Topic: Bitcoin Civil War - page 6. (Read 1054 times)

doomad im not saying is impossible. im saying the core dev is finding excuses to not make it possible

by the way you are the one that took one word and extremitised it to mean what you thought it meant to then cry like a baby. you did not read the contents of the whole sentence i said
heck you even in your post just doubled down by throwing more silly excuses why that cant, wont, shouldnt do it.. proving my point


they use excuses like pretending rules cant be made to fix it. by saying if they just shorten witness space to 20 sig lengths then people will still use the space.. however what they are not capable of admitting is that they can put rules inplace to say what data would go into such 20 signature length space.. EG actually have rules to validate the content


so how about you stop sucking up to them and realise their lame excuses to evade fixes is them not doing their role as maintainers of bitcoin security

realise one thing
you spent so many years sucking up to them, presumably for free hoping they pay you one day. but by your penny pinching of sigcampaigns have you not realised yet your ass-kissing wont get a pay day, or it would have already

care more about bitcoin and less about the monarchy controling bitcoin. one day when you had enough of kissing ass you will realise they are the authoritarians.. not the community

I don't see any reference to it being "impossible", so if you could perhaps refrain from your usual extremist tendencies and just stick to what they actually said, without embellishments, that would be appreciated.

What they're saying makes sense to me.  If we start closing off potential exploit vectors, then you'll moan that we're not making enough progress on scaling (even more than you already do, at least).  And then the silly-picture-brigade will just find a different method to inject this data.

I'm all for individuals setting their own node policy to reject such inscriptions.  That's their right and I'll always fight to protect that.  I wish the "Ordisrespector" project every success.  However, I'm not convinced that a consensus change will be an effective deterrent and may cause later hurdles to clear when we look at future scaling proposals.

If neither a soft fork, nor a hard fork is required, then in my opinion there won't be any "civil war". Everything will depend on what the Core Developers decide.

BUT if there's truly going to be a "civil war", then definitely it won't be against Ordinals users/supporters. Who will lose the most if Ordinals functions are undermined? I believe the miners will be in the other side of the "civil war".

It will be a tough war. On one side you have logic and reason who care for the greater good of Bitcoin with profits balanced healthily within their motives...and then you have the social plebs and profit hungry whales who are trying to make as much as they can out of this feature. Unfortunately, the ones who have the most power are the latter. I am glad that Luke Dashjnr is standing up for the greater interest of Bitcoin and those who look at it from an experienced and knowledgeable angle. Of course, those who are profiting heavily from Ordinals will speak against him.

While I think that NFTs and Ordinals do have real use-case, Bitcoin is clearly not ready for it if the ability to spam the chain is as easy as the attackers are currently making it seem. Once this problem is alleviated and plebs wake up and stop buying ridiculous mass-minted graphics for even more ridiculous prices, maybe they can thrive. Until then I think the last few days prove that Ordinals need to be rethought and changed/removed.

I think that we will have quite a debate running and problems with the usability of Bitcoin for quite some time. It takes time for things to pass through consensus, for discussion to happen and for the codebase to be changed. Especially when high powered interests are involved in the decision making process and the publicity side of things. Eventually though, good and reason should prevail. It will just take time. I have been wondering what might stop Bitcoin from rallying early before the halving next year, considering the banking turmoil that happened earlier in the year. I suppose this and whatever cascade comes with the height of this consensus problem is the answer to my wonder.

Positively, more time to accumulate!

Nice one

Probably Bitcoin itself seemed to be the same junk to an outside observer shortly after the launch of the network. I see the elegance of the ordinals idea in the fact that all satoshi in the block chain are initially implicitly numbered hard. It's just that ten years after the idea was formed, someone explicitly implemented it. Sooner or later it had to happen, and now it has.

No one promised that transactions would always be cheap. By itself, determining the actual price of a transaction on a competitive market basis explicitly implies that transactions are cheap only in conditions of low competition for a limited place in the block.

If that's what you believe is the motivating drive for half of DT and a hundred other users to be talking about this then just GTFO. Bitcoin network hasn't ceased working, its just more annoyingly expensive like PayPal.

you are joking right
ordinals are junk. its not something cypherpunks would ever waste time on

you do realise that the crap junk of json data has no real proof of transfer within the json data that has rules to stop counterfeiting or double spending right..
.. do you even know why cypherpunks spend decades trying to make good money. becasue idea's like the json data fake tokens are not a currency.  so they did not even bother with json crap

as for the previous versions of ordinals like the deadweight memes, those too had no proof of transfer within its system
and the 'first sat' version is broke. there is a miscount of inscriptions and such already.

so please actually learn that ordinals is junk of meaningless value/rule/proofs of cryptographic transfer and realise cypherpunks wont even waste time on that crap.. because they never did

Please refrain from false generalizations. Personally, I find the central idea of ordinals quite elegant and true cypherpunk. It is somewhat lazy to evaluate the quality of the implementation, but the fact that this little project was implemented in the rust programming language and was able to compile is already a good recommendation for the quality of the implementation (if you know what I mean). I also understand the arguments against ordinals and some of them seem reasonable to me.

But I can't stop thinking that a large part of the source of the resentment on the forum is the selfish fear of losing signature revenue from all those many mixers and casinos that seem to be having problems operating normally in the face of increased transaction fees. Fear is a good motivator and a bad ally. I'd like to avoid splitting and not trying to fix what isn't broken, but if I have to choose sides, I guess I'll take the side without fear.

I believe that to build a bigger ecosystem, brighter future for Bitcoin, we need to have bigger communities, more use cases for its network.

Coming to a solution to block Bitcoin Ordinals, BRC-20 tokens, smart contracts are very last solutions which are not best idea and solution for all. It is kind of censorship on use cases and if Bitcoin developers, communities can do such censorship this time, they will be able to repeat same in future.

In addition, if we believe that in future, Bitcoin adoption will be bigger, demand to use on-chain transactions will be bigger to a level which is similar to the current one even without Ordinals, BRC20 tokens, we must deeply think of other solutions, technically rather than simply censor any use case we don't like.

@notatether

seems the main core team answered and they want to do nothing. pretending its impossible
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-May/021625.html

funny how they orchestrated many soft forks in the last couple years but now pretend its difficult

they even orchestrated a major hardfork via a mandated mining pool blackmail of block rejecting 6 years ago.. but now they are pretending they cant do it again

they argue that they cant reject data space of more then 20 signature lengths because it would cause issues like pre taproot.. yet they know that they can implement rules that what goes into witness area is an actual signature because the CONTENT has to meet a rule of being a signature that matches the signing key. and reject anything thats not a signature/doesnt meet a rule of association with utxo rules of spending

they are stupidly coming up with stupid excuses not to change things to fix the problem

also taproots "promise" was a new way for multisig thats just 1 signature length. so their talk of 20 sig lengths becomes meaningless if they actually did meet their promises

they want to keep the space open but not implement rules of what goes inside that data.. that is what i define as a trojan horse
saying the gates of the castle are open to horses but we wont check that its a real horse or whats inside the horses satchel or inside the horses belly(wood or meat looking horse)

they like the lack of rules even though code should be used to make rules not break rules

they know they can set rules for each opcode. and enable unset opcodes to be disabled until true consensus is reached, where true consensus would only be reached when a unset opcode gets proposed to have certain conditions and nodes have the code of those rules conditions to THEN activate it (as the old way was).. but they simply dont want to do it

---

as for the civil war

its core maintainers(corporate sponsored devs that are messing with bitcoin for last 7 years), casey (ordinals idiot) is part of that chum group. and a few of their acolytes
vs everyone else


Luke JR has been a high contributor to core but he was always sidelined. when he is usefull to the core roadmap they let him code. when he is not usefull to their roadmap they ignore him.

luke had some fixes but could not even get them listed as BIPS. thats how much control the maintainers have of bitcoin

@NotATether, answering to the question I can answer in conscience which is if we (you devs and us community) clear the media out about who's not happy? Fuck yeah. It's not a single dev that is against this crap. Most of the community is, and despite the fact that miners may like it though, the community is not only miners, it's all of us.
And Luke, obviously should not be left alone fighting the "civil war". He was just one person coming up front and saying it out loud. Of course the impact if different because he's a well known and old member of the community and a dev, specifically. So, if it was on me, hell yeah, I would take action on behalf of Luke and any other well known member that may come under any type of media attack or any other type of attack!

We are all Satoshi. We are all Bitcoin.

I'm quite understand, but it based on the above tweet it looks like easy to stop BRC-20 transactions? if it's possible then action will be taken ASAP because I think most of developers are don't like it and they're maximalists.

Asking miners to avoid BRC-20 transactions are impossible because they will get benefit due to people willing to pay with high amount of BTC.

Its because thats on social media and thats more visible to a lot of audience. Kinda read the convos on that thread. Almost all are CTs and blue tagged people, whom have different opinion about it. Based on the thread they way more favor or bullish on whats happening on the ordinals but some also dont agreed since its affecting the majority. Its just that those guys have a deep pocketed purse that they can make this more longer. Until they are satisfied with the gains they would leave bitcoin nfts behind. Some retailers are takign action as the number of ordinals wallet are increasing.

The truth is that everyone want ordinals to be cancelled in it entirety otherwise they find a lasting Solution to it, but yet as bitcoiners anticipated for the outcome on this, some have even come out boldly that they had preferred bitcoin despite the present challenge than having their asset with any centralized organization, a statement made by Robert Kennedy Jr said he would preferred bitcoin over CBDC because his asset will not be frozen by politics or any centralized institution and authorities including government. https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1655874701321814018?t=rbcvNlxEYzKagrPwGWmf_Q&s=19 this kind of mindset and determination is what we seek with everyone to go for the change they want with their financial economy and adopt a new system with bitcoin, the centralized system is nothing but a modern way of advanced financial slavery, bitcoin has come as a game changer and table shaker of them all, creating a balance between the poor and the elites, after the experience with ordinals, more wins will emerge on the bitcoin network as a call for more adoption.

Looks like the salvo I fired at the mailing list caused an angry reaction on Twitter, and even news reporters are covering it (this guy is no reporter, but some random dude I scrolled past by):



Funny how everyone including the news is trying to make it as "Luke Dashjr vs. the world" and conveniently ignore that I and other members of this community also stand against them.

https://beincrypto.com/bitcoin-core-dev-war-brc-20-ordinals-network-spam/

Do you guys think I should email these bozos and tell them who's really behind the "war declaration?" 😂

---

Anyway, the point being, there are now two groups of (crypto) people: One group (us) who believe that Ordinals and BRC20 are spamming the network and action must be taken against them to preserve its usability

this also includes miners and other users who like BRC20 for the fees but would be happy to support any network projects that alleviate the stress on Layer 1, as well as said developers themselves, and people who like the idea of Ordinals but are not happy with the backlog it's causing

The other group is comprised of the shit-token traders themselves, and also a legion of basement dwellers, shitcoiners, and FUD enthusiasts who are proclaiming loudly People have the right to spam the network with BRC20 and Ordinals but refuse to actually do anything about the problem except for bitch and moan like a horde of wild orc[-20]s.

Will there be a fork? No.

Will actions be taken to insulate bitcoin users from high fees? Yes.

Should these blokes be taken seriously? No.

But should they be challenged anyway? Yes, because if we don't, newbies will be caught in their disinformation net.

We've already seen an exchange try to launch a FUD attack during this chaos (and fortunately they failed). I can see that nearly everyone on this website agrees with me on these points.

So, it is time to challenge these claims on other platforms, particularly Twitter, which is still very relevant platform even though it has fallen out of favor. That's where all the post-news firestorms begin anyway.

If you cannot code, or draft Bitcoin documents,
Know that there are other bitcoiners like you fighting the word-battles over there.
Help them.