Topic: Bitcoin Civil War - page 5. (Read 1092 times)

Disappointed. Really disappointed.

What are you going to do if they send them to miners? Soft fork? What then? What if they embed them in non-standard OP_RETURN transactions? Ban the op code? What if they send them in 256-bit chunks, as if the metadata is divided in multi-sig addresses?

And who had me signed that I should make transactions only if they help on Bitcoin adoption? Misplaced meme.

I do not think it is necessary telling them who declared the war. This should be a good strategy to get them confused as to where the pressure is coming from so they do not know and channel the revenge and retaliation against you.
This is a good way of attacking the enemy. Let them never know it is coming from you while you sit and watch them fighting themselves.

It is quite unfortunate what has happened the past few days.  The network congestion was something else. Very frustrating and dissappointing. If not spamming, I would have preferred it to be called BRC20 bot attack on bitcoin chain. It was very devastating that the delay caused a lot of set backs and backlogs of transactions to be confirmed coupled with the high transaction fee charges which did not go down well with bitcoin enthusiasts.
I support the motion for actions to be taken against the BRC20 bots before they overwhelm the whole system with their greedy and selfish interest.


The battle line has already been drawn.  Either way, I believe bitcoin enthusiasts on Twitter are releasing their arsenals against them.
This is a good war to demoralizing them before hand and making them feel the pains they already caused verbally and through the social media outlets while the others carry on the war from the other zone.
"Ceteris paribus"

But it's all you're likely going to get for the time being.  The devs can't even agree between themselves what the "right" course of action is.  I don't think they'll be intervening directly in the very near future.  And clearly the miners won't have much interest in stopping all this extra income they're getting.  I suggest you try to "make do" with what you've got.  

Or, at the risk of suggesting something utterly futile, you could code something yourself and release it (but we both know that's never going to happen and you're too entitled to do anything yourself when you could simply whine about it and accomplish nothing, as per usual).

---

What you both need to keep in mind is that the Devs you are referring to are not directly beholden to you.  It's unreasonable to expect them to take any action that would appease you but upset others in the process.  I'd like to think I'm not the only one who cares about censorship resistance and I would find it deeply troubling if we abandon that principle at the first sign of a problem.  I'm fully aware that neither of you care in the slightest about my concerns, but just try to keep in mind that you don't speak for everyone.  I have zero personal interest in silly pictures, but I don't see it as my place to police what others can or can't do.  

If you believe it is your place to dictate how others can transact, then I sincerely hope Karma bites you in the arse at some point in the future and someone tells you that your usage of the blockchain isn't acceptable to them and they intervene to stop you transacting in the way you want to.  And if it reached that stage, I'd be long gone, because BTC would be well and truly dead in my view.  And your totalitarian mentality would have been what killed it.

Permissionless freedom or bust.  I'm never budging on that, so either get used to sharing a blockchain with me or fork off.  Your call.  

I might agree with you if you were talking about kicking spam off the blockchain, but simply because prices go up in a supply and demand environment, trying to regulate them down is a mistake that has been known since Diocletian's edict, no matter how much certain politicians insist on forgetting history. So what happens when fees go up in a mass adoption environment? Or in the future when the block reward is minimal?

Any action that can be taken to make the high Bitcoin transaction fee from the blockchain by the developers should be done with immediate action. People are not happy about the stuff. The fee right now is abnormal to the average users of bitcoin.

But they are affecting the whole system, so if there is any way out then... action should be taken.

It is not only newbies that will enter the disinformation net but also those who are not aware of the news will be affected. Therefore challenging them is one of the best approach to free the system.

your soo fixated on letting devs loosen consensus for their benefit of not having to wait for the community to be ready to activate a new opcode/ruleset.. and not fix their stupidity. that you will let them make more future stupid implementations that allow newer future exploits

ever heard the term bug fixes, patches, .. i guess not
you do realise that things can be fixed without halting genuine progress

devs own message about enabling lots of opcodes was that they would when utility of such was needed they would then apply rules to opcodes.. thus avoid a activation process in the middle by flipping the paradigm
however guess what these unassigned opcodes that had no rules are being used so devs should now be assigning rules .. BUT THEY ARE NOT. thus breaking more promises


take your scripts and shred them. and then go do some research, learn the code learn how things worked and how they work now. stop reading some cave dweller chest thumping words and actually learn bitcoin

you are putting more care into what certain devs should be allowed to do unhindered rather than thinking about BITCOIN that should protect itself from human exploitation of code

dont defend a dev. defend the code from devs
if devs make a mistake they should undo that mistake

there are ways to code rules that dont hinder development.. its called rules..  yep code is rules.
the current bypass and assume valid lack of rules is a flaw not a feature

Dude, you are too fixated on specific implementation details and it prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees. It is possible to ban a particular implementation at the cost of several years of progress towards scaling, a split in the community, and perhaps even at the cost of the success of the bitcoin project as a whole. But it is impossible to forbid the very fundamental possibility of adding arbitrary data to the bitcoin blockchain, because it has existed since the start of the network. You forbid one implementation - sooner or later there will be another. But then you will not be able to say in a conversation with friends over a glass of whiskey that this network is resistant to censorship and anti-fragile. Think about it at your leisure.

you are reading the wrong scripts. whomever is spoon feeding you needs to so their research and hen YOU need to do your own research away from them
(i can tell you are script reading because you use the same narrative and buzzwords that is spreading around, to coincidentally)

so here is my response
before segwit there was no 3mb witness area to exploit nor was there hundreds of opsuccess unassigned opcodes that had no rules. thus these ordinals and crap happening in 2023 was not able to happen in 2016

GO learn

oh and back in the day when small random data was added to opreturn. the emphasis was on SMALL and it was useless for anything thus no ONE BOTHERED using it for junk to any mass scale, thus wasnt a problem worthy of fixing

these NEW opcodes and unassigned space that is being exploited DUE TO RECENT UPGRADES is causing a concern
its like the difference between an itch throat once a day. vs not breathing due to covid. there is a big difference between the types of junk invading a system

another thing. even if you now want to follow the lame script of "soft activations happened decades ago too"
the rebuttal of that is simple
back when things like multisig opcodes came about those opcodes HAD format requirements, had rules.. rules attached of what content was expected to be found when using such opcodes.. thus they were not lame unassigned opcodes that allow any random junk.

opcodes should have rules if they are to be used. the unassigned ones should be deactivated until PROPOSALS are made to assign rules to opcodes. and then when pools say they are ready to validate such becasue they have upgraded their nodes to validate such then they can make blocks containing such. thus keep integrity aligned..

unlike the situation in the recent years
yep recently DEVS said to pre-activate opcodes unassigned. and later add rules to them..
well guess what unassigned opcodes are being used so its time devs get off their asses and put the rules inplace they said they would do, or deactivate them until they do

and if you are still delusionally sticking to the script
i dare you to add a ordinal jpeg meme to a legacy transaction.. oh you cant... well ask yourself why then go do your research

I don't think I'm going to hit a finger in the sky if I assume you're from the old guard of futuristic retrogrades who are against any development of bitcoin at all - hands off self-sufficient ideal perfection and let us croak peacefully in our cozy little swamp. You are mistaken, this problem existed before the 2017 update, but before that there was no attempt to use it on a mass scale.

Yes, you're right and i like the fact that you specifically quoted the aspect that i mentioned "provided there will be a lasting solution to it" it's bot about kicking against ordinals that solves the entire problem because we can't predict the future on what's coming next after this on bitcoin network and the transaction fee, we can give ordinals a two method of approach, first is the use case of bitcoin which has increased through the introduction of ordinals on the bitcoin blockspace.

But should that be a threat to users by inflating them with high fees while the external users are enjoying the pump on their token at our own expenses? Secondly if we are to eliminate Ordinals, does that gives a permanent solution to any means of increased transaction fee in the future? I also finally agrees that we are trying to secure the network from future attack through this by kicking against ordinals, to me we have to give a good attention to the both sides and think twice before the new solution arrives.

i bit my lip that it also relates to the 2017 softening of consensus part.. apart from the hint of "other changes too from the past" because usually when i do mention too much i get your script ring leader your copying your narrative from,  drum his chest with his usual dev protecting kiss ass drama.

but here is the thing
segwitv0 did not have all the unassigned opcodes(opsuccess) that taproot does. so go research when the exploits were really exploitable

yes segwit opened the castle gates. but taproot opcodes dismissed the guards and let the wooden horse through

You are mistaken, the problem existed before the 2021 update, but before that there were no attempts to exploit it on a mass scale. The patch may make exploiting this vulnerability more difficult, but it won't help to get rid of it completely - and will give rise to a host of other negative side effects, the full extent of which is currently difficult to determine. Perhaps the most insignificant of them is that it will cross out the bitcoin development roadmap.

that is not a fix but a weak bypass. it just makes nodes not relay zero confirms p2p. yet most of the ordinal scumbags are doing pushtx direct with mining pools, evading the zero confirm p2p relay. so it wont stop it

a true fix is to have devs actually only enable opcodes that have rules and conditions of use. where if the content after the opcode doesnt fit the rules then its rejected. thus no random data can be put into witness

whereby blocks can be rejected if they put in tx that dont fit the rules.. as bitcoin should be (having proper consensus rules)

There is no war. Just a bug being exploited. Lets kick the spam out. they can go elsewhere, no one is stopping them to make their own spam blockchain.



Ordisrespector

Your gesture is commendable, but it has little effect on the overall balance of power in this issue of pro and contra. I don't want your sacrifice, make money while you have the opportunity, I just don't want the fear of losing this source of income to interfere with your ability to adequately assess the possible negative side effects of your proposed hasty decisions.

the shitty pictures only were allowed due to a BUG core devs were calling a feature, which THEY enabled
a feature they promised would enable people to do multisig using only 1 signature space (thus their promise is broken by not doing as intended) - thus not a feature
they also WEAKENED consensus which allowed the snowball growth of exploits

if you want to let the devs continue tinkering and weakening bitcoin then knees are not the problem. falling on its face into a pile of shit will be

letting it continue unfixed is making bitcoin worse.
if they make it so its exploitable, but unwilling to fix it.. then that is a bad premiss to make
years ago when bugs were made, devs fixed them. so we should get them to fix their latest bug they enabled

they already opened pandorers box. so you are too late in the "dont touch" but now you dont want them to close the box

reversing an exploit is not breaking anything. its fixing it.
before the exploit(pre 2021 inception of lots of new crappy opcodes) no one was crying that it was hindering development.
it was the updates of 2021 that really weakened consensus further to the point of letting these shitty things happen now
going back to 2021 standards wont hinder development. it would just mean devs will need to think smarter next time before enabling shitty opcodes

and to reinforce the rules of consensus a few practical things can be done to other changes too from the past. where rules actually need to have conditions. and validations checks actually do their job of validating content

For several days there has been a huge problem on Bitcoin Tx speed, memecoin like PEPE coin on Bitcoin blockchain for BRC-20 based platform, creation of NFT on ordinals protocol etc. has caused massive transactions on Bitcoin blockchain which has been responsible for high fees for quite some time. If Bitcoin Ordinals are not removed from the blockchain, Bitcoin transaction fees are not expected to drop easily.

I think it’s a good thing if there is a patch that stops their BS. Fees were up to over 300 sat per byte which is ridiculous. I mean we could wait for the trolls to run out of bitcoin so their spamming dies down but doing something to stop it is wise. It’s not being done for any other reason than to spam the network.

I’m sure miners were enjoying it but it’s not what bitcoin was created for. Shitcoiners are welcome to fork bitcoin & continue their nonsense on another chain, alternatively use BCH or BSV  which have bigger & often empty blocks.

Any way I doubt anything will be done. Fees are already lower than the peak as the mempool clears a bit.

The security of bitcoin is threatened only by a sharp reduction in the hashrate and nothing else. As long as the network hashrate grows or remains stable, then everything is fine with security. But any attempts at censorship can seriously threaten the future of bitcoin as a censorship-resistant system, and the developers are well aware of this, and therefore are inactive. This Pandora's box is not to be touched. If shitty pictures can bring the bitcoin network to its knees, then the place of this network is already in the dustbin of history.

Then why say it at all?  You do this every time.  You say things deliberately to make it sound as though the situation is worse than it actually is and then you claim that I'm taking your words out of context somehow.  I didn't put a gun to your head and force you to use the word "impossible".  You made a conscious and calculated decision to use that word.  Your choice, not mine.

Don't get pissy at me just because it makes you appear disingenuous.  You're doing that all by yourself without any help from me.