Topic: Bitcoin Civil War - page 4. (Read 1054 times)

I just want to say... "There is a fine line between protecting the network AND censoring transactions."

I do not own any of these shit tokens and I will also not defend something that are causing congestion on the network, but I will lift my hand and try to highlight the fact that caution must be taken that filtering measures should not be applied, if the transactions are not deliberate to attack the network.

Bitcoin are not like some Alt coins, where they "authorize" ..what transactions are legit and which needs to be filtered or blocked.  

While I can agree there should have no forking. And not forcing the dev to do something then we all might just have to create NFTs on the blockchain and just don't mind the transactions to be confirmed for days.

I have to bring up that this will obviously hurt the network and less useful as well which I do think the dev team can come up with something. Otherwise the government learns how vulnerable BTC and the network with just this simple issue.

It was a surprise to me to learn that the Pepe green frog meme has a huge community of several million people who, for all their heterogeneity, are united by a strange kind of irrational love for the image of the green frog. What if a significant proportion of these people are not willing to resell their token to earn a few dollars, but simply want to own the digital rights in the largest and most secure decentralized network to their copy of the green frog image, as a sign of belonging to this strange meme subculture? I would refrain from calling them all scammers, they honestly paid the market price for their part of the deal and got what they wanted. Are those who gave them such an opportunity scammers? Without hard evidence, this sounds like a false accusation. And even if they really are scammers, so what? Is bitcoin no longer a trustless system? Does bitcoin need to start giving moral judgments to the content of the transaction in order to continue to work normally?

It's hilarious to see these bozos think they've managed to increase the adoption of Bitcoin with the junk they grow. They have absolutely no impact on Bitcoin adoption, instead they make the Bitcoin network more saturated and they should leave this network and create their own community. Moreover, I think that Bitcoin developers should pay special attention to the Bitcoin network in the future and not let such communities in the future do what they want and exploit the main network and cause chaos. Because if Bitcoin developers keep letting things like this happen, how can they possibly aim higher and grow the community well.

Development speed" = merely riding the hype-wave while there are newbies and plebs who are willing to buy into their Ponzi?

Because scripting in Bitcoin is limited, and from a long term perspective, their "development" of "not-fungible tokens marketed as fungible" made through Ordinal inscriptions is already dead.


Like scammers?

 

most of the meme sales are not real sales between individuals. they are supported sales between a group selling to each other to mark a price on sites marking prices. this then creates the 'value" which they then use to scam people by pretending its worth

stories like the one you mentioned make people think they can buy a crap meme not even worth $1 for $250 because the idiot victims think they can then resell for $8million

the actual reality is that the creator wants thousands of idiot victims hand over a minimum of $250+ because all those small scams add up to alot of profit for the creator. while being too small per victim for the victim to fight for a refund via a lawsuit

I have no exact information about the intentions of the developers. However, it is highly likely that the desire to make money on the wave of hype with meme-tokens plays an important role. I don't really follow this shit, but I think there was a big story recently about a guy who bought Pepe's green frog tokens for $250 and soon made $8 million from it. Or something like that. In such conditions, development speed is much more important than quality, because it is important to catch the right moment. This is the case when it is better to make a mistake at the right time than to do the right thing at the wrong time.

But we're not talking about art. From a REAL developer's point of view, anything they build should be finding a better, more efficient solution in doing things, and BRC-20 "fungible" tokens, which truly are NOT fungible, are definitely NOT a better solution than what's currently available. Why are those developers forcing themselves to build their apps on something unreliable? What's their incentive?

I had auto-included all of those people in the first group:


While they are not necessarily seeking to stop BRC-20 tokens, it can generally be agreed that all these people passively acknowledge the inherent scaling problem present in Bitcoin and would be happy to lend themselves to solutions for that.

I guess I did not make this section clear. Apologies for that.

Perhaps here I agree with you. How beautiful and elegant is the very idea of ordinals, which does not produce unnecessary entities, so as not to cause the anger of Occam with a razor, but only makes the implicit explicit. And just as shitty are these BRC-20 tokens, which are almost a direct insult and spit in the face. It's like when a teenager is first allowed to draw anything on a blank wall and he draws just the first thing that comes to his mind - boobs and a big dick. Did you expect to find Claude Monet's lilies there?

If we're going to stick with our censorship resistance strategy, we're going to have to open our mouths wide and eat this elephant whole, with a hundredweight of shit inside it. Because everyone has different tastes (and even coprophages also exist) and if we start trying to separate the more delicious from the less tasty, we will never come to a consensus that suits everyone. The wave of hype will subside and time itself will separate the assimilated and the rejected.

It's because some people are turning it into a more ideological debate than a technical one. I personally don't like dick pics and fart sounds too, but if those transactions are following the consensus rules, and pay their fees to have there transactions mined in a block, how can we truly say they can't use the network.

BUT, here's the problem for me, and it's more of trying to get in the developers' point of view when building apps for Ordinals. Why force themselves to develop something that doesn't make it more efficient and cheap to move or trade dick pics and fart sounds? Plus their BRC-20 solution is worse than Ethereum's ERC-20, why develop something that's worse? It doesn't make using it any cheaper.

No it isn't. I agree that it should, and that it's by accident standard. But it's pretty much of a fact that Ordinal transactions are standard. I'm also of the opinion that standardness is of little matter, especially when there's real demand for Ordinals. With one way or another, standard or non-standard, they'd find their way on the chain.

Comparably to your "proposals" of "fixing" Bitcoin, I'd consider absolute Bitcoin maximalism to support lightning.

You might be joking, but that's actually pretty close to how franky1 thinks.  He wants to be a part of this network whilst at the same time disagreeing with every choice the users of this network have ever made.  If he had all the rules set as he would want, he'd be the only user on a very lonely chain.  Compromise is a key part of collaboration and most users understand this fact.  But it's entirely lost on frankenfuhrer1.

If any idea, even initially sound, is elevated to an absolute, it becomes absurd. How far are you willing to go in bitcoin maximalism?
Hey, this is a ordinals transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a lightning network transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a mixed transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Hey, this is a segwit transaction, it's polluting our blockchain, let's ban this spam.
Only old school addresses starting with one correspond to the true vision of Satoshi. Sieg heil!

when you realise that he does not promote bitcoin but stores it. but does promote scams and schemes and another network that is not bitcoins blockchain nor something that will be the salvation.. he is not a maxi. he is a bitcoin hoarder but not a maxi
...
you do need to realise that those transactions you assume valid are not containing bitcoin rules.. they use a opcode that assumes validity by a "isvalid" bypass thatavoids standard bitcoin checks. which bypasses normal bitcoin format rules

yep thats how the junk gets let in, by bypassing normal standard bitcoin rules
yep the inscriptions are non-standard

..
funny part is maxi means maxi. but its you that wants to dilute(move the goalpost) its meaning to be middi. where you think someone that supports another network is still maxi. even if they dont want to fix bitcoin but want people to move to another network

please learn maxi is short for maximum. meaning top, highest level. meaning yes its the purists.. not the average or altnet supporters that just happen to hoard bitcoin

Pretty sure MSTR hold their BTC holdings on the mainnet, in cold storage, without any intent on selling it, while having 0% shitcoin holdings. So if that's not being a maxi, I don't know what is.

Are you suggesting that his support of lightning means he's no longer a maxi? That sounds ridiculous, especially to all the maxis out there that support and use lightning. It seems more likely there are maxis that support L2s and those that don't. Simply claiming that the "purest" way to support Bitcoin and Bitcoin only is to support it's mainnet and nothing else just sounds ridiculous to me, as well as many other maxis. Especially when now the mainnet is being used for inscriptions and now apparently you can't even be a maxi unless you support censoring these valid transactions. Maxis can't keep moving the goal posts like this.

Anyway, I'm not going to suggest that Lightning is the solution to everyone's problems right now, I've been hearing an increasing amount of issues with it, but I'm not going to rule it out either as Bitcoin had enough issues in it's first few years as well. There are also better L2 solutions right now but they lack the liquidity as well as development. So whether this high fee era increases Lightning adoption, or otherwise increases adoption of other L2s, I still think it's all generally healthy. Even if it means these L2s need a LOT of work to become more functional, which I believe they do, it will also encourage this which is well overdue.

Also I've noticed that in these ordinals type of threads there are a lot of respectable members avoiding sharing their opinions on this issue (whereas they often do in this board without hesitation). I assume a lot of Bitcoiners, if not most, are actually on the fence at the moment (neutral), and instead most of the voices are wanting some form of censorship, as opposed to it being an actual majority of Bitcoiners wanting this type of censorship. Possibly because in a few weeks or months this ordinals "craze" might pass, just like the high fees at the end of 2017, or otherwise during 2021. Just a thought.

Finally many Bitcoiners remember how divisive it was talking about changing the network during the high fees of 2017, which led to a hard fork. Most people don't want another hard fork.

saylor is not a bitcoin maxi. he is a msat maxi
he loves another network called lightning which is where middle men get fee's

he wants people to move away from bitcoin and use another network. so ofcourse he doesnt want bitcoin exploits fixed

the thing is many have used LN seen its flaws and moved out of LN. there are more people using other subnetwork bridges. becasue of the simple fact that LN is flawed and limited and doesnt meets its promises/purpose/function that people were told it could

LN will never handle bitcoin value amounts. its always going to be a small niche service for the penny pinchers to borrow value between each other and steal that borrowed value from others


el salvador was scammed/duped into using LN because they were told "it was bitcoin".. after 3 months. they seen the flaws and liquidity issues. they instead went with something else

the promoter that duped them then ran off and tried his game in africa. who also seen the same flaws..
they too are trying something else

i do hope devs dont waste another 6 years trying to force people over to broken LN and instead try to plug the bitcoin exploit or start afresh on a different subnetwork bridge that is actually useful.. because the solution/salvation is not going to be LN

Anyone can think in the poor El Salvador people who use BTC in her normal day?

Do you imaging paying $10 usd fee for one kg of bread?.

Well i know nobody use in the day to day BTC its only a "joke".

Bit of a simplification don't you think? What about the miners who secure the network who no doubt in favour of increased revenue (overall)? What about Bitcoin maxis like Michael Saylor who recently came out in favour of data inscription on Bitcoin (generally speaking), that includes ordindals. In his examples, this included things like will & testaments that could be inscribed for a VERY cheap $20/30 right now.

Not to mention you are ignoring the core devs that appear relatively neutral right now. No doubt because their job is to fix bugs and ordinals isn't a bug. Or otherwise improve the network, while there is no urgent need to improve the network, as it is functioning exactly as programmed. They've already done segwit and taproot in recent years, so not going to rush a soft fork obviously, these take months, even years to code.

But sure, you can just blame shitcoiners, basement dwellers (whatever that really means) and anyone you don't like as those who are supportive of ordinals. Even though probably the majority of Bitcoin users are currently opposed to them, what you have to remember is that Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about it's users. It only cares about those who are following the rules of the network and paying the appropriate fees.

Often people forget that users can complain as much as like like, just like in 2017 with the civil war over block size. But ultimately it doesn't matter how many people bitch and moan like babies and cry about high fees, the miners will keep on mining, the devs will keep on coding. Those who aren't willing or able to pay high fees will get left behind. Bitcoin doesn't wait for any cry babies I'm afraid. Harsh but true. My only real fear/concern if that those opposed to ordinals and inscriptions will begin to promote the hard fork approach, and it will be like 2017 all over again, with new BTC-based shitcoiners born every minute.

I'm not even someone who's supportive of ordinals or BRC20 in general, I think Ethereum is a better designed network for these type of endeavours if that's what you're into. But what I am opposed to is the amount of people complaining about how popular Bitcoin currently is, which I have no issues with personally. Calling ordinals spam when it's neither advertising, phising or malware - so by definition can't generally be considered spam - this is just a matter of perception. One persons idea of spam is others idea of something they want to buy, own or find value in. Doesn't matter how many times you call it spam, it doesn't make it so.

Rant over. TL:DR: I take the Bitcoin maxi view of Michael Saylor in favour of Bitcoin usage.

Miners fees currently went up in the market, so as to keep them encouraged following their recent halas. This is according to recent reports trailing the current Bitcoin price having gone down by a percent. We are experiencing a time where Bitcoin management is stepping up to make the exchange better.  Ordinals or not, the system can only grow if we trust it would work.
The war would mostly be effected by miners, even with our output on media, only those who really impact its development will cause the fork if not with one mind and it would ruin whatever ideology was thought out for the whole concept of a BTC decentralized system.