because not only is adding trash data on the Blockchain with OPcode abuse a bug,  but the Taproot update also gives them a discount...

For now, if you are a miner, you can transfer your hash on ocean.xyz and support a pool that doesn't mine ordinal and such transactions. Hopefully the core devs also listen to the community's needs sooner or later.

[kryptqnick]

I also don't like Ordinals, and I think that Bitcoin should be optimized as a currency (for example, SegWit was a good change because it optimized transactions). But Bitcoin was built is something open, decentralized, something that gives freedom. And building up other things is arguably a part of that freedom. As for the point that Bitcoin was made as electronic cash and should thus stay this way, some can correctly point out that most people probably don't use Bitcoin as electronic cash. People are interested in Bitcoin as a safe haven, as an investment opportunity or as something similar. So with new uses come new transformations.

[avikz]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

It's not a feature though! But I do agree with you! Ordinals are absolute nonsense. It is clogging the network and pushing the transaction fees to an unreasonable extent.

Couple of months back I heard that Bitcoin developers are planning to ban ordinals to function within Bitcoin blockchain. But didn't hear much after that. This is really needed in order to save Bitcoin network.

[DooMAD]

Couple of months back I heard that Bitcoin developers are planning to ban ordinals to function within Bitcoin blockchain. But didn't hear much after that. This is really needed in order to save Bitcoin network.

That sounds a little dramatic, heh.  The network is far from requiring "saving".  Ordinals is just some inconsiderate shitehawks looking to make money by selling worthless crap to idiots while utilising resources in an incredibly inefficient way.  In no way is it a threat to the network.  It's mainly a threat to gullible suckers who buy the crap and get ripped off.  Fortunately, fools are finite in supply, so the scam won't last forever.  Eventually, people will start to wise up and see it for the trash it is.

I would argue that a bigger threat to the network is people misguidedly asking for devs to be the arbiters of what transactions are allowed or not.  No one should have that role in a decentralised network.

[SamReomo]

These days most people rather consider Bitcoin as a safe asset for investment purpose rather than a electronic cash. There are many other crypto-currencies that can be used better for the purpose of payments than Bitcoin due to its high fees. You can't convince everyone to consider it as an electronic cash anymore.

Even if you read wall observer thread of this forum then you'll find that most of the OG's consider Bitcoin as an asset rather than a payment system. They believe in holding it for the long-term to earn profits with each bull run. So, considering Bitcoin as P2P payment gateway alone would not be a wise choice these days.

[DooMAD]

These days most people rather consider Bitcoin as a safe asset for investment purpose rather than a electronic cash. There are many other crypto-currencies that can be used better for the purpose of payments than Bitcoin due to its high fees. You can't convince everyone to consider it as an electronic cash anymore.

But that's only because people don't look at the big picture.  All of the stuff that will make Bitcoin scalable, efficient and more conducive to use as a daily currency will likely happen on higher layers that haven't been built yet.  The primary function of the base protocol is to be resilient and secure.  And it is.

[franky1]

These days most people rather consider Bitcoin as a safe asset for investment purpose rather than a electronic cash. There are many other crypto-currencies that can be used better for the purpose of payments than Bitcoin due to its high fees. You can't convince everyone to consider it as an electronic cash anymore.

But that's only because people don't look at the big picture.  All of the stuff that will make Bitcoin scalable, efficient and more conducive to use as a daily currency will likely happen on higher layers that haven't been built yet.  The primary function of the base protocol is to be resilient and secure.  And it is.

"higher"?? pfft.. laughable!

you mean LOWER LEVELS
stop trying to promote your crappy subnetwork as being "higher" (subliminally: better)

your stupid subtle wording is not going un noticed.. the subnetworks you adore and want everyone to abandon bitcoin for just doesnt do as promised.. and no patience will fix those problems of the subnetwork

yes YET TO BE BUILT subnetworks will have NICHES for certain use-cases, but bitcoin network still needs to scale.. stop trying to assume bitcoin needs to stagnate and be patient whilst you and your clowns promote everyone should shift to other networks and abandon using bitcoin for in your inferior minds opinion of abandoning usage on the bitcoin network being a benefit to bitcoiners .. cos its not a benefit to bitcoiners

making bitcoin more of a headache/expense just to transact, more congested, bloated with meaningless junk. is not a benefit to bitcoiners
bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network.. using another network with IOU unsettled units(tokens pegged) is not the same thing
using another network doesnt make you a bitcoiner, it makes you a subnetworker
using a CEX custodian doesnt make you a bitcoiner

#not-your-keys-not-your-coin


him trying to say junk is ok to be allowed to continue, but genuine bitcoin transactions should not happen.. is not a benefit to bitcoiners

..
"resilient and secure"?? pfft.. laughable!
doomad loves that bitcoins rules got softened.. its another headache added to bitcoin to promote his favoured subnetworks that everyone (in his mind) should move over to use
he says people should not buy coffee/pizza/groceries on bitcoin ($2-$200) (0.00003000-0.00300000)
but junk meme of monkey/json junk should be allowed on bitcoin  ($0.20) (0.00000300)
doomad doesnt want the rules to be hardened again(secured) as a secure resilient network harms his subnetwork promotion games

[franky1]

Bitcoin developers pave way to the development of Ordinals and BRC20 tokens but they are not the developers of the tokens. It was later seen as a bug but which might intentionally be included by bitcoin developers.

the exploit/bug was a known thing and warned of consequences in 2016 before the activation/opening of the bug(softening of the rules) occurred in 2017**
the result only shown itself in later years when idiots used the exploit to cause headaches

Short of switching to closed-source code (which I hope will never happen), I don't see how such things are meant to be controlled.  Anyone can build what they want and there isn't a way to stop them.  Bitcoin doesn't have a hierarchy where you ask for permission to do stuff.  If someone writes code and then other people run that code, things can happen.  Even if other people disagree.

bitcoin does have a hierarchy.. its called CORE.. all proposals have to go through cores vetting, else get REKT

"Added features" is a bit of an improper way to put it. There are no features added, apart from softforks like Segwit and Taproot of course. Ordinals is a concept that makes use of the already existent features.

use of an exploit added 2017

You don't like paying high fees. None of us does. However, it is the nature of the system such that the demand and supply of the block space defines the transaction fees.

wrong. core changed code to miscount bytes and multiply other bytes to change the natural sat/byte space count of space
the fee bumps of fee estimation is also a new things that caused unnatural fee climbs

Censoring a transaction you don't like is a thing that happens in fiat. Not in here.

rules/code are actually there to keep the network clean(or atleast used to)
but even now not everything should be on the network and even core devs knows some tx are not fit for the network
they even use terms like
'dropped', 'un-relayed', 'purged', 'dust-swept', 'orphaned', 'ignored, 'abandoned', 'pruned', 'stripped', 'evicted'
yep even mining pools are not forced to include all transactions (empty blocks)
so stop pretending junk needs to be included because you think its censorship otherwise..
preventing certain junk is actually about having rules to run a clean network
having bad code that doesnt even validate junk and let it pass is insecure and makes the network worse

** (the junk was pre-warned in 2016...)

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.
..
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 over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added, core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly

[PrivacyG]

Unfortunately AND fortunately, Bitcoin is Open Source.  Whether you like it or not, we can do what ever we want with it long as there is a majority consent for it.  This is why some Altcoins pop up every now and then trying to convince every body they are the 'better' version of Bitcoin.  They saw something they did not like into Bitcoin, but the majority did not have a problem with it.  So they took Bitcoin, modified it, launched a new Chain and tried to show case why their 'Bitcoin' is better.

Problem is.  Almost every single such attempt ended up a huge disaster.  Even Bitcoin Cash which is the strongest as of now among the Bitcoin copies does not stand strong enough to convince every body into believing it is better than the O G Bitcoin.

It is alright to think Bitcoin is not the way you like.  It is also alright to try to make others believe that way.  I think we are all in the same situation and over 90 percent of us hate what happens with the Mempool since Ordinals came alive.  I suppose developers are working on that.  I would happily support a Bitcoin that does not let Ordinal spam the Network again.  But we shall see what happens because maybe we are just a minority and the majority does not care yet.

stop trying to promote your crappy subnetwork as being "higher" (subliminally: better)

your stupid subtle wording is not going un noticed.. the subnetworks you adore and want everyone to abandon bitcoin for just doesnt do as promised.. and no patience will fix those problems of the subnetwork

Bitcoin is Layer 1.  Lightning is Layer 2.  How is Layer 2 lower than Layer 1 in your eyes?

You are making us look like a weird cult always extrapolating the words we are using.  DooMAD was obviously referring simply to Layer 2, Layer 3 et cetera.  What are you going to exaggerate next about?  DooMAD calls Layer 2 'higher' than Layer 1 to subliminally wash your brain into thinking Layer 2 is some sort of higher power?

It is not as deep as you make it seem.

[franky1]

1
2
3
oh look 2 is under 1

however
3
2
1
looks weird, out of order
and yes doomad does love to idolise subnetworks as being better than bitcoin options ("solution", solution", "better", "faster", "cheaper", "the future of")

and yes doomad is cultish, as is his followers(blackhatcoiner/windfury and the other ilk of subnetwork adoration committee AKA echo chamber recital party of doomads choir/hymn sheets)
he doesnt want the current life of bitcoin to grow and prosper(he hates talks of scaling bitcoin), he is inviting people to abandon this life(bitcoin network) and prosper in the next life(subnetworks)
he sees the next life as the fluffy clouds above.. a brighter utopia/heaven
i however see his next life as 6 foot in the ground where the worms play

..
bitcoin USED TO BE more open.. until CORE(as the name suggests) became the central point of failure where CORE devs own the moderation of technical discussion and the sole reference client people should follow and need to kiss the monarchy ring of hierarchy just to get code accepted and used

..
if you think these word games that are used are not as deep as you think. then you are brushing aside that there are actually well paid sponsors pushing agenda's and they can be noticed by seeing a certain group echoing this same narrative and wording

[DooMAD]

Whether you like it or not, we can do what ever we want with it long as there is a majority consent for it.

Technically, that isn't always the case.  Certain things can be done without majority support.  Features that are considered 'opt-in' could be implemented with as few as two cooperating users, provided they can find a way to implement it within the current consensus rules.

I like to use the analogy that if 20 people decide to go and get ice cream, some of them might decide to add sprinkles, or sauce, or other toppings, but they haven't breached the overall majority notion of going to get ice cream.  Minor things don't need approval from others and fall under the category of personal preference.  It would appear that certain control freaks (like franky1) can't handle that concept.

stop trying to promote your crappy subnetwork as being "higher" (subliminally: better)

your stupid subtle wording is not going un noticed.. the subnetworks you adore and want everyone to abandon bitcoin for just doesnt do as promised.. and no patience will fix those problems of the subnetwork

Bitcoin is Layer 1.  Lightning is Layer 2.  How is Layer 2 lower than Layer 1 in your eyes?

You are making us look like a weird cult always extrapolating the words we are using.  DooMAD was obviously referring simply to Layer 2, Layer 3 et cetera.  What are you going to exaggerate next about?  DooMAD calls Layer 2 'higher' than Layer 1 to subliminally wash your brain into thinking Layer 2 is some sort of higher power?

If you hadn't noticed yet, franky1 is always completely irrational about this sort of thing.  Whenever someone discusses other layers, he accuses them of being "fangirls" and "ass lickers".  That's why he's on my ignore list.  I got tired of reading his sociopathic drivel.  It's a waste of time and effort trying to understand his bizarre neuroses.  I'm convinced he sees himself as the "saviour" of Bitcoin.  But really he's just a deluded little narcissist who can't accept reality (or the fact that no one is going to implement his stupid ideas).  

Thankfully, his influence on the outcome is non-existent.  He's seemingly alienated every single dev he's ever contacted and he's still banned from the 'Development & Technical' subforum for being a crazed fruitloop.  I get the impression he might also be banned from Core's GitHub.  So no one of any importance is listening to him.

All he has are these sad and desperate attempts to twist the narrative.  No one other than him is using the word 'subnetworks' to describe higher layers, so it's not like his ongoing disinformation campaign is even working.  Development continues on those other layers by numerous coders around the world, under multiple dev teams.  There's absolutely nothing he can do to stop it.  So he whines.  Incessantly.  It's all just a bit pathetic, really.  

[BlackHatCoiner]

For now, if you are a miner, you can transfer your hash on ocean.xyz and support a pool that doesn't mine ordinal and such transactions. Hopefully the core devs also listen to the community's needs sooner or later.

Let's leave ideologies asides for a moment. Why would a miner want to mine in a pool that deliberately ignores thousands of transactions?

Whether you like it or not, we can do what ever we want with it long as there is a majority consent for it.

Even better. You can choose any network you want, without majority approval. That's the game changer. We don't need Bitcoin elections. Simply spin up a Bitcoin client with X rules. See who follows. Done.

Problem is.  Almost every single such attempt ended up a huge disaster.  Even Bitcoin Cash which is the strongest as of now among the Bitcoin copies does not stand strong enough to convince every body into believing it is better than the O G Bitcoin.

It ended up a disaster in the eyes of the majority, perhaps. But, I'd argue that for the proponents of big blocks, Bitcoin Cash is the ideal Bitcoin (or as they'd call it, "OG Bitcoin"). Majority might have selected Bitcoin, and that's why it has been a hell of a better investment, but for a proponent of big blocks who simply wants a peer-to-peer cash system, Bitcoin Cash serves a better purpose. Done, we are all happy. That's the beauty.

[harapan]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

I clearly don't understand or see the features.Like what are really the features you're deliberating over;what features of bitcoin do you speak of?Are you saying that the decentralized nature of bitcoin doesn't make it valuable or it's ability or feature of not been

In case you need a reminder.
Bitcoin is a digital currency that can be traded for goods or services with vendors that accept Bitcoin as payment.

Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital or virtual currency created in 2009 that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital asset and It is a new type of asset that joins the ranks of traditional assets such as cash, gold, and real estate.If bitcoin is an electronic money or cash,what are the characteristics of money/cash in particular.It serves as a means of exchange,and store of value.That means digital money like bitcoin would initially possess the characteristics of cash.These features are what makes cash and electronic cash valuable,these currencies will be a total disaster and total waste of time if they lack these features that'll help it useful.

[we-btc]

I clearly don't understand or see the features.Like what are really the features you're deliberating over;what features of bitcoin do you speak of?Are you saying that the decentralized nature of bitcoin doesn't make it valuable or it's ability or feature of not been

In case you need a reminder.
Bitcoin is a digital currency that can be traded for goods or services with vendors that accept Bitcoin as payment.

Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital or virtual currency created in 2009 that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital asset and It is a new type of asset that joins the ranks of traditional assets such as cash, gold, and real estate.If bitcoin is an electronic money or cash,what are the characteristics of money/cash in particular.It serves as a means of exchange,and store of value.That means digital money like bitcoin would initially possess the characteristics of cash.These features are what makes cash and electronic cash valuable,these currencies will be a total disaster and total waste of time if they lack these features that'll help it useful.

Bitcoin's mission, which is very clearly stated in the title and first sentence of the white paper is to provide "peer-to-peer electronic cash."

Providing a decentralized, peer-to-peer, electronic cash system with a limited supply is revolutionary.  Stuffing that system with fungible and non-fungible tokens is a waste of the most revolutionary tech to be developed in our time.

When it costs $5 to send $10 worth of Bitcoin it is not functional as a currency. Increasing the congestion on the network with ordinals and runes is only increasing the cost per transaction making it less viable as a form of cash.
By adding additional payload onto the transaction you are making it slower and making the network less efficient when what we should be doing is making the network more efficient in order to make Bitcoin more usable as electronic cash.

If you want to exchange files or fungible tokens create a network outside of bitcoin that is designed and has the purpose of providing fungible and non-fungible tokens and data.  Of course, those already exist on centralized networks.

[franky1]

Whether you like it or not, we can do what ever we want with it long as there is a majority consent for it.

Even better. You can choose any network you want, without majority approval. That's the game changer. We don't need Bitcoin elections. Simply spin up a Bitcoin client with X rules. See who follows. Done.

what blackhat +doomad like.. and admit too.. is where bitcoiners no longer form majority consent for a new feature to activate(core softened that requirement), where previously things only upgraded based on if a feature will benefit bitcoin.. but now instead the paradigm is allow core to throw in any feature they want without consent(softened consensus trick not needing majority network readiness(not needing secure node readiness to understand new stuff)), where people can just follow cores direction, or let their junk pass unvalidated.. and the only option for users is to move to a different network if they dont like cores direction(cores roadmap or make altcoin is the cults narrative)

sounds like tyranny to me..
when idiots dont believe in consensus(consent of the masses) or blockchains solution to the byzantine generals issue of avoiding central points of failure, where they instead prefer the central CORE point of failure to have administrative and moderation control.. it reveals who wants to stagnate bitcoins scaling via bad code that only benefits other networks.. just to promote that people should move to other networks
..it reveals who are the true sociopaths that dont care about bitcoiners and only care about their underground cult agendas of recruiting people into their fluffy cloud utopia of the next life.. (its not a fluffy cloud over there, its worms in the ground feeding on you)

read doomads and his cults post history, every time there is a discussion about features that benefit BITCOINERS vs subnetworkers*
he hates features that will scale bitcoin to allow more transactions and ease of use of bitcoin as it hurts his recruitment campaign of other networks

if a subnetwork is dependant of a mainnet.. its UNDER (sub-servant/child/slave) to the master
(*and many do call them subnetworks(google shows many results), doomad just hates it being called a subnetwork and not a higher level)

their narrative is to want bitcoin to stagnate, become less used day-to-day. be only used by elitists, calling other networks the solution.. basically hates bitcoin and wants people to love other networks

[philipma1957]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

Scrypt is better as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. For any transaction under 100 usd in value

12x the blocks per hour for doge+ltc merged mining as compared to btc.

So now that you have been told the truth about peer to peer .

Demonstrate to me why btc is better than Ltc or Doge to buy coffee or to do any small transaction.

[Maus0728]

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

This I can totally agree, these feature shouldn't be a thing in the first place but we've got a lot of those fuckers that want to do stupid and useless stuff in bitcoin and so we end up with this, the transaction fees are just not that tolerable for some in my opinion, some people that I know personally that have bitcoins, would risk putting their bitcoins in a centralized exchange just so they don't have to worry too much about transaction fees in the case that bitcoin goes up in price and they want to take profit.

There's already a solution to ordinals and inscriptions if I recall but the devs aren't putting it yet because with higher transaction fees, miners are making more money.

[Kakmakr]

The thing is, we as users decide to use technology in a certain way, even if it was not originally designed for that purpose.

Take the telephone for instance.. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone for people to talk to each other.. then Telemarketers saw an opportunity to use this technology to spam people with telephone calls to market their products and services.

People think of ways to spoil technology for other people, just because they can profit from it.

[legiteum]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

There are many ways to implement electronic cash, and blockchain was merely one possible way of doing it. What you are saying here is like saying an A380 airplane was design for "flight". While technically true, it misses the entire point of that enormous undertaking.

Bitcoin's central purpose was the evasion of government oversight into transactions.

If you didn't care about that purpose, then blockchain would be an enormous waste of time and resources.

Like most designs, Bitcoin's design is a trade-off:

1. Bitcoin's central goal (see above) requires decentralization.

2. Decentralization requires an extremely complex and costly architecture to be viable, e.g. blockchain.

3. Blockchain precludes a currency from getting anywhere near being a mainstream currency that could be used for daily transactions.

Today, the problem Bitcoin has in the popular marketplace can be summed up by the following misalignment:

1. Millions of people now love Bitcoin because it's been a profitable investment for them.

2. Thousands of people love Bitcoin for it's original purpose of being a means of conducting numerically-delineated transactions out of the reach of government oversight.

In other words, probably 98% of Bitcoin "users" today are simply investors in a placeholder, and they gain no value whatsoever in Bitcoin's original goal thwarting government oversight into transactions. (And Bitcoin itself has been surpassed by other technologies e.g. Monera et. al. for answering Bitcoin's original goal).

As an investment in a brand name as an end in itself, the blockchain architecture works just fine since you need relatively few direct transactions to make a marketplace work. In other words, brokers gather transactions and deal in bulk. Blockchain was never meant to do any of this, but it works just fine for this purpose because transactions can be very few and very large.

If the people maintaining the core want to follow the actual marketplace, they would solve the problems of the 98% and not the 2%. In other words, make Bitcoin work better with brokers like Binance and CoinBase, and/or make it work better with the ETF, or something like that.

[alani123]

For now, if you are a miner, you can transfer your hash on ocean.xyz and support a pool that doesn't mine ordinal and such transactions. Hopefully the core devs also listen to the community's needs sooner or later.

Let's leave ideologies asides for a moment. Why would a miner want to mine in a pool that deliberately ignores thousands of transactions?

I think it's a bit off topic to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of OCEAN pool here especially given that someone has created a threat about that pool, which so far serves as the de-facto discussion for it here.

If it's worth talking about advantages and disadvantages of anything here, it's probably runes, ordinals, brc. Those adding these tokens and "inscriptions" on the blockchain are willing to pay a ridiculous fee on the belief that the bitcoin blockchain does a better job at immortalizing their digital items.

However, those adding data to the bitcoin blockchain do so at the detriment of everyone else. They utilize the feature of discounts for their own purposes, thereby getting a deep discount in their non-canonical transactions, while making it harder and more expensive for everyone else to complete transactions of actual monetary value on-chain due to them hogging space and raising fees.

[btc78]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

I don’t really see any point with ordinals. It’s completely unnecessary and does not contribute to the development and betterment of bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. It might be attracting investors but like you said, bitcoin should be exactly what it was intended for.

However, we can not prevent bitcoin from becoming more as more people try and make bitcoin “better”. I guess we just have to accept that this is all part of innovation and will always be present as technology advances.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin's central purpose was the evasion of government oversight into transactions.

Not just government, but commercial entities as well.  Companies like card providers and commercial banks hold tremendous power in the fiat world.  The idea is that no one is in a position to block or reverse a transaction, no one can freeze or confiscate funds.  That's what we generally refer to as 'censorship resistant'.

There's already a solution to ordinals and inscriptions if I recall but the devs aren't putting it yet because with higher transaction fees, miners are making more money.

I don't know where people keep getting this idea from.  That doesnt seem to be an accurate reflection on what the majority of devs have commented on the matter.

One hot-headed developer claimed there was a solution and had the gall to go to the media with his bright ideas before running it by anyone else.  Then all the other devs turned around and said it wasn't a viable solution at all.  But people just hear what they want to hear, so it doesn't surprise me that this myth continues.

[franky1]

The thing is, we as users decide to use technology in a certain way, even if it was not originally designed for that purpose.

Take the telephone for instance.. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone for people to talk to each other.. then Telemarketers saw an opportunity to use this technology to spam people with telephone calls to market their products and services.

People think of ways to spoil technology for other people, just because they can profit from it.

there were less ways to spoil it 2009-2016.. the issue is what one team decided to do to loosen the rules to make it easier for them to throw in exploits whilst making it more annoying and more of a headache for everyone else. and they were warned and had years to think about closing their exploit, and done nothing..
their "feature" they added 2017 didnt actually help the majority of actual bitcoiners, it just helped create the gateway for other networks, all the promises they made in 2015-16-17 of advantages onchain it would give did not manifest..
and here we are years later still discussing the exploit they added but the lack of care of securing the network again.. but we then have the cultish religion admiring the cludge as it helps promote the need of their other network

[legiteum]

Bitcoin's central purpose was the evasion of government oversight into transactions.

Not just government, but commercial entities as well.  Companies like card providers and commercial banks hold tremendous power in the fiat world.  The idea is that no one is in a position to block or reverse a transaction, no one can freeze or confiscate funds.  That's what we generally refer to as 'censorship resistant'.

Yes, Bitcoin was meant to (but really doesn't) do that too, and blockchain can accomplish this, but again, there are easier ways of accomplishing this besides blockchain. Today, consumers trust VPN companies like NordVPN to keep their actions completely private from everybody but governments with valid subpoenas. They make it their whole business to do this, and the minute they fail at this, they lose all of their business and consumers switch to another provider.

And centralized model could do what the VPN providers do and not use blockchain. Yes, they could fail at this, but so could any public blockchain project, as Bitcoin has for example. There are no absolutes in this regard--no matter what, you need to be diligent. No computer architecture can guarantee you safety--it takes a lot more than just technology.

Blockchain's sole unique advantage is the architecture's ability to create a "government-proof" means of transferring value. If you don't need that, then blockchain is an enormous waste of time and resources.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin's central purpose was the evasion of government oversight into transactions.

Not just government, but commercial entities as well.  Companies like card providers and commercial banks hold tremendous power in the fiat world.  The idea is that no one is in a position to block or reverse a transaction, no one can freeze or confiscate funds.  That's what we generally refer to as 'censorship resistant'.

Yes, Bitcoin was meant to (but really doesn't) do that too

It does when people use it correctly and don't hand control of their funds over to third parties.  But since lots of people leave their BTC in the custody of exchanges and webwallets, they can (and often do) have their funds frozen or stolen. 

Much in the same way that speculation is one of the driving forces behind Bitcoin not being used as a currency, peoples' preferred method of speculation, where they gamble on exchanges, introduces weaknesses and vulnerabilities to an otherwise robust system. 

The idea was to eliminate middlemen to increase security, but speculators seem to have it backwards and deliberately introduce middlemen to eliminate security.   

[legiteum]

It does when people use it correctly and don't hand control of their funds over to third parties.  But since lots of people leave their BTC in the custody of exchanges and webwallets, they can (and often do) have their funds frozen or stolen. 

Much in the same way that speculation is one of the driving forces behind Bitcoin not being used as a currency, peoples' preferred method of speculation, where they gamble on exchanges, introduces weaknesses and vulnerabilities to an otherwise robust system. 

The idea was to eliminate middlemen to increase security, but speculators seem to have it backwards and deliberately introduce middlemen to eliminate security.   

I was just pointing out that the public ledger is a constant security risk. People who are serious about privacy use Monera or some equivalent.

There's a security risk with storing your own keys as well, and I suspect most people see that as a bigger risk than using a company they trust. As I keep saying here, most people would be terrified to physically hold their life savings in their hands, where they can lose it or it can be stolen. (I'm not talking about some smaller amount of money you could lose and it not ruin your life, I'm talking about one's major holdings for the future).

Ask any serious security expert and they will tell you that security is not just some code, there's a lot to it, and many factors besides technology go in to making a more security system (and just a warning, if you use terms like "perfectly secure" around a security expert you might get something thrown at you ).

And I always have to laugh when I hear people say, "it uses blockchain so it can't be hacked".

[Mate2237]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

Well Ordinals are not features in the bitcoin network and but it is a subsidiary that is using the network. And I don't think there is any other features that has been added to the bitcoin network except that the main purpose of creating bitcoin has been forgotten by the users because of it investment benefits. The peer to peer of bitcoin is mainly for the buying of things and services online. And really foe the ordinals using the bitcoin network and making the transaction fee high is making things difficult and hard for people to freely use bitcoin and that now as we are talking that has paved the way for other altcoins to be more popular.

As it is Ethereum and Solana networks are very much congested that one can't even buy coin from them again. Bitcoin ordinals should be eliminated from the network permanently if not what will happen in the future will be more than this.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Those adding these tokens and "inscriptions" on the blockchain are willing to pay a ridiculous fee on the belief that the bitcoin blockchain does a better job at immortalizing their digital items.

"What's the point of freedom if you don't have the freedom to make mistakes?". I agree that Ordinals is trash, and we should warn everyone about it, but we shall not ever dictate to them what they are allowed to do for their own good. And let's be honest here, we don't care at all about them. We only care about ourselves paying a little more than usually in transaction fees.

They utilize the feature of discounts for their own purposes

What discount are you talking about? We are all allowed to select any fee rate we want. Ordinal users have priority, because they pay outrageous amounts of money. Pay more than them to have greater priority. Isn't that fair?

[franky1]

They utilize the feature of discounts for their own purposes

What discount are you talking about? We are all allowed to select any fee rate we want. Ordinal users have priority, because they pay outrageous amounts of money. Pay more than them to have greater priority. Isn't that fair?

blackhat dont play dumb fool like doomad does.. he keeps learning things then unlearning things months later just to look a twit, just to cause controversy and play dumb to pretend he enver gets debunked, just to poke the bear.. stop copying him
you know full well that the tx data is rated at a different data cost to the witness data

you know about the cludgy code of the miscounting of bytes called vbytes.. so why play dumb? are you trying to win an award for being a twit?
its like you and doomad pretend to want to win a prize from the alzheimer society every few months, why?

Those adding these tokens and "inscriptions" on the blockchain are willing to pay a ridiculous fee on the belief that the bitcoin blockchain does a better job at immortalizing their digital items.

"What's the point of freedom if you don't have the freedom to make mistakes?". I agree that Ordinals is trash, and we should warn everyone about it, but we shall not ever dictate to them what they are allowed to do for their own good. And let's be honest here, we don't care at all about them. We only care about ourselves paying a little more than usually in transaction fees.

even you know that its not 'just a little', your tribal drum beat has been to stop bitcoin scaling due to hard drive costs to store the blockchain.. yet scaling bitcoin in 5 years and storing a couple decades of data at scale only costs $50, yet strangely you think paying a $50 fee FOR ONE TRANSACTION due to the congestion caused by junk is 'just a little'
you have no logic in your explanations, you just recite your masters crap without a thought... i was hoping 2024 would be a new year for you, a fresh start.  but instead you just shadow an idiot yet again.. why do that to yourself

secondly even you know the rules of bitcoin WERE stronger whereby every byte counted and had meaning and reason and purpose to secure and validate the movement of bitcoin.. then it was softened(to allow a feature gateway for other networks that came with exploits) and miscounted and assumed valid without checking bytes, which then allowed junk via the exploit of not counting every byte properly and validating every byte for purpose.. sorry but if metadata has got nothing to do with moving bitcoin it should not be on the bitcoin network.. and definitely should not be treated as a different fee rate to the movement of btc..
if you dont want people moving bitcoin to pay for coffee/pizza via making the movement of btc more expensive, why be so happy to have a unrelated, junk monkey pic that costs a different data rate fee.. you make no logical sense.. apart from desires to annoy bitcoiners to advertise other networks as the thing they should use due to the junk you pretend to hate but dont want to have cleaned up because secret you adore its presense

[Cookdata]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

You should know that Bitcoin is an open source project which means it's open to everyone and of course development is a must and if the community agree to something for the better of the protocol, it will be reviewed as "Bitcoin improvement proposal" and and agreed date which modification will be added through soft work which means that even though you don't update your client to the latest protocol, you can still use the network efficiently.

You should also know that the phrase electronic cash is not what Bitcoin is today, it has expanded above that level, lightening network has been developed as a base layer through the native chain and everything is working perfectly, the existence of the other chain doesn't affect the main chain. There have been some NFTs on the Bitcoin which doesn't in any way affect the Bitcoin protocol but it's even favoring the miners who collect he fees to provide maximum security for the Bitcoin chain, everything you see accepted into Bitcoin doesn't in any way affect the originality of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

You should know that Bitcoin is an open source project which means it's open to everyone and of course development is a must and if the community agree to something for the better of the protocol, it will be reviewed as "Bitcoin improvement proposal" and and agreed date which modification will be added through soft work which means that even though you don't update your client to the latest protocol, you can still use the network efficiently.

bitcoin used to be secure.. where by anyone could propose something, but it only activates if majority update their node to be ready to fully validate the new ruleset/feature.. this is called good security.. and  was the entire point of full nodes and a decentralised network

however now hardly anyone can openly/freely make a BIP due to CORES control of the BIP list and their moderation policy of the tiered system of even discussing proposals before they can even be listed in cores BIP list
and then we have core that slip in nw features without needing community agreement because.. as you say and admit.. it does not require users to upgrade to agree to the new feature

[Assface16678]

Well it can't be helped people are becoming more advanced and doing innovative things and bitcoin is not an exception, at first yes the purpose of bitcoin is for digital currency but later on people see bitcoin as more than that, they implemented bitcoin in so many different ways and use its technology which is blockchain, right now we can see how we can earn or mine bitcoin or any other crypto currency in different ways, for example in NFT or crypto games, we have so many crypto currency that can be mined using a game or either a project and bitcoin is also can be used in that, we can't avoid people innovating more ways to use bitcoij we just need to accept it, because if not then bitcoin should not be able to reach its current state, and I think its more practical that bitcoin has been created in order for more advancement innovations.

[we-btc]

Well it can't be helped people are becoming more advanced and doing innovative things and bitcoin is not an exception, at first yes the purpose of bitcoin is for digital currency but later on people see bitcoin as more than that, they implemented bitcoin in so many different ways and use its technology which is blockchain, right now we can see how we can earn or mine bitcoin or any other crypto currency in different ways, for example in NFT or crypto games, we have so many crypto currency that can be mined using a game or either a project and bitcoin is also can be used in that, we can't avoid people innovating more ways to use bitcoij we just need to accept it, because if not then bitcoin should not be able to reach its current state, and I think its more practical that bitcoin has been created in order for more advancement innovations.

Innovation is great if the innovation advances the purpose of Bitcoin which is to be “electronic cash”.  Fungible and non-fungible tokens are not new innovation. We all know that they are available on other centralized networks.

There is a lot of work to be done supporting Bitcoin as a decentralized, trustless cash system. lets get on with the work of freeing ourselves from financial servitude.

[legiteum]

Innovation is great if the innovation advances the purpose of Bitcoin which is to be “electronic cash”.  Fungible and non-fungible tokens are not new innovation. We all know that they are available on other centralized networks.

There is a lot of work to be done supporting Bitcoin as a decentralized, trustless cash system. lets get on with the work of freeing ourselves from financial servitude.

Just out of curiosity, in what way can you imagine Bitcoin being improved?

What is wrong with the way Bitcoin is now that you'd want to be different?

[Apocollapse]

Innovation is great if the innovation advances the purpose of Bitcoin which is to be “electronic cash”.  Fungible and non-fungible tokens are not new innovation. We all know that they are available on other centralized networks.

There is a lot of work to be done supporting Bitcoin as a decentralized, trustless cash system. lets get on with the work of freeing ourselves from financial servitude.

1. Make sure you become US president.
2. Make an announcement that you will replace USD with Bitcoin.
3. Tell Gary Gensler to shutdown every centralized exchanges and services, force people to use Bitcoin in layer 2 and sidechain, decentralized exchange and non custodial wallet.

I'm sure Bitcoin will be fully decentralized and trustless cash system, the question is when you will kick Biden.

[Z390]

What are those features?

Ordinals, Runes and anything that is decreasing the efficiency of the network while increasing fees. The purpose of the network is to provide a "peer-to-peer electronic cash" system.  Anything that is not directly related to this mission should not be in the code.

I understand you mate, and so are many other members on this forum, many people don't like the existence of Ordinals and runes, but there is nothing we can do to stop this, and if we look at this from a different angle, you will see that this stupid idea is benefiting some people.

How? I know people who are so into Bitcoin because of the ordinals, they are NFT fans back in the days, and they choose to stay away from Bitcoin because they thought it's too high in value, they want with NFT from other ALTs, fast forward to today, they are into ordinals and now they have some BTC too.
Also since the existence of ordinals is giving BTC miners more gains, this just makes Bitcoin mining even better, even when the halving is complete and the reward slashed into two, with the existence of ordinals BTC mining can be more profitable than it used to be when ordinals were never here.

[we-btc]

Just out of curiosity, in what way can you imagine Bitcoin being improved?

What is wrong with the way Bitcoin is now that you'd want to be different?

In order for Bitcoin to be an electronic cash system it needs to be fast and the fees need to be low enough that it won't be cost prohibitive for smaller transactions.

We need to remove the incentives to pay higher fees. By adding fungible and non-fungible tokens to the network people are willing to pay more in fees then makes sense for a normal purchase where credit card fees are around 2.5%. The fees would regulate themselves properly if Bitcoin was used as a cash system.

We also will need to solve the speed problem as well.  A person needs to be able to commit the funds quickly so that merchants and people receiving funds can be guaranteed that the funds are committed and they can provide the product or service in a timely manner.

If we solve these two problems Bitcoin becomes a real option for decentralized, peer-to-peer transactions.

[DooMAD]

We also will need to solve the speed problem as well.  A person needs to be able to commit the funds quickly so that merchants and people receiving funds can be guaranteed that the funds are committed and they can provide the product or service in a timely manner.

Two things: 

First, many of the fiat methods of payment currently used in the world daily are not guaranteed as settled anywhere near as quickly as people tend to assume.  Three-to-five working days for a payment to clear is a common timeframe in banking.  BTC is already faster than that.  And card payments can still be reversed via "chargeback" after they're supposedly settled.  Good luck doing that in Bitcoin.

Second, in terms of the base layer, it's not as easy as you make it sound.  There's a cause and effect thing at play.  Compromise and consequence.  If there were any low-hanging fruit here, someone would have picked it by now.  You don't just get something for nothing.  "Faster" has a cost.  But few seem to understand what that cost is or why they're inadvertently asking someone else to pay that cost without even realising.

[franky1]

the economical, practical, useful, logical, common sense approach is this:

unlike the cultish games and shoddy subnetworks of today. the future could see the likes of walmart/starbucks setting up THEIR OWN subnetworks(plural) where people onchain lock up monthly value into their favoured retailers multisig to then purchase goods with IOU units on the subnetworks and settle up each month by closing the sessions. and re establishing new sessions in the same process

much like buying giftcards today in the real world with fiat

but whether we patiently allow cultish idiots to remain in their delay scandals of utopian dreams that never manifest, or the practical future of niche subnetworks for retail needs. the bitcoin network still needs to scale.. and no i am not saying LEAP!!(before the cult idiots pretend thats what scaling is)

scaling means:
1. hardening the rules again to remove the cludge. so that every byte counts and gets validated to meet the rules of actual bitcoin purpose
2. by doing (1) less bloat would occur to allow more transactions within the current allowed blockspace
3. make bloat cost more(a fee multiplier specifically for bloat(witness/metadata)) rather then punishing everyone else while giving bloaters the lower fee
4. where by transactions that want to respend EVERYBLOCK(spammers) also get penalised, rather than everyone else
    and no i dont mean just a huge fee of 1 confirm spends. i mean a scale thats huge for 1confirm respends, decreases per confirm unspent
5. doing (3) and (4) will also help reduce the spam/bloat to then allow more transactions for genuine bitcoiner economic use
6. yes increase the blocksize, but do so based on the DATA congestion of blocks(like how difficulty adjusts) not some central core groups politics
    eg when blocks are full over ##% period(52.5k, 105k 210k blocks) of a halving cycle increase blocksize
7. by doing (1) especially but also some other tweaks, to make transactions leaner so more transactions can fit
8. by doing (1) especially but also some other tweaks, allot the main body of a tx(the actual value transfer) utilise the ful "weight" space, instead of segregated to a 25% portion, thus allowing more transactions per block

emphasis: none of these idea's are blockchain killers nor going to cause centralisation nor going to cause any other stupid excuse cultish groups come up with

i guarantee i will see them spin up old narratives that they fear costs of $50 hard drives for 20 years of tx data..  but be ok with $50 for a single transaction.. so lets get that joke over and done with before they make us laugh, and before we make them cry

i guarantee i will see them spin up old narratives that they fear [insert stupidity] so get the popcorn and lets see them make us laugh with their lame excuses why bitcoin should not scale and we should instead abandon bitcoin for their single subnetwork of their favouring (of shoddy workmanship that has more exploits, bugs and broken promises that are NOT solutions)

[we-btc]

Two things:  
First, many of the fiat methods of payment currently used in the world daily are not guaranteed as settled anywhere near as quickly as people tend to assume.  Three-to-five working days for a payment to clear is a common timeframe in banking.  BTC is already faster than that.  And card payments can still be reversed via "chargeback" after they're supposedly settled.  Good luck doing that in Bitcoin.

I completely agree with your point.  Bitcoin is faster.  The issue is that RBF allows senders to reverse the transaction before it settles(is added to a block).  If we can fix this so that it is not so easy to RBF then Bitcoin is faster.

Second, in terms of the base layer, it's not as easy as you make it sound.  There's a cause and effect thing at play.  Compromise and consequence.  If there were any low-hanging fruit here, someone would have picked it by now.  You don't just get something for nothing.  "Faster" has a cost.  But few seem to understand what that cost is or why they're inadvertently asking someone else to pay that cost without even realising.

I also agree with this point.  There are tradeoffs but the low hanging fruit here is don't allow extra bloat into the transactions like fungible and non-fungible ordinals.  This is slowing the transactions down and making them more expensive.  It is like the developers don't want it used as a "form of electronic cash".  Then lets see how efficient we can make the blocks. Since the block size was increased to 4MB we could eliminate ordinals and use the full 4MB to store transactions quadrupling the capacity and speed of the network. I am sure these numbers are not accurate but you get the idea.

We can do this if we keep our eye on the ball - Bitcoin is a currency that can change the world as we know it by providing individual sovereignty and financial freedom.  Lets focus on that!!!  

[Troytech]

What are those features?

I think some guys just got into bitcoin not long ago and end up reading one stupid random article and decided to make a topic, I don't see any feature that contradicts the main purpose of what they originally designed bitcoin to be like, maybe your referring to crypto in general thinking its bitcoin, now clear facts bitcoin is crypto but crypto isn't bitcoin, next time be specific.

[legiteum]

Just out of curiosity, in what way can you imagine Bitcoin being improved?

What is wrong with the way Bitcoin is now that you'd want to be different?

In order for Bitcoin to be an electronic cash system it needs to be fast and the fees need to be low enough that it won't be cost prohibitive for smaller transactions.

We need to remove the incentives to pay higher fees. By adding fungible and non-fungible tokens to the network people are willing to pay more in fees then makes sense for a normal purchase where credit card fees are around 2.5%. The fees would regulate themselves properly if Bitcoin was used as a cash system.

We also will need to solve the speed problem as well.  A person needs to be able to commit the funds quickly so that merchants and people receiving funds can be guaranteed that the funds are committed and they can provide the product or service in a timely manner.

If we solve these two problems Bitcoin becomes a real option for decentralized, peer-to-peer transactions.

Okay, so you want Bitcoin to be fast (low transactions latency), and have low transaction fees. Great.

I completely agree that these are barriers to Bitcoin (and decentralized cryptos generally) to be accepted as a means mainstream means of daily transactions.

In fact, I suspect people here in Bitcointalk are probably getting sick of hearing me say this.

Now let's talk about how this will never happen using the blockchain architecture.

The blockchain architecture--implemented as it was designed to be used, e.g. as a massively decentralized architecture--is directly at odds with both cost and latency. Indeed, you could say that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to be slow and expensive in order to make the decentralized paradigm work.

Insofar as cryptocurrencies have decreased their cost and latency, they have sacrificed decentralization. This is a trade-off that is based on the universal constant of the speed of light.

It will not be solved by optimizing some code.

It will not be solved by making a few changes to the usage paradigm (unless you sacrifice decentralization).

And while I am an experience software architect and I could have told you this shortly after reading the Bitcoin white paper for the first time, even if you aren't a technical person, you'd have to conclude that after 14 years of trying with no solution, the problem is never, ever, EVER going to be solved.

And no, increasing the block size isn't going to help. A mainstream currency would need to the tens of thousand of times faster, it would need to be hundreds of times cheaper, and it would need to handle tens of billions of transactions per day which is absolutely unthinkable with a public ledger.

Repeat after me:

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

It just. plain. wasn't.

This was never Satoshi's goal. If it was his goal, he would have designed Bitcoin differently (e.g. not blockchain, not decentralized [e.g. he would have created something like Haypenny]).

Be content that Bitcoin does what it was designed to do (well, sorta does): it allows transactions that evade government subpoenas. Thousands of people all over the world need this.

And Bitcoin also does something it was never intended to do, but has become very popular: it works fine as a speculation instrument. Millions of people like this.

Having Bitcoin do any more than that will require that Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin anymore.

[franky1]

The blockchain architecture--implemented as it was designed to be used, e.g. as a massively decentralized architecture--is directly at odds with both cost and latency. Indeed, you could say that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to be slow and expensive in order to make the decentralized paradigm work.

Insofar as cryptocurrencies have decreased their cost and latency, they have sacrificed decentralization. This is a trade-off that is based on the universal constant of the speed of light.

It will not be solved by making a few changes to the usage paradigm (unless you sacrifice decentralization).

satoshi did not make it slow and expensive.. bitcoin settlements of ~10minutes was faster then visa/debit/wire transfer irreversible settlements
satoshi never made it expensive. a cpu in his day only cost pennies per 10 minutes.. the issue is the transactions per 10 minutes has not scaled with the mining cost.. and thats a fault of CORE stagnation

you speak of costs like a $50 hard drive for 20 years of data is detriment to decentralisation.. yet think a $40 for single transaction is not an issue.. yep its official you fell into the echo-chamber mind trap of the cult of idiots.. escape before its too late

It will not be solved by optimizing some code.

It will not be solved by making a few changes to the usage paradigm (unless you sacrifice decentralization).

And while I am an experience software architect and I could have told you this shortly after reading the Bitcoin white paper for the first time, even if you aren't a technical person, you'd have to conclude that after 14 years of trying with no solution, the problem is never, ever, EVER going to be solved.

And no, increasing the block size isn't going to help. A mainstream currency would need to the tens of thousand of times faster, it would need to be hundreds of times cheaper, and it would need to handle tens of billions of transactions per day which is absolutely unthinkable with a public ledger.

you have fallen into the mind-trap of the echo chamber cult telling you bitcoin should not be a currency at all due to a stupidity narrative that bitcoin will only be a currency if its the "one world" currency all 8 billion people use collectively for everything

..
you do know there are 180 fiat currencies in the world right!
we should not think of bitcoin to need to encapsulate every transactions of all 190 countries of 180 currencies every payment. but instead be more able to atleast enhance peoples choice to use bitcoin when needed as a currency side by side with tradfi fiat currencies

once you can understand that, then we can stop the monotony of stupidity of refraining from scaling bitcoin at all due to stupid diatribes that the only option for scaling is the stupid notion of LEAPING to (as even you are saying) "tens of thousands/billions of" (facepalm)

with only 8 billion people on planet.. your naive trap mind of echoed narrative you fell in, is using the nonsense fallacy that all 8 billion need to do all their multiple transactions of real life on bitcoin and only on bitcoin. in a dystopian world of a "one world currency"

and that is your foolish argument which you have heard from idiots as your only reason to not even attempt to scale bitcoin..
.. i know its not your opinion, just a silly narrative you heard from idiots. but by you now saying it now makes you look like an idiot
.. escape the idiot cult narrative, before you are too trapped in their mind games.. they wont help you later
also bitcoin IS CODE. so you fix bitcoins exploits and upgrade bitcoin, and evolve bitcoin using code.. because bitcoin is code
its not a mineral, its not paper, its not got any arms or legs so doesnt need blood transfusions or organ donations.. bitcoin needs to refine its code and undo some exploits, harden some rules, make every byte count and SCALE(not leap) its growth of transaction handling

the issue with bitcoin code is not technical, its become political. code needs devs, but bitcoin devs have colluded and centralised themselves into one brand to become political government of bitcoins rules and future direction. and right now their decisions are not helping bitcoiners utility, because their political and religious beliefs of their power have decided to want people to abandon bitcoin for other subnetworks they have been sponsored to create and offer to people.. emphasis on the sponsorship, control, decision
bitcoin was designed to solve the byzantine generals issue... to be a system to not require a major general controling it (no-COREporal major(general) in command) yet core have messed with it and positioned themselves to be the major general in command.. and thats where decentralisation has failed and also needs to be fixed.

[DooMAD]

And while I am an experience software architect and I could have told you this shortly after reading the Bitcoin white paper for the first time, even if you aren't a technical person, you'd have to conclude that after 14 years of trying with no solution, the problem is never, ever, EVER going to be solved.

It stands to reason why someone offering... whatever service it is you're peddling... might claim such a thing, so I'm not going to roll my eyes too hard.

Beyond that, you're implying you somehow see the situation more clearly than every other person still believing they can solve that problem and are currently working on it (many of whom are just as qualified as you).  I'm sure you can see how that might come across a little arrogant.

It's an incremental process.  Every release effectively contains new building blocks that move us closer to the next step.  A load of people are obviously now complaining that someone found a way of using one of those building blocks in a manner that wasn't intended, to create a load of bloated crap on the chain, which is unfortunate.  But the fact remains, there was a goal in mind when that ingredient was added to the mix and there is still potential to be extracted from what it offers.

If you can't personally see the big picture, and people can tell that you can't, then those people aren't going to take you seriously when you declare it a failure.

[pinggoki]

Even though we don't agree with Ordinals and all kinds of things in the Blockchain, we have to accept it, because the freedom that bitcoin creates also brings things that we don't like very much... So time and the market itself to say what will survive or not... And not there is nothing we can do but let time tell who is right.

Being free doesn't that we just stand there and let them what they want, that's not being free, that's being a passive person. That's not how you do things when you want to defend your freedom, when there's enough people that have agreed that something isn't right then it's a right that we all bear to correct that error so we can continue having that freedom. As much it's their right to add some of those stupid stuff that's congesting the network then it's also our right to be vocal about how crazy that thing is and that it shouldn't even be part of this network. We can't always be letting things just pass by, some people might be okay with being a human doormat but there's more that aren't okay with that kind of set up.

[Plaguedeath]

Being free doesn't that we just stand there and let them what they want, that's not being free, that's being a passive person. That's not how you do things when you want to defend your freedom, when there's enough people that have agreed that something isn't right then it's a right that we all bear to correct that error so we can continue having that freedom. As much it's their right to add some of those stupid stuff that's congesting the network then it's also our right to be vocal about how crazy that thing is and that it shouldn't even be part of this network. We can't always be letting things just pass by, some people might be okay with being a human doormat but there's more that aren't okay with that kind of set up.

Define freedom.

If you censor ordinals inscriptions, how it can be a freedom? you're trying to make it more centralized because you don't like that transactions. When wasabi is blacklisting certain transactions or Ocean mining pool is blacklisting whirlpool transactions, many people will scream both Wasabi and Ocean Mining Pool are against Bitcoin because they don't support privacy.

So why we have double standard? allow one and don't accept the another.

Freedom is either not to do anything or freedom for each service to choose whatever they like, but a complete freedom is not to do anything.

[AVE5]

Oh yes, bitcoin is a designatory of electronic digital cash system primarily for exchange on a P2P module but with the volatility potentials of the digital currency, it also serves alternatively for inflows of income known for investment.
On the view outage that every nature of investments is due faced with UPs and DOWNs, such is how the volatility nature of bitcoin has also responded with the nature of its volatility where the currency is potential to yield value increments and decrements.
So in as much as it posseses these potentials then it's figured to be nothing else but a digital currency for alternative means of payments in replacement of the traditional currencies and also alternates for source of income.

Bitcoin doesn't gain its grounds by hyping and nothing would change the system on how it's initially designed.
So Op, I don't know the side rumours you've heard about how bitcoin has been falsefully been speculated or hyped that got you had the thought for this thread.

[adpinbr]

Yes, Bitcoin is a master key of electronic Cash that you cannot see physical, Bitcoin is in charge of anything electronic money, so therefore it can never be compared with others,  it just have to be more easy for people to access, but let it be very difficult for someone to steal money from you via bitcoin, but let it be easy, the future that is not necessary on bitcoin wallet should be removed and it should be perfectly arranged, The more easy bitcoin is the easier it get to people.

[legiteum]

It's an incremental process.  Every release effectively contains new building blocks that move us closer to the next step.  A load of people are obviously now complaining that someone found a way of using one of those building blocks in a manner that wasn't intended, to create a load of bloated crap on the chain, which is unfortunate.  But the fact remains, there was a goal in mind when that ingredient was added to the mix and there is still potential to be extracted from what it offers.

If you can't personally see the big picture, and people can tell that you can't, then those people aren't going to take you seriously when you declare it a failure.

I never declared Bitcoin a failure. Not even close. Bitcoin has accomplished what it set out to accomplish. And beyond that, it accomplished something else. That is in no way calling it a "failure".

If I say that it's architecturally impossible that Lionel Messi will ever become a top NBA basketball player, I am not calling him a "failure".

[we-btc]

Okay, so you want Bitcoin to be fast (low transactions latency), and have low transaction fees. Great.

I completely agree that these are barriers to Bitcoin (and decentralized cryptos generally) to be accepted as a means mainstream means of daily transactions.

In fact, I suspect people here in Bitcointalk are probably getting sick of hearing me say this.

Now let's talk about how this will never happen using the blockchain architecture.

The blockchain architecture--implemented as it was designed to be used, e.g. as a massively decentralized architecture--is directly at odds with both cost and latency. Indeed, you could say that Satoshi intentionally designed Bitcoin to be slow and expensive in order to make the decentralized paradigm work.

Insofar as cryptocurrencies have decreased their cost and latency, they have sacrificed decentralization. This is a trade-off that is based on the universal constant of the speed of light.

It will not be solved by optimizing some code.

It will not be solved by making a few changes to the usage paradigm (unless you sacrifice decentralization).

And while I am an experience software architect and I could have told you this shortly after reading the Bitcoin white paper for the first time, even if you aren't a technical person, you'd have to conclude that after 14 years of trying with no solution, the problem is never, ever, EVER going to be solved.

And no, increasing the block size isn't going to help. A mainstream currency would need to the tens of thousand of times faster, it would need to be hundreds of times cheaper, and it would need to handle tens of billions of transactions per day which is absolutely unthinkable with a public ledger.

Repeat after me:

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

Bitcoin was not designed to be a mainstream currency.

It just. plain. wasn't.

This was never Satoshi's goal. If it was his goal, he would have designed Bitcoin differently (e.g. not blockchain, not decentralized [e.g. he would have created something like Haypenny]).

Be content that Bitcoin does what it was designed to do (well, sorta does): it allows transactions that evade government subpoenas. Thousands of people all over the world need this.

And Bitcoin also does something it was never intended to do, but has become very popular: it works fine as a speculation instrument. Millions of people like this.

Having Bitcoin do any more than that will require that Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin anymore.

My opinion is that the hope of Bitcoin is financial sovereignty and financial freedom for anyone who has access to the internet. I see it as THE killer app of the edge network known as the Internet. I think edge is really critical because Bitcoin was also designed as an edge network.  This means that every user was to have a node.

You make a lot of good points but I have to disagree with one of them.  Bitcoin was designed to be a "digital form of electronic cash".  If you say this in the title and the first sentence of the white paper it is the intention.

I also understand why you would be concerned that we couldn't come up with a solution since one has not been identified to this point.  I think we can solve these problems. See my post above for some basic ideas.

[we-btc]

It's an incremental process.  Every release effectively contains new building blocks that move us closer to the next step.  A load of people are obviously now complaining that someone found a way of using one of those building blocks in a manner that wasn't intended, to create a load of bloated crap on the chain, which is unfortunate.  But the fact remains, there was a goal in mind when that ingredient was added to the mix and there is still potential to be extracted from what it offers.

If you can't personally see the big picture, and people can tell that you can't, then those people aren't going to take you seriously when you declare it a failure.

I never declared Bitcoin a failure. Not even close. Bitcoin has accomplished what it set out to accomplish. And beyond that, it accomplished something else. That is in no way calling it a "failure".

If I say that it's architecturally impossible that Lionel Messi will ever become a top NBA basketball player, I am not calling him a "failure".

One of the primary goals is to remove financial institutions as the 3rd party in financial transactions.  If most transactions use 3rd party intermediaries and Bitcoins main use is as an investment for people with means then we can say that Bitcoin did not achieve what is set out to achieve.

What we as the custodians of this new technology should be fighting for is purely peer-to-peer transactions using the most amazing invention of our lifetime. Bitcoin!!

[legiteum]

I never declared Bitcoin a failure. Not even close. Bitcoin has accomplished what it set out to accomplish. And beyond that, it accomplished something else. That is in no way calling it a "failure".

If I say that it's architecturally impossible that Lionel Messi will ever become a top NBA basketball player, I am not calling him a "failure".

One of the primary goals is to remove financial institutions as the 3rd party in financial transactions.  If most transactions use 3rd party intermediaries and Bitcoins main use is as an investment for people with means then we can say that Bitcoin did not achieve what is set out to achieve.

What we as the custodians of this new technology should be fighting for is purely peer-to-peer transactions using the most amazing invention of our lifetime. Bitcoin!!

Why would you say that? Bitcoin absolutely accomplished what it set out to accomplish, it's just that not very many people have that problem.

While a few people in the world need to keep their transactions out of the reach of a government subpoena, most don't.

Meanwhile, pretty much everybody likes to make money .

Now, are you are saying that those investors... annoy you? That could be, and maybe you even have a point, but without those investors using their apps and brokers and banks and ETFs, the price of Bitcoin would be back to the price it was before they all came, e.g. about $1 per Bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure nobody on the core dev team of Bitcoin would do something like that.

And then there's the broader context: Bitcoin's original purpose is far better served by other products today, e.g. Monera et. al.

So what you are asking the Bitcoin dev team to do is ignore their users and just solve your problem, even though your problem can be handled with another product just fine. Why would they do that?

[we-btc]

Why would you say that? Bitcoin absolutely accomplished what it set out to accomplish, it's just that not very many people have that problem.

While a few people in the world need to keep their transactions out of the reach of a government subpoena, most don't.

Meanwhile, pretty much everybody likes to make money .

Now, are you are saying that those investors... annoy you? That could be, and maybe you even have a point, but without those investors using their apps and brokers and banks and ETFs, the price of Bitcoin would be back to the price it was before they all came, e.g. about $1 per Bitcoin.

Investing in a currency is not the issue.  Anyone can do that by earning it or buying it.

Pricing Bitcoin in other fiat currencies is also not what I think is important.  What I do think is important is making a decentralized, peer-to-peer currency with a limited supply available to everyone to use as a way to transact. If we do this right goods and services will be priced in Bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure nobody on the core dev team of Bitcoin would do something like that.

And then there's the broader context: Bitcoin's original purpose is far better served by other products today, e.g. Monera et. al.

So what you are asking the Bitcoin dev team to do is ignore their users and just solve your problem, even though your problem can be handled with another product just fine. Why would they do that?

Bitcoin is the only decentralized option.  None of the others are decentralized, peer-to-peer and have a limited supply. That is why we should fight for Bitcoin!

[legiteum]

Why would you say that? Bitcoin absolutely accomplished what it set out to accomplish, it's just that not very many people have that problem.

While a few people in the world need to keep their transactions out of the reach of a government subpoena, most don't.

Meanwhile, pretty much everybody likes to make money .

Now, are you are saying that those investors... annoy you? That could be, and maybe you even have a point, but without those investors using their apps and brokers and banks and ETFs, the price of Bitcoin would be back to the price it was before they all came, e.g. about $1 per Bitcoin.

Investing in a currency is not the issue.  Anyone can do that by earning it or buying it.

Pricing Bitcoin in other fiat currencies is also not what I think is important.  What I do think is important is making a decentralized, peer-to-peer currency with a limited supply available to everyone to use as a way to transact. If we do this right goods and services will be priced in Bitcoin.

That would only happen if Bitcoin/blockchain was suitable for everyday (read: small) transactions for billions of people everyday, and... it's not. That's not the problem Bitcoin set out to solve, and the blockchain architecture makes that impossible.

I'm pretty sure nobody on the core dev team of Bitcoin would do something like that.

And then there's the broader context: Bitcoin's original purpose is far better served by other products today, e.g. Monera et. al.

So what you are asking the Bitcoin dev team to do is ignore their users and just solve your problem, even though your problem can be handled with another product just fine. Why would they do that?

Bitcoin is the only decentralized option.  None of the others are decentralized, peer-to-peer and have a limited supply. That is why we should fight for Bitcoin!

And Bitcoin already works just fine. Why do you want to change it?

If you are saying it's too slow/expensive, then I think you are not understanding what you are buying. As you said (and I'll correct you here), other blockchain-based currencies are not as centralized, and you like your currency to be more decentralized. Fine. But decentralization costs money and time. You don't get that for free. Bitcoin costs what it costs to transact for very good reason. You can do it cheaper, but you will sacrifice decentralization.

Maybe I should ask more directly: why do you want this? What is your goal?

[Antotena]

One of the primary goals is to remove financial institutions as the 3rd party in financial transactions.  If most transactions use 3rd party intermediaries and Bitcoins main use is as an investment for people with means then we can say that Bitcoin did not achieve what is set out to achieve.

What we as the custodians of this new technology should be fighting for is purely peer-to-peer transactions using the most amazing invention of our lifetime. Bitcoin!!

If you look at it, don't you think that third party has succeeded in doing what we don't want to see. Look around today, ask people tyt bought Bitcoin between last year and last 2 years, they bought their Bitcoin through the exchange, including me because I wasn't here at first but when I later joined the forum was when I started to read about the negative side of using third parties.m; ask some of them if they even know about the dangers of using third parties and they will tell you know because they have no idea.

Another reason why we have these increase in number of people in centralized exchanges is because scammers has destroy the usefulness of decentralization. Buying Bitcoin from outside centralized exchanges means you not far from been scam unless you know about reputable decentralized exchange where you can buy Bitcoin and of course limited to Bitcoin, they can't buy there favorite memes coins, this is the why centralized exchanges are winning. Centralized exchanges also promote their exchanges than even the decentralized ones.

[umbara ardian]

High transaction fees have plagued Bitcoin for a while, predating recent developments.  This undermines its initial vision as a seamless electronic payment system. However, dismissing Bitcoin solely as a payment system might be shortsighted.  The "wake up" call highlights the ongoing debate about Bitcoin's true purpose.  Is it a digital currency for everyday transactions, or has it evolved into a valuable investment asset?

Observation about current buying trends is interesting.  Most people seem to be buying Bitcoin for investment purposes, holding onto it for potential future gains.  This creates a paradox – a currency people are hesitant to spend. The existence of businesses accepting Bitcoin while customers still prefer fiat underscores this point.  People are willing to hold Bitcoin as a potential store of value, but everyday transactions remain dominated by traditional currencies.

[wiss19]

I do not want to get involved with anything of that sort, but I have to say it is not going to be all that easy to handle the rest neither without getting into argument. I agree that these ordinals stuff, or just trying to put bitcoin into altcoin levels, is not a smart move.

I get that alts had that for a while now and devs wanted to add in the same thing to Bitcoin as well, to show that they are improving bitcoin some way, but that just hurt bitcoin and not help it, that's just my opinion. Nobody "needed" ordinals, I am not saying they should be banned or anything because it is already too late, but it wasn't a must, and the result is that some people who would like to have it, caused the fee structure to be completely bombed all together.

[inashed]

Bitcoin was designed to be "electronic cash".  Nothing should be changed in core that does not support this mission.

The title of the Bitcoin white paper - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

The main idea of bitcoin is that it doenst believe at the "print enough money and spend it to make sure we are always 100% sure price inflation is happening" OR "make a tax everyone must pay to make sure they always lose money (instead of value like the previous idea) if they save it", that makes society shitty by not allowing people to save (unless they are ultra rich)

Without that bitcoin is bullshit, the idea was not electronic cash, its just a thing needed to make the previous happen.