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

[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

[1714683119]

1714683119

[1714683119]

1714683119

[1714683119]

1714683119

[1714683119]

1714683119

[1714683119]

1714683119

[1714683119]

1714683119

[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