Topic: Do Ordinals and Runes help Bitcoin to be a better system of electronic cash? (Read 581 times)

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki. But even if it's approved (as in get a number), it doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin Core (or other software) will implement it. For example, Bitcoin Core never implement BIP 39.

frankandbeans, please listen to me. What you're making it look to the people who read through the topic is that the Core Developers wanted and coded the "exploit". Tin-foil hats on, there are no conspiracies within, or against, Bitcoin. The decisions made are to keep the network chugging along for decades, not mere years.

IF you believe it's time to start the block size debate again, then start it, BUT don't spread lies, disinformation, and don't gaslight people. More people in the community might be on your side with simple honesty.

are you now admitting you now know the code didnt exist in 2009 and was added later on?
so your story is changing and you admit it was later code made for a feature (which has not helped alleviate congestion nor high fees)

so now you admit it is associated with a later 'feature' we can move on from your misinformation that meme pictures were always possible from genesis

next question. the 'feature' they promised the code would enable.. what promises still remain today to show the feature does what core promised the feature would do?. oh and dont say malleability, because you would be wrong

Let's make sure you can walk before you run first, okay?

Before you go putting together any sort of proposal, could you start by acknowledging what the code involved in the "exploit" was intended for?  No developer is going to take you seriously if you can't recognise what they were trying to achieve when they built that.  It certainly wasn't for the purpose the silly picture brigade are butchering it for.

This is fundamental to Bitcoin's existence.  Any ideas on how to get the core principles back into focus is worth working on.

BIP is a brand of process owned by core. it comes with their moderated policy of how to formalise a BIP.
BIP's are about the moderated discussion of kissing/sucking up, compromising and pledging loyalty to the core lead maintainers asses to get them to even consider changing their roadmap.. goodluck with that

the other option is not to create a altcoin and see who adopts to then convince core devs to change the roadmap (the idiot brigade pretend thats the only option outside BIP)

the other option is to get people to realise that core are not the sole diety everyone should follow
by releasing a full node reference client thats not associated with core but runs on the bitcoin network, and hope it doesnt get rekt by the cultish idiot brigade group before its even able to offer its own proposals to sort out the network

meaning establish a new brand of full node reference client that for a while just does what bitcoin does, no variation.. to earn a place side by side core.. then later offer proposals and see who gets majority. FAIRLY via features that benefit bitcoiners not corporate fiat sponsors.. again before cultish tribes try to REKT it using stupidity/social influence

goodluck with that. the cultish power of wanting to stay in core tyranny is high

I hear a lot of agreement here.  There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

do some research for once.. and dont cry that you should avoid research simply because i asked you to do it, do it for your own benefit of learning stuff.. if you done proper research, you would not need to get filled with vapour comments of gaseous statements from your idiot mentor, to then fear getting burned when someone else enlightens you..

core knew in 2016 their yet to be activated new opcode set could be exploited to fill the blockchain with junk and what the cause and effect was before their code even activated. (emphasis they knew as far back as 2016 before it activated in 2017).. they for the 8 months of having code published only achieved 45% consensus and time was running out for their sponsored deadline,
instead of realising they were only getting 45% acceptance and going back to the drawing board and offering a different feature without the exploit, because people were wising up to the ramifications of their proposal.. core doubled down and forced pushed(mandated) it into activation using their comrads(their sponsors(NYA)). the blockdata proves they achieved unnatural 100% by august 2017.. you can check for yourself and realise the blockdata doesnt lie.. nor does the code releases in summer 2017 that caused it.. so do your research on hard data..

so dont pretend they had no knowledge of the repercussions dont pretend "the community wanted it" because its your mentor telling you the lies about how things occurred has a agenda of his own..
learn something using actual code and data and realise its your mentor who has been lying and misinforming you about core devs(hes the one filling you with the gas)..
and before you auto-respond with your mentors next gaseous statement to blame mining pools.. mining pools did not create the code, infact they were blackmailed into the mandated activation.. now go do your research without asking your mentor for the next script to recite, try some independent research for once using code and data that is publicly available

---

the funny part about subnetworks like LN is they had no world wide existing protocol. so could have wrote something new and made it bitcoin compliant. but the teams sponsored to make LN(who were core devs) wanted to change bitcoin to adapt to the flaws LN system that had design flaws from the beginning, all because of the sponsorship deals of agenda's of not wanting bitcoin to scale up, but to promote how everyone should abandon bitcoin and use other networks

---

runes is not made to make bitcoin better.. this whole topic is essentially a subliminal advertisement to get people to learn about runes as a advertisement of runes.. its of no benefit to bitcoin but has more annoyances that can potentially harm bitcoins economics yet again

The exploit was what they needed to give the Lightning Network an advantage.  Ordinals have shown that the Core devs are willing to use an exploit to push their own agenda, but anyone else uses it and the community needs to get together to censor these transactions.  It's ridiculous.  We needed Ordinals to put the Lightning Network on display for the garbage it is and I think any time you see someone mention Ordinals in a different light than Lightning, it is an obvious sign that person either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they've been compromised and are on Blockstream's payroll in one way or another.

frankandbeans, you probably could call it an "exploit" - in your opinion, but don't spread lies/disinformation to make people, especially newbies, believe that the Core Developers coded something on purpose for a developer like Casey Rodarmor to "exploit". Criticize if you need to criticize, but don't spread lies about anything. Although Roger Ver would laughably say that there might be a conspiracy to keep the blocks small, he would never spread any lies/disinformation about Bitcoin or the Core Developers. His heart is still in the right place.

Just to reiterate what the people before me have already stated, these "additions" aren't included to the bitcoin core, and hence are not part of its main protocol, these are added features/perks which personally speaking, are made to just limit test bitcoin and nothing else.

All this time bitcoin was only good at one thing and people never dared to explore the implications of let's say, having more features than it being an electronic cash system. Ordinals, although unhealthily, challenged that notion by introducing the NFT narrative to the equation and we since then realized that because of the limitations, mainly the block size, we can't really reliably support other forms of crypto product in the bitcoin network, as compared to versatile protocols like Ethereum and Solana.

So yeah, it didn't contribute anything towards bitcoin's standing as a P2P payment system, it tried to break the mold, but that turned out horribly wrong, and as of now our eyes are opened to the fact that unless we work on bitcoin's scalability issues first, we're not going to get anywhere.

This is first time i hear Rune is being developed with anonymity feature. Even Casey blog[1] doesn't mention that. Can you share source or proof of that anonymity feature? It's not that new either since it's supposed to be launched soon[2].

[1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/
[2] https://decrypt.co/221962/bitcoin-runes-launch-at-the-halving-heres-everything-you-need-to-know

casey did not make ordinals which allows bitcoin to include unique data

casey used an existing exploit created by core (that made it possible to add junk data to the blockchain by far more(mb's) than the small byte(40b) amount previous to cores inception), where by casey created software to make it super easy for idiots to add such junk data

unchecked data, miscounted bytes are not a feature of bitcoin. adding junk is not a function of bitcoin.. its an exploit thats been abused

why do idiots:
a. pretend core had nothing to do with this junk crap
b. pretend this junk crap appended to the end of transactions was possible since 2009
c. promote it as a feature that should remain

oh right, to make bitcoin more of an expensive headache to then promote people should abandon bitcoin to use other networks
(in regards to (a) if it was not due to the changes CORE made in 2017, the unchecked post-tx-data(after signature) metadata junk would not be possible)

@taufik123. Bitcoin has not become increasingly functional because it can presently include unique data. Functionality will only increase if the blocks are allowed to be bigger. The small blocks preserve bitcon's decentralization, however, they are also causing it to centralize on the people who can pay for the expensive fee. If you are a small minnow, you should use an altcoin as a medium of exchange and use bitcoin as a store of value, speculative investment.

Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc.

Many Whales are indeed leveraging Ordinal to make more money by trading NFTs and launching their own NFTs.

And what is quite new at the moment is the Rune Protocol, which is still to be developed with the aim of better anonymity.
Making using Bitcoin Easier because it doesn't have to enter a long wallet address and is friendly enough for new users, is simpler, more efficient and more secure.

Although the development of Ordinals and Runes is still in its early stages, I also do not deny that with the presence of Ordinals alone the state of the Bitcoin network is getting denser so that transaction confirmations will take longer.

These are some of the problems that need to be resolved and developed for the better because there are many Pros and Cons about the presence of Ordinals, especially the Protocol Runes that will appear immediately after the halving.

https://github.com/casey

@ChiBitCTy. On what we have witnessed on the development of bitcoin, it appears that the fees can be manipulated to centralize usage for the whales who can pay for fees if they are expensive. It also appears that censorship resistance will only be available if you can pay for them hehehehee. However, we are very lucky that Monero and Litecoin are available to use as a medium of exchange. I reckon bitcoin has become a cryptocoin for store of value and speculative investment.

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

There aren't "factions" here.  There are just those who can recognise reality and those who can't.  And the ones who can't are inept and completely unable to change anything.

Wow I thought this beefs might have ended by now
I guess is still ongoing
Hopefully the two faction can find a common ground and agree on something or respecting one another view from without countering the others view.
The only positive effect that I noticed from Ordinals is that they showed us how Bitcoin is not ready for massive adoption

If nothing is done to improve its scalabilty,  I don't think Bitcoin would ever be ready to be used as a medium of exchange across the globe but more of an Asset.

Hopefully they seen the flaw to their previous upgrade and may likely correct or improve on it. 
https://goquick.ly/k1kpf (used a link shortener thus the name), it shows that there might be correction on ordinals in the next Bitcoin core upgrade.Dont know how true it is though.

The question is, does Bitcoin need the ordinal and rands? or the ordinary and runes they need the bitcoin? This matter can be said to be debatable, to be honest. Because, in my understanding, bitcoin does not need ordinary coins or Runes.

Who came first, Bitcoin, Ordinals, or Runes? Right, Bitcoin, so what is the main reason why Bitcoin needs Ordinal and Runes when Bitcoin is the reason why other cryptocurrencies came into being? Right?