Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 10. (Read 9248 times)

yeah, i wasn't sure if he ever wrote any code or not. but then in this very thread he said he did.

what's that mean ?  

even you dont know how lightning works. you cant even tell the difference of what data is inside an onion payment. you dont realise that msats are not understood by the bitcoin network nor do you know how the value shifts from payer to payee. it involves borrowing middle mens channel balance to play pass the parcel for a fee.

heck you dont even realise how easy it is for lightning factories and wallet owners can create lightning channels with partners that dont require confirmed locked value on the bitcoin network to peg to(or not be pegged to to be more specific)

but soon when more regulations come about causing routers to require registering as money service businesses(payment facilitators) you might learn the hard way of how lightning is different to running a bitcoin node and making a bitcoin transaction

it might be best you actually learn stuff away from the spoon feeds of your master

also when bitcoin network tx is an average of 3btc you may also learn that bitcoiners wont get much "payment success" events on lightning due to the liquidity issues of the pass the parcel borrowing game of lightning..

but hey until then i will just see you only want to recite your masters hymn sheet of mythical songs which you religiously believe are historic facts.

actually i was never an angel trying to convert people to a religion.. you and your master (after the saga) tried to pigeon hole me into that group because i simply had an opinion that core were doing things in a controlling way(madated block rejections to get a faked 100% consensus vote) and treating other brands as opposition so you THOUGHT i must be on that other brands team

your failure to understand that more tx capacity is different to "bigger blocks " is your ignorance of the whole saga becasue instead of reading the details you followed your masters scripts of the buzzword "bigger blocks" which was a misinformation of what was actually requested by many

yep you and he thought it meant 100gb blocks by X time and other nonsense extremities that your master was promoting as the other option(s). so it was your mistake of not carefully researching the definitions of scaling options outside of your echo chamber your master created around you.

your problem as is blackhat, nutildah and the other clan of echo's is that you reply with and rely on spoonfeeds from idiot project managers comments, rather than doing independent research involving reading blockdata, code, and looking at who exactly wrote the code.. instead you try to point fingers away from the flaws of project managers and blindly idolise them like a religious cult.

your lesson you wil learn the hard way is when you were promised riches if you can recruit people to LN you will get to syphon many fee's fro your recruits. you will learn you need to become a MSB
blackhat will learn the hard way about the mixer regulations.. he is still playing ignorant that there are any.. he will learn the hard way there are
doomad will just scam people until caught
and nutildah will just keep scamming people with memes(he pretend to not be doing that but seems too financially vested in keeping the scam alive to not be financially invested in their continuance)

Don't worry, this new v25 release allows smaller transactions, smaller as in 65kb...

Haha yeah, and it's not just about disinformation and the lies about the Lightning Network. It's also the fact that he evangelized that Bitcoin Unlimited, and all those hard forks to bigger blocks, are the best technical solutions to scaling the network. He probably should make his definition of scaling clear.

Furthermore, don't miscalculate how smart those who spread FUD in the forum are. 4D Chess is being played, but you might already know.

 

There's very much doubt about that. Based on his blatant lies about how the lightning network works, and the inability to see value in backwards-compatible software, I rather think he is technically inexperienced. Not to mention that he hasn't wrote a line of code and just whines about how developers should code.

Is the point of the account to see the text below? There are no commitments, so I guess maybe the Bitcoin Core rep indirectly sends you there for very old commitments, unofficially.

Stop changing the argument to suit your fragile ego. You keep suggesting only 5 people are working on Bitcoin Core:


and that's simply not true.


I explained to you how Ordinals transfers work 3 times using proof and verification from multiple sources. It went over your head 3 times because you insist things have to work according to your imaginary rules that nobody cares about, backed by nothing but hot air. Not sure there's any hope for you here.


This is interesting but it appears to be completely empty...

I've tried few different Bitcoin full node software in past and i can see why people choose Bitcoin Core even when different software exist. Based on my experience, Bitcoin Core is most stable software with fairly good performance. Meanwhile different full node have few weird thing such as,
1. Gocoin has great performance, but it load entire UTXO on RAM[1].
2. Bcoin is awkward if you only plan to run full node and not developing software[2]. It's development also has slowed down[3].
3. Libbitcoin-server is prone to corruption[4].

So IMO it's not surprising almost everyone use Bitcoin Core.

[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exploring-alternative-full-node-implementations-gocoin-5407675
[2] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/exploring-alternative-full-node-implementations-bcoin-5417193
[3] https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin/commits/master
[4] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.56832879

---

Actually total convtribor of all time is higher than 900 since some contributor doesn't have/use GitHub account. See this account https://github.com/non-github-bitcoin.

firstly YOU said the word pretend.. so dont step back now and act as if you didnt. dont spin it on me. ook at your own post history.

secondly choice?
core being the sole arbiter of code upgrade is not a choice.. you mean control, not choice.. cores lemmings REKTing anyone who dares offer something different.. REKting them as by treating them only as an opposition who should be made to f**k off to create an alcoin is not a bitcoin choice. thats a competing currency choice. leaving bitcoin in control of core..  is not a diverse decentralised choice for bitcoin thats the removal of choice for bitcoiners.
the only option is not "fork off"

heck some have not even released code and you are already trying to convince people not to trust or use it if they were to release it,. yep you and doomad and his clan are doing the same crap..

yes your scripts are not original doomad and his clan played this same game years ago.

but hey you keep forgetting im not the authoritarian.. you want to call me one to shift blame.. but i am not because i am not controlling the rules. core does. so get a dictionary and learn the words you use stop just using idiots as your source. there is a difference between doomads scripts and whats really happening. go learn. try to learn for your self not to suck up to someone else

see who wrote the code that created the exploits and the 5 maintainers that allowed it. then see if those same 5 maintainers are apologising or coming up with a fix. then you will see where the problem actually lays

if you want to play the scripts of 'dont scrutinise core', 'dont critique core', 'dont ask core to take responsibility' then you are the fool that want core to continue to be the authoritarian.. the "gods" no one should oppose.

core should be the ones everyone should be reviewing scrutinising holding to account and responsibility and the ones people should be asking to fix things.. especially when the caused it

LEARN the true meaning of authoritarianism because you have been suckered into letting core become one

that's a good point.

I'm not going to respond directly to fuckwit1, but I will continue to point out the myriad logical fallacies and blatant double standards.

Trying to tell devs what they can or can't code makes you an authoritarian.  Publishing code offers people choice (the complete opposite of authoritarianism).

When fascist1 continues his relentless tirade against Core, it's because he's "holding them accountable".  When anyone raises concerns about other devs, it's suddenly "REKT" and somehow less legitimate.  He's a total hypocrite.

you need to learn the difference between contributors vs the maintainers that decide what gets contributed.
because alot of those 910 contributors over the 14 years that were just grammar checkers

also alot of them contributors are not even contributing anymore
take that final image.. it shows gavin andressen in the top 11 listing of most code contributed.. but he has not contributed for half a decade+
and majority of others top contributors (actually working now) are the SAME main 5 that are all sponsored by the same source of money that are now the maintainers.
EG they are not the independent reviewers that let good code in and reject bad code.. they are the 5 that "force merge" their own code in without other parties acknowledgement

but yea you "trust" them. more then independently reading the code for yourself and calling them out when they created the exploits. because i sure as hell didnt cause the exploit yet you lemmings wan to pretend im the enemy that is breaking bitcoin.. funny that
you dont want them taking responsibility for their actions. you just want to give them a blind pass due to fame and control presence

you cry that i dont publicly release code.. but then want to pretend that im the authoritarian that wants to break bitcoin.
how can i be the one that breaks bitcoin if i havnt released any code..(learn logic))

 yet those that have released bitcoin code and do have the authoritarian hierarchy and created exploits, you dont want people saying a bad word about them and dont want them to fix their errors.. yes they made errors but you blindly trust them.. it does make me laugh

especially how you know they created an exploit but dont want them to fix it and even when exploits do exist you think they are gods that never done anything bad.. emphasis is even when they did create bugs/exploits


i keep laughing that your screams along with your forum buddy shout and scream that "franky done" even though you will not see mode code on core so.. its funny how you want to point fingers at me even though i did not create the exploits..
in short its you obsessing about a person thats not even controlling bitcoin..
yet when i mention people that are controlling bitcoin code you want that all hushed up


you bungled your own example of ordinals proof.. but hey you care more about "trusting project manager" more so then reading blockdata/code.
you care more about the humans than what happens in code.

bitcoin is code. learn to review, research, scrutinise the code. and then look at the entities that wrote the code that created the exploits. then dont trust them
sorry but we as bitcoiners need to scrutinise those who are actually in control. not give them a loving pass to do as they like.. they need to take responsibilities for their acts that cause headaches for others

oh and even when Wladimir Van der Laan (ex LEAD maintainer) left. he admitted core has got too centralised. as did the previous LEAD maintainer and the first one.. they all said that development should not be centralised..
but hey as soon as they leave the god-mode team you want to dismiss their comments because to you and your buddies they are no longer the god-mode team so should be ignored

all you are is a suck-up that trust humans rather review code, rather than scrutinise code, rather then want good working code.

Literally nobody here is doing that. Nobody is fixated on them as much as you are.


Given how often you bungle the most mundane of technical details, I have far more trust in the abilities of those "5 maintainers" than I do in you, but of course way more people actually contribute to Core than you would like us to believe.


Looks like more than 5 to me, and this is just the most recent release. If you look at the number of devs that have actually made commits to Bitcoin over the years, its over 900:



https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

They are thinking things through before taking any action. This (along with possessing actual technical knowledge & experience) is why they are in the position they're in, and you are not.

larry .. ur missing the point

others already have released code. but people dont adopt it because "its not core"*
others have tried to propose such code TO core and got it rejected

others with names that are clearly known in the github community

take luke JR for instance

*when it comes to other repos people want certain dev group to have reviewed the code for them and sign off the code is clean, which ends up as a human trusting human issue because people dont want to review thousands of lines of code themselves

core gained defacto god trust so people stopped caring about independent review or risking other brands not maintained by core god-mode

even the core-gods have cried that other brands are bad because they(core-gods) dont have time to review other people brands to sign them off as clean

their fanbase REKT other brands even ones made by known github personalities..

even though luke Jr is a occasional contributor and previous core maintainer, people now treat even him as an outsider
 heck in the past there were nodes wrote by an ex lead maintainer that wanted to upgrade the network without causing a fork(altcoin) and he got REKT into being told to make an altcoin and leave core to control bitcoin rules

heck we already had doomad call me an authoritarian and an opposition and i have not even publicly released code to the masses

thats how bad the centralisation/control has got.
the solution is not to have outsides trying to get loyalty

its to get the masses to get core to be more open

and one final point. this is a discussion forum. you wanting me to just shut up and fork off is not even an original thought made by you.. heck you are doing the same games.. "make a website and pretend its bitcoin"
subtly doing the hints that anything not core is not bitcoin but a "pretend"

so the code solutions are out there already.. but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted.. or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

your technical knowlegdge of how bitcoin works franky is pretty next level. there's no doubt about that. you know bitcoin like the back of your hand. so why not do as i suggested and become part of the solution rather than complaining. you probably have the ability to release a modified bitcoin core and advertise it to the world as the real bitcoin. you just need to come up with a nice domain name that makes people think it's the real bitcoin. they might never even find out about bitcoin.org and if you worded your website carefully, you could mention briefly how you stamped out monkeys from taking over the blockchain just because. that way people would think "hey this is a really cool guy".
 
from my research, i know that people get bitcoin core from bitcoin.org. so bitcoin is centralized to bitcoin.org. that's how they keep control over things. but if you made your own bitcoin website you could release your own version of core franky. one without the monkeys. you would need to heavily advertise the site so get ready to pull out your wallet for google ads.  


franky, are you going to let people call you out like this? or are you going to take action and come up with a solution to this problem?

lazy.. hah.. i bet i travelled more in the last 3 days then you have in your lifetime
i have learned more about bitcoin then you ever have. i have done more bitcoin stuff then you and earned more bitcoin then you. heck i have even wrote more bitcoin code then you.
the thing is just because i keep my personal life separate from this forum does not mean im lazy. it means im smarter then you angelo

funny part is you have yet to learn the basics.. you pretend to call yourself a bitcoin tech support on social media but even this year you are still asking the most basic things about bitcoin and getting the same wrong answers from your social club

you should stop less time with the lies and ignorance and spend more time learning. i dont care about if you learn from me or not. just learn from actual hard blockdata, code and who is changing the code and removing certain checks and limits that did exist

your forum wife keeps wanting to tell you bitcoin always had problems blockchains dont work stop storing blockdata dont use bitcoin blah blah blah but he is not a bitcoiner he hates bitcoin he loves other networks and is trying to recruit others to his other network whilst sucking up to the devs that want to scramble bitcoin into an unfit network

you keep saying bitcoin will be for only micro payments. and the in same breath say bitcoin is unfit for micropayments and bitcoin should not be used for payments upto pizza amounts.. well you are just repeating a script. its not even your own thoughts independently thought up by you. you are not original nor even thinking beyond the script. you just recite it without a care in the world. and yes larry is joining that same echo so goodluck to him too..

however there are many many topics of thousands of people wanting to talk about bitcoin and fixing and scaling BITCOIN so if you only want to say "dont fix bitcoin and f**k off to another network" well you take the first move and just go play with your prefered network

however many other people want to discuss bitcoin issues and methods to sort things out and the impedances that make it not so easy to do. and how to solve those impedances along the way.

i know you want to pretend alot of things and ignore block data and code. but with all your diatribe of promotions to recruit people into your little clubhouse of echos, you do not actually ever bother to look at the technical aspects.. you just rely on being spoonfed by your forum wife to tell you what to say

try for once to learn bitcoin outside your echo chamber and then come up with an original thought that sounds nothing like something doomad would say.. for your own good

when i say to people DYOR meaning do your own research
you cry about me asking people to do their research, but then jump back to wanting to be spoonfed the answers without any effort on your own part to learn the stuff.. you forget the emphasis is and has been do YOUR OWN research.

I double-checked this information and it seems to be erroneous, in bitcoin everything is not so bad with censorship resistance. Of course, there is a fairly high probability that the stolen funds will be traced, and you will be deanonymized and arrested, but it seems that you can put your transaction in the mempool and not fall under the "shadowban", and so be it in the future. Sorry.

ps This does not change what I said in the previous post, just a bad example.

You're wasting your time. He's not going to do the obvious, because he's a lazy narcissist. He only knows to blame people for not agreeing with him, as he thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth; the breathing true consensus.

According to who? There may be a few pool owners who'll reject it after a phone call from the Chinese guy, but there is no way to prevent all pool owners to reject it; unless of course the top pools cooperate to continuously reorg the chain for an indefinite time, until CZ gets his money back. That, however, would be a self-destructive move, as Bitcoin would no longer have the same value.

This is where I disagree with you and will not support your crusade against core developers. The only real power they have is to block attempts to make changes to production, and I'm fine with that. They may not write another line of code for the next 50 years - okay. Let them move very slowly along the approved roadmap and check the code a thousand times for potential vulnerabilities so as not to screw up the next time as they already screwed up with oridnals.

I showed you where the real vulnerability of bitcoin is, which is already being exploited, and you know it. At the level of pool managers, bitcoin is not censorship resistant today (If you're a badass hacker, fuck binance and withdraw 100,000 bitcoins to your local wallet, you won't be able to spend it, and that's all you need to know about bitcoin's resistance to censorship). And if you want to push harder on just eight points of failure at the same time, it’s not so difficult. The decentralization of pow-mining is an opportunity that can be realized, or it can be fucked up, it is not an immanent given that is inherent forever. But you prefer to fight windmills with zero chance of success. Good luck.

if you think thats how things work larry. its time you do more research

learn things called REKT.. search it see the results
you will soon see that its not "just a github" of cores .. its THE github everyone has now become controlled by of cores


the aim is to decentralise the development by not letting core continue to control it.. because at this precise moment anyone that oppose core gets REKT and has their version chucked over to an altcoin

because lemmings keep thinking the only option is to fork and create an altcoin and see who follows

core need to change their hierarchy and moderation. to actually be the "open source" they pretend to promise
and be less objectional, less REKTing and les opposing of other brands of full nodes

however that involves something like firing achowe out of the group because he controls all the moderation and the main echo chamber clubhouse so they only hear a certain voice that repeats their own centered wishes

at the moment their definition of open source is like a newspaper.. its free and open to read the words but if you want to be an editor-in-chief that controls what gets written you(unlike a commenter/grammar checker volunteer) you need to be one of the 5 maintainers of core. anything else that goes against the 5 maintainers wishes gets treated as opposition and treated as not bitcoin.. yes they allow volunteers to change comments and minor issues that dont affect the roadmap to appear open. but there actually is a hierarchy..

thousands of devs over the last decade realise this centralisation. but they lost the fight of trying to decentralise bitcoin code development. and instead they gave up and just went to make an altcoin.
however that give up and use another network is not the only option.

we the wider community actually need to realise what the core devs have done to exploit bitcoin and not just let them continue but actually get them to act responsibly.

unlike your recent recruitment into a certain social tribe where you think that core should be left alone and other should just "f**k off"

..
there already are other brands of full nodes but if they dared to proposed a rule change or reinforce an old rule.. core would send out their acolytes to REKT them and other tactics. so right now other brands are left to only follow core. thus the solution is to get core to be less centralised and allow other brands to suggest changes

get it?

you keep talking about the core developers as though they control bitcoin but all they got is a github and maybe a website .com domain name. here is what i propose franky. make your own .com domain name include the word "bitcoin" in it, make it sound official then start releasing your own version of bitcoin that does away with these problematic things you keep complaining about. if you make your website look official enough people might start downloading your version of core and before you know it, everyone is rejecting monkeys. what do you think?

certainly that would do more good than just sitting here complaining about something that's broken, you can be part of the solution that way. and you would be a hero.