Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 64. (Read 16434 times)

you debunked nothing. and know nothing about treating opcodes differently
you instead implied that a whole class of opcodes that are conditioned should be treated the same as unconditioned opcodes and all premiumised.. as your lame attempt of debunking(which failed)

for instance certain opcodes for specific tapscript have got formatting conditions set to know what to expect. where as other opcodes created since segwit and taproot still do not have conditions set, yet do validation bypass tricks.. which allow abuse of blockspace. so  THE PARTICULAR UNCONDITIONED opcodes can be set to have particular fee tiering. its not an all or nothing thing..
please learn  

also you keep crying about FORKS
learn that it does not require 2 separate blockchains paths..(a fork) learn some basic bitcoin concepts and realise not everything ends up creating an altcoin
when core added new subset of opcodes there was no fork. when core added conditions to specific opcodes there was no fork.. learn that things can be done without a fork.

But isn't there a non-zero chance that it would also open more opportunities for some entities to send larger payloads of "spam" per block and store them in the Bitcoin blockchain?

Plus Dogecoin and every other major altcoin don't give the same security assurances as Bitcoin. Solana I believe, during the last bull cycle, stopped producing blocks for hours because of network congestion. That should ever happen to Bitcoin.

In case anyone thinks franky1 is right on his "fee formula" solution, I suggest them to read the following discussion in which I believe I have debunked why it can't even be implemented without a fork: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63379182.

The tl;dr is: his "solution" requires from the Bitcoin client to treat certain op codes the same as with segwit transactions, where there's an extra witness part. For example, if your transaction does not contain tapscript, you gain an extra space (as in segwit), thereby punishing financially those who will use tapscript.

its feasible to implement a fee formulae tier system where transactions using certain opcodes pay multiples of base fee estimate rate
after all legacy pays more then segwit. and thats without any block rejection enforcement..

but trying to convince core to put fee formulae's that benefit bitcoiners.. goodluck. core prefer high fee's because it annoys bitcoiners and becomes an advert to migrate people to other networks core prefer users to use(subnetworks of core dev parent/sponsor design)

And is it technically feasible to make it impossible to carry out a transaction where the fee would be higher than the overall sum (which would mechanically prevent BRC20 registrations) ?

^ funny how doomad pretends that he wont immediately REKT any node that opposes cores design
he has always said no one should scrutinise core nor oppose core.

he has been part of the PR army that adore core control. he wants any other brand to be seen as a altcoin proposal not a bitcoin network upgrade proposal

people have proposed things many times over the many years. and got slammed down by the core dev control of moderation of IRC, mailing list, github and this forums technical discussion.. purely for the proposal not fitting into or agreeing with the core roadmap

there are only a handful of core devs with the maintainer/merge key privilege but thousands of devs that have seen the wraith of their moderation and ended up taking their projects elsewhere to altcoins or just retired from coding bitcoin entirely.. (which is what core devs ultimately want)

cores backward compatibility does not even need core to propose a candidate and hope people use it. core can add new tx formats without network readiness.

Again, sad interpretation. Rather, if you dislike how things operate, you have two choices:

- Confirm your rationale by talking about it. Propose change. Convince other individuals you are right. Convince developers you are right, or write the code that implements your vision yourself. 
- Go elsewhere.

This conversation is so extensively discussed over the years, that it has lost its intellectual spirit. Now more it is just utter complaining. Complaining about what the developers should have done; what they should be writing. People have to move on. Tomorrow, it'll be 2024 and we are talking as if it's still 2017.

Oh, but I am very much aware they know it. What is questionable is whether they recognize it as the mature option. In my opinion, migrating to a community that respects your standards is more preferable than continually complaining about the deficiencies of your current community.

In that case, he will be given the two choices presented above.

I think I have already answered the rest of your questions.

Taking it back to basics, why even ask permission?  If you don't like what's in the current code, create your own client.  Create an account on GitHub, select the option to fork the codebase, make whatever changes you like.  Then release it.  Share it around.  That way, you start to get a sense of what support a given proposal truly has.  Remove talk from the equation.  Talk is cheap.

Also, people talk about "voting" as though they have some sort of influence on what appears on a candidate's manifesto and election pledges.  But that's not how that works.  The candidates tell you what they stand for and then you pick the candidate.  But it's better than that here, because you can make yourself a candidate!  When discussion fails, just go ahead and do it anyway.  Don't waste time bleating false equivalences about "voting".  Just create what you like, see who runs the code and let the consensus mechanism sort it all out.

And if you don't know how to code, you can pay a coder to write code.  You could pay a whole bunch of them.  Fund an entire dev team.  If you don't have money, you can crowdsource.  But no, people just want to complain and do nothing constructive to even try to change the situation.  And that's why the status quo remains.

No one actually wants to lift a finger to make something happen.  It's just a bunch of noisy armchair pundits.  What else is there to tell them?  

the use of the word censorship is overly abused.. without any context of understanding of the word
when in contrast core dev love the words
eviction, rejection, drop, abandon, pruning, banning

bitcoin always had policies to not allow certain transactions/data..
.. in recent years they relaxed the rules which ended up with more junk. not a better system

Would you consider it censorship to make it impossible to carry out a transaction where the fee is higher than the overall sum (which would mechanically prevent BRC20 inscriptions) ?

to even have a system that veers away from core governance requires non core devs to write nodes that have the ability to vote away from core obediance. and populate the network
years of REKT campaigns put core in central control. along with their sponsors(NYA) that mandated to follow core or have their blocks rejected.

a mining pool cant just make bigger blocks. unless the network is ready for it. and with how core have settled in their control mechanisms, we have become obedient to need to beg core to do things. because other brands even if offering good options will never beat cores control mechanisms
cores main aims for the last 6 years have not been to benefit bitcoiners use of bitcoin. but instead add features that benefit subnetworks of middlemen they want to push people over to.


when you finally are ready to stop blindly idolising core devs as gods. and ready to see their management structure, pay structure, sponsorship deals. you will notice they are not as open and honest as promoted. but ill leave you to your own awakening where you are suppose to scrutinise the rule makers, instead of adoring them and letting them do as they please

the biggest failure is when a community dont scrutinise those in control

no one really ever heard of "glozow" before her employment and github key privileges promotion. and now looking at all of her bitcoin core edits of the modules she is in charge of(mempool), you can see why the mempool has become soo affected (not in a good way)

If we stick to this notion of "you dislike how things currently operate, you go else where" this means there is nothing more to discuss on bitcoin, we use it as is, and wait for everyone to be a millionaire.


I disagree, just because many people blindly worship core devs does not mean core devs are bad, i think for the most part they are genuine people who want whats best for bitcoin, and then among them will be people are somewhat biased due to whatever personal reasons they have.

But again, blocks have not increased in size isn't the sole responsibility for core team, as i said again, if a few large pools and exchanges wanted to increase it, core will have to follow, it just seems like the majority of the powerful entities have no issue with how bitcoin currently is, and I agree with them, i do not see the need for a change now given how I view and treat bitcoin.

If everyone else opt-in for larger blocks and core rejects (which they can't anyway) then we can blame them, until then, everyone seems happy about it except a few dozen folks.

lets say you live in greece. but greek government want to impose obscene taxes. where citizens dont get to send or receive wire transfers in minutes unless they pay obscene taxes.. now lets say there is another electoral candidate to make laws that allow a fairer system for greece..

your opinion is dumb to think that the current greek government should stay in power forever..and make all the obtuse laws they want, where no citizen has a vote and the only option is to migrate out of greece if unhappy
if you truly think that the Unitary parliamentary republic should always govern greece with no choice of governance. then you are promoting totalitarianism


bitcoin was never suppose to be a totalitarian one government forever system
core are the central point of failure totalitarians

recognise that and stop just echoing the mantra of your forum wife who loves adores and wants core totalitarian to govern bitcoin forever and do what they please unopposed, un-scrutinised, un-protested, before community node readiness

It sounds fair. If you don't want to wait in the line, you don't push everyone, or tell the doorman to ignore the people in front of you. You just choose to go in a place that is less crowded.

Then you have completely misinterpreted me. I'm pinpointing exactly that; Bitcoin, as a network, is not owned by anyone. If you look closely, it functions as a tool that caters to individual preferences. But, if you zoom out, it becomes apparent that this accomplishment would be impossible without a collective effort.

You do possess the right to advocate for change. What you lack is the authority to impose your changes on others. If you are unable to effect change in Bitcoin, the responsibility lies with you for not being persuasive enough.

People who moved to Bitcoin Cash did it. They realized the nature of Bitcoin is being permissionless, forked off the network, raised the middle finger and made Bitcoin Cash. Yet, you (plural) are here, complaining why Bitcoin does not have big blocks.

I don't understand why people equate the influence of an "average person" with a Core developer.

First things first, an average person does not code. Demanding change, and doing change differentiate on the action part. And allow me to argue that doing change is exponentially more impactful than demanding it as if you're a customer in a store; you're not. This is free software. People are freely writing software, oriented towards their beliefs. Most of Bitcoin Core developers have clearly a liking on second layer solutions. Some others did not share the same vision, and migrated to working on other protocols. They are not obligated to align with our choices; rather, we are tasked with evaluating whether we find the conditions of a network agreeable and choosing to align with them.

Secondly, whom would you trust more? A random stranger on the Internet who wants to tell developers what to do, or an actual developer who has been working on Bitcoin since its inception? I'll take the latter, thanks. I obviously trust the actions taken by someone who has devoted their entire life on studying and writing software, and who is closer to the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anyone else.

Oh ok let us use this argument against everyone who complains about ordinals then, if you don't like how btc is currently dominated by brc-20 transactions go ahead and migrate somewhere else, how does that sound? Why do some people think it "their" bitcoin and nobody has the right to demand a change?

All of you saying this  would not say the same thing if block increase was proposed by core devs, but when an average person talks about it you start pointing fingers and ask them to migrate, why did you not say the same thing about Segwit then? Did any of you tell corr devs to fuck off if they did not like how btc was prior to segwit? 

Just for the record, I hardly transact on BTC blockchain, I am heavily invested in mining, I never encouraged block size increase, but I find it funny as hell the way some people here think they have the right to change the protocol to ban ordinals and also think others have no rights to demand something else.

The "if you want bigger blocks go to xyz" comments are going to age like milk when core devs increase block size, people will be quoting these comments for laughter.

Btw the way when I say "you" i don't mean you blackhatcoiner I am talking in general terms to everyone who falls into this category.

So short break, back to what this topic was about:



And with this if your plan on saving a few satoshi was to send a 20sat/b fee and then accelerate it with Viabtc
- Viabtc is getting overcrowded by both and legit users and bots
- Viabtc is losing the hashwar right now, less blocks on average per day and they start pausing free tx if they haven't hit a block in 6 hours
(they had 11% over 3 months but only 9% over the last 7 days)
- Nodes are dropping even 20sat/b fees so you might want to connect to larger nodes before you broadcast it

And, on top of all:
- it's Saturday so weekend time
- it's two days before the new year so like almost everything is closed

Based on what's happening now, if the ordi fomo doesn't end miraculously starting with the 8th of January we're going to see some really nasty shit!

It is not entirely true if you say that Bitcoin investment is only for rich people. Everyone can invest in Bitcoin and if you are talking about losses, I suspect your friend is a trader, which for me is like gambling with your money. I suggest you to become a long term Hodler and do the DCA method to invest in Bitcoin. This is important because those who find success are usually long-term Hodlers.

When someone suggests migrating to another protocol, you promptly dismiss the idea, recognizing that no other network can rival the consensus at that scale. That is the best selling point, and probably why you're here in the first place no matter how you perceive "utility". But, in my opinion, the mature choice is to do migrate. That is a feature of decentralized systems, not a bug. If you don't make usage of it, you deceive yourself. You have the opportunity to join a network that aligns with your perspectives but instead choose to complain about being told what to do.

You can't have both harmony and everyone happy. You either accept the compromises of a harmony, or you find yourself unsuitable to this network under these conditions, and leave.

BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement confiscation stealing mechanism[4].

[1] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/910
[2] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/1045#issuecomment-1504229868
[3] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/11/bitcoin-sv-drops-as-robinhood-ends-support/
[4] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

But there is a 5 pages context to that part you quoted, not sure why would you qoute a tiny portion of a huge context, but ya, anyway.

 
Yes, using 1980s standards it is pretty big.


I never said I wanted big blocks, I said if I MUST take the action i would only raise blocksize big enough to kill alts not to compete with visa, but then again this argument of " if you want big blocks go to BCH or BSV" is pretty naive, honestly.

I assume, most of you saying this would be repeating the same stuff if the larger block blockchain was longer and kept btc ticker on all exchanges, you would be asking the small blockers to go use BCH if they wanted small blocks.

The way I see it is that most people don't even care about blocksize, they just want that version of bitcoin that exchanges call btc and is worth 40k, be it 4MB or 40MB makes no difference to the majority.

I wonder what would be the excuse when btc blocks are raised some point in the future, are you going to still say it is bad solution and ditch bitcoin or you will accept it?

 
Really? Then why segwit? Why did blocks go from 1MB to 4MB if bigger blocks are a bad solution?