Topic: Bitcoin Civil War (Read 1054 times)

I can't refuse I always have a good time while I read his posts, but only to realise "a phew moments later" that it was a waste of time. But I think this is exactly what he looks for. Attention!

 

Stop being a drama-queen.

Achow and gmaxwell will never give anyone a negative trust rating if truly there wasn't a reason to do it. Plus gmaxwell literally banned you from posting in Development & Technical subforum.

It was something you did, franky101. You're not the victim here, and no one is crying. We're actually laughing.

Actually, there is a third group too, which has the characteristics of both groups, they are against these ordinals tokens as this will affect the reputation of BTC but on the other hand, they are they included in the second group of shit-token traders means they have made hell lot of profit in these BRC-20 tokens that they do not want to take any sides here in this civil war. They just want to observe it.

But i am with you dear OP, well, i have not bought any BRC-20 tokens yet and not planning to i wish all of these tokens comes to an end so that these shit traders learn their lesson about playing with BTC.
Yes, I think you are talking about Binance halts on withdrawals, which will really affect the market as a whole, as it counts into the top 10 exchanges and covers a hell lot of trading volume in crypto. But what i think is they are not trying to create fud as they were only trying to reduce the transaction fees which were skyrocketing. As, no access to trade BTC will decrease the transactions and fewer transactions means less load/congestion on the network which as a result, impacts the BTC TC fee.
How? i mean i am not a dev or any expert then how can i contribute in this civil war against ordinals, well, if this current problem of congestion on the network solves then i have no issue with the existence of BRC-20 tokens as still as of today (21 May) meme pool is showing that there are more than 277,155 TXs which will take further 12 days to be processed and fee are still high for small transactions no wonder its nothing in front of big transactions. All i can say talk about its cons and pros but how is that going to solve this issue because it can only be solved by the dev o BTC and if they come up with new release or any other solution so that this solves the issue.

funny story nutty..
well when i imagine what they are like.. they sound like the hill billy hicks so yea the step-mother can be the sister at the same time.. if you get my drift after all the daddy doesnt believe in consent

but im not the beacon of hope. i just speak frank about things other idiots are too afraid to think about or admit to themselves or others.. i do it without ass kissing princesses. however you do have the other characters personalities displayed well

they are stuck in a fairy tale

as for you..
i hope you have atleast spend some time counting sats via blockchain data of inputs and outputs instead of just trusting caseys "special software"..  and noted that your exampled demonstration of blockreward shows the "first sat" stays in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW  for many taint hops.. and never went to the 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  address..

please dont just double check caseys special display.. actually use real blockchain data (the source) and count sats the proper way. then you will see caseys theory is broke

Wait a minute, this is all getting very confusing. I thought WindFury and Blackhatcoiner were forum-sisters, but now you're saying Blackhatcoiner is DooMAD's forum wife? So Blackhatcoiner is actually his own mother, that's interesting.

My apologies to @NotATether but I asked ChatGPT to write me a story about this relationship (in the form of a medieval knight's tale).

I'm titling it Bitcoin Civil War

the trust rating by the MODERATORS. is due to the MODERATORS receiving cries from YOUR CLAN of idiots..
where YOU lot were telling gmax that you have been gaslit and crying about multiple things where he got annoyed with all the crying

grow up stop crying and instead do some research. stop trusting personalities and stop thinking anything that goes against your forum daddies script is wrong becasue it makes you feel insane to contradict your forum daddy..
instead take a few months away from your forum daddy. try to learn bitcoin from the code itself and the blockchain data. and actually learn whats really happening to bitcoin.

take the chance of yourself to grow a backbone and some confidence to not need ass kissing influencers to tell you what to say. for once actually say something different to their script

learn bitcoin. not sales tactics to tell people to use another network if they dont like the authoritarian god complex messing with bitcoin


try to look at the block data. look at the flags of the activations of certain things. look at what rules have got softened. what formats no longer are checked what limits have been removed. then look at your forum daddies scripts he was telling you. and realise he was the one in the wrong.
he for years said there was not a mandatory activation that caused a fork. even though he then mis spoke and said that a super majority is not natural and near impossible to happen where he is against super majority activations. yet to explain how segwit reached unnatural 100% was him admitting to the mandatory censorship of non segwit blocks to then be able to show a unnatural 100%

also he pretended there was not hard fork. and yet anyone can see BCH exists.
yes he spend years denying the existing of a hard fork denying the existence of BCH. pretending that segwit activated as a consensual non controversial user soft activation.. even when funnily enough not many user nodes were ready to support segwit. nor were many merchants. heck even blockchain.info didnt support segwit until a year later

the whole segwit promises never manifested. doomads mantra's to you that segwit was the solution for scaling.. yet for years after the average tx per day stayed the same or less than the summer pre segwit

so stop being a blind obedient follower of doomads mantra. and dont think he is right because his forum wife echos doomads sentiments. and instead do your own research away from influencers comments. and instead read actual bitcoin data and code.

No franky101, I'm talking about the gaslighting that you and jonald_fyookball did during the scaling debate. Plus your trust page has two negative ratings from gmaxwell and achow, two of the most trusted members of BitcoinTalk. Why should everyone trust you? I believe the only reason why you're not banned in the forum is because the mods know you'll just make another account.

windfury.. you think you were made to go insane because your forum daddy said that bigger blocks didnt happen and instead that pushing people off the network over to another network is how to "scale bitcoin"

ok heres a lesson. imagine a grocery store wants more customers to scale his business,.. do you think that the solution is to tell customer to go to another store that sells different things is a way to scale his business. or a way to lose customers..

so when doomad, your forum daddy is telling you to tell bitcoiners to not want a supermarket to expand into a hyper market, but instead tell customers to go elsewhere if they dont like that the produce in the store has become a premium of 4x-100x higher. you have failed economics of scaling a system

anyways..

well a hard fork did occur.. even ythough your forum daddy wants to call it a UASF .. yep a hard fork occured on august 1st. but not the way that many wanted.. (including me) becasue it was done via a mandatory blackmail of censoring blocks.. (yep block rejecting any block that didnt flag segwit)(kinda funny your forum daddy loved the idea of censoring blocks..

you pretend it was just me that was against the mandated blackmail.... HA i laugh.. thousands of people wanting BITCOIN scaling via a fair true super majority activation without the mandated blackmail. where if the core devs could not reach true decentalised super majority then core would have to go back to the drawing book, compromise some of their crap and actually provide something that the community would accept..

people wanted bitcoin scaling. meaning more affordable transaction space.
(dont confuse bitcoin with other networks pretending to be bitcoin)
people did want transactions to be miscounted and then premium rated with 4x fee. nor have the space jammed up with junk limiting real bitcoin utility..

anyways
well even with a hard fork.. and a 4mb block.. the devs did not allow SCALING of tx count. because their agenda was to pretend to satisfy the masses with "bigger blocks"(false narrative of the purpose of the 4mb) but still hold up the tx data to a 1mb limit. where only junk witness crap gets to use up the other 3mb

yep they thought that signatures (or junk) should take up 3x more space than lean bitcoin txdata.. which is their first ill conception and the start of the crud thats now escalated

the debate was not "bigger blocks"(made for bloating) it was more space to allow more transactions(bitcoin scaling).. which you still seem to not understand the difference.. which is where you think you are going insane

so they have not helped with scaling by not doing a straight forward block scaling of true 4mb of tx data space.

but hey. you instead suckered up to doomad who hates more transactions on the blockchain he wants people to move to other networks.. as do you.. and you think that its the only solution becasue its the only story you have been told..  so you think "scaling" is to just chuck people off the network

if you have gone insane over the years with your thoughts. thats on you and your forum daddy's echoed scripts you follow

bigger blocks filled with junk dead jpeg data is not scaling bitcoin. even if you want to call it "bigger blocks"

the actual bitcoin scaling was about ability to fit MORE transactions per block.
learn the difference. stop listening to your forum daddy and do some independent research

you half a dozen lemmings that love this cludgy stuff occurring in recent years are all singing from the same stupid hymn sheet where you trust project managers comments more then block data and rules

try to escape the echo chamber and learn about whats been changed and its effects. because yep CORE changed the rules and softened alot of things to cause these issues.

But it's no mere personality attack from me, no? You actually gaslighted me, and many other newbies/plebs into believing that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right way to scale Bitcoin. You also were pushing on the narrative that Bitcoin "split into two into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", and you were trying to make everyone believe that the altcoin "Bitcoin Cash" has as much right to claim to be "the Real Bitcoin" as "Bitcoin Core".

You brought it on yourself, and that's a fact.

All I did was offer you information to better your understanding of how ordinal transfers work, straight from the horse's mouth, and you once again ignored it in favor of continuing to be mad and confused. If that's the way you want to live your life, so be it, just don't expect your misinformation to go unchallenged.

nutty

the THEORY and the EXPLORER
are not proving real math/economics. logic..

its as you say a THEORY
and that THEORY has been busted/debunked proved wrong

because of many factors..

you want to ignore reality, math, economics/ logic. and instead just "beleive" in human description of a project developer
even though that developer can change his theory.

again look les at the kiss assing a dev approach you apply and instead actually use logic math and blockdata.. not some lame project developers "special explorer" that doesnt even follow its own theory to the letter

Nope, because the output in question is a change output, not a spend output, so they're considered to be secondary according to "first in, first out." Think about when you purchase something for £3 with a £10 note. What happens first: do you make the payment first or do you get your change first? Like miner fees, change outputs always follow spend outputs, regardless of their positioning in the construction of the transaction.


Of course it does. You just fail to sufficiently understand the theory. And BTW, 3M4B... doesn't own the "first sat" anymore, it got sent several more times before arriving at its present location, all of which I laid out and provided an explanation for in the post you quoted.

https://github.com/casey/ord/blob/master/bip.mediawiki

Regardless of your personal interpretation of things, if you were correct and I was incorrect, the "uncommon sat" wouldn't be where the ordinals explorer shows it to currently be.

BITCOIN is a system where once the blockchain data is set. that is then confirmed immutible data that cannot change because it fits the rules and the rules fit the data

by softening the rules to let junk in. and then say that some project managers explorer display of said junk is the rules even though their display can change at a moment notice.. that is not a rule. that is just a display for noobs who the project manager wants to scam

caseys description of "ownership" can change because casey can say in his "special explorer" the meme in transactionXXX of block 7XX,XXX now belongs to output 2 instead of one. then thats not a rule


so instead of trusting a project managers special website comments.. instead follow the block data and logic and math. not some project managers weak soft description of what his "special explorer" weakly suggests. which can change at a moments notice to suggest something else

trust math, data, economics, logic, not project managers website comments
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

im not even asking you to trust me. im asking you to do your own research away from comments on websites

i do laugh that nutildah. pretends to debunk by using an example. yet the examples he uses debunks him
he then says how blockdata doesnt show ownership and that it requires a "special explorer" to show it.

again debunking his original premiss that its real proof on the blockchain

---

ok lets try this one more time lets use nutildahs own example against him

first (wrong)theory. is that first sat goes to output1..
well economics, math, monetary policy is that first sat actually goes to fee's and the remainder goes to the destination(people call it the 'change'(left over denomination) after a transaction)

but lets do a nutildah and ignore economic basics. and for hypothetical example just roll with his pretense he beleives.

so the reward went to
128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

by which the spend of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og
is not the first in but the 4th. meaning there is 0.16738313 extra added to the mix before the "first sat of block reward" gets spent.
meaning if you follow the value (ignoring fee spends for this theory) the 0.16738314th sat of the 5btc is the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

(at this point its not important as the next spend of the first output is 5btc so somewhere within that 5btc is the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount)
again lets ignore that some sats are lost as fees .. and just follow the output taint(lets pretend the theory had economic logic(it doesnt but lets pretend.)

so now the "block reward first sat" is in
1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
which nutildah thinks now strangely moved to 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

however.. reading the actual data
the majority of the 5btc moves to ITSELF (1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW again)
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd

yep the majority of the 5btc (which includes the funds of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og go straight back to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW ,, not 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ

then
that spend
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/f6a0b019ee7bfaf05fc76de299cce67bb3438fb8a9a5e6ffbd4a2ae84cc483ef
does not give the value to 1AEX2g1o1z9yzqsNfwamcktVCdTgfvTThb because that first output has not spent more then 0.16738313 to reach the 0.16738314th sat to be the first sat of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og amount
so the first sat of 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/6399520d225392af07662472b5ed33d07f46b8a244b878f16cb664b84b6948a4
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again
and
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/7f11edada5069a03e3d430a0c64f2ecf10b422909f302a8c81b8614dfdc21917
 goes to 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW yet again

and this continues for many many taint hops wher the "first sat" remains according to casey theory.. in the !GQ address
..
so while the person who is key owner of 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ multisig thinks he owns the first sat of a blockreward
the theory of taint following would actually show after many hops that 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW has kept that 'first sat'
according to the ordinal theory.
..
but hey nutildah seems to forget the other facts of math logic and economics that further broke the theory.. but if you ignore math, logic, economics. and just follow the theory. even the theory shows that 3M4B3JtH3dhWV3Ytoh6XzDrxeaSWtvaBnJ  doesnt own the valued "first sat" of a block reward

We've been over all this too many times before. What it boils down to is your refusal to either learn or accept the rules of the protocol for what they are. You think things have to work according to how they work in your head, and they do not.

"But the rules could change at any moment!" isn't a valid argument. The rules of this forum could change at any moment, yet people still continue to use it. Coming up with "But what ifs" is just a way to avoid admitting that you don't really understand how ordinal transfers works, despite multiple hand-holding attempts to explain it to you.

And your whole "nutildah is secretly invested in ordinals" scenario is just another dumb "what if." People can believe me when I say I've never purchased one and never will, or not. You're continuing to bring it up because you can't actually debate your points on a technical level.

The only reason I said anything here is because you continue to spew misinformation about how Ordinals works. You're intent on miseducating people for reasons beyond my understanding.

i laugh at you silly people.. you spend more weeks wasted on personality attacks. rather then using brain to learn bitcoin

let me guess. you dont want to learn about bitcoin becasue "franky said to learn it" .. is that your excuse?
goodluck with that

i feel sorry that your only on this forum to talk about franky. and evade talking about bitcoin..
but atleast your methods explain why your still penny pinching for sats using forum sig campaigns rather then being self sustaining wealthy by understanding more,
maybe if you tried to learn a thing or two about how things work you would not need to penny pinch for scraps. and instead actually earn a proper comfortable living situation

so just for once try to learn bitcoin not "project managers kiss ass techniques"

He proposes nothing. He merely wants to gaslight everyone into believing that the Core Developers are "evil", and that they should be replaced as the stewards of the network. That has ALWAYS been the big blockers' agenda. Roger Ver and Jihan Wu have given up and hard forked to the altcoin Bitcoin Cash, but some of the members of their Flat-Earthers association has obviously not given up.

 


Putting words in my mouth again, franky101?

This is what I said,


Gaslighting and disinformation. I could personally say that it truly works on plebs/newbies, because I was one of those plebs/newbies who thought that a hard fork to bigger blocks was the right solution to scale Bitcoin during the days of the scaling debate, thanks to franky101 and jonald_fyookball. They did a good job in convincing many many people that the "Evil Core Developers" were acting in their own self-interest by regulating the block size. But everyone already knows it was FUD, and ignorant comments. I don't know why people in the forum vote him every year as the "Anti-Hero". Hahaha.