Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 11. (Read 9235 times)

It has changed so much from the begining of it's story everything is possible

so why,, after now learning that its not the miners fault, were your pointing fingers at the miners hashpower as the threat..
.. i hope you now know that the cause and effect of the exploit is about the core devs not the miners. and you should worry more about dev abuse/centralisation

as for your transaction selection separate debate..

for pool managers they always have censored some transactions.. so when the BS brigade shout bitcoin is censorship proof they are wrong
transactions had to meet specific rules to even get into a pools mempool.. for instance:
transactions used to require a signature in the signature area of a transaction. if anything else went in there it got rejected. (rules have since then changed/softened since)

also. if you tried to push/relay a altcoin tx into bitcoin it would get rejected(for now, but who knows what validity check is next to be removed)

there used to be many default sanity checks to ensure lean efficient byte use of tx data.. emphasis USED TO BE

anyways
the amount of distributed stratums means even in the same 3 pools there are multiple more transaction selectors(block template creators) that then give a hash to their workers below them to hash.

yep even in 3 pools there are more then 3 blocktemplates happening at anyone time. meaning chances of one template not having a tx means one of the other templates might.

in short them 3 pools are not managed by just 3 people

Exactly. And if the managers of three large pools declare an arbitrary public address persona non grata, attempts to exit from it will not be confirmed. It's interesting that you don't see this as a problem.
That is why your calls to ban BRC-20 tokens are doomed to failure. End miners don’t care about the content of transactions, even if they want to they can’t see them, their computing devices are just stupid number grinders. The only thing they will immediately react to is a decrease in profits, and they will switch to another pool.

there may be 3 pools that total 51%.. but those pools are not 1-3 warehouses
they are many many many farms of asics. whereby they also have many managers managing different stratums

so it may appear as 3 power houses. but think of it as 3 international races but scattered around the planet. in different locations, whereby the races have different cultures and decisions compared to their related kins
(i have a relative across the other side of planet, but he acts totally different to me even though we are part of same family)

if a pool was to get too abusive people just pool hop to  a less abusive pool in minutes. they are not stuck to only serve one of those 3 pools..

plus pools do not create the code/rules of bitcoin. all a pool does is choose which transactions to include and get its workers(miners) to simply hash a hash
the workers dont choose the transactions. so if a pool is being abusive of transaction choices the miners jump in minutes to another pool

the bigger problem is dev centralisation of the 6 5 main core dev maintainers who hold all the power of what gets merged into bitcoin.. and yes they are abusing that power. i have seen many of them "force merge" their own code without review or ACK from wider community of devs or users.
they are even making moderation policy whereby the main one that is moderator on this forum and of github wants to centralise the moderation powers to those same 6 5 devs where by anything that goes against their roadmap gets removed and uses banned from participating. where its not a independent reviewer/moderator. but those main devs that control it all

I don't think the main issue with bitcoin is possible partisan scrutiny by the SEC or even a total ban in any arbitrary jurisdiction including the US (the ban in China was painful but not fatal). The main problem with bitcoin imo is the risk of losing decentralization at the pool level. Now the top three pools control 51% of the hashrate, and the top seven pools control 85% of the hashrate - and that's the problem.

yes i agree idiots will remain idiots, but you do atleast have to try to enlighten them. give them the chance to learn something outside of the echo chamber club house, rather than get stuck into a ass kissing echo chamber of idiocy and social drama loyalty while breaking bitcoin just to keep a friend.. (they dont realise the people they suck upto are not their friends)

i never ask people to blindly trust me, i never ask for ass kissing or idolation, im not intersted in forming friendship groups. i dont care about loyalty, friendship, trust.. i just ask people to do their research outside the social echo chambers.
i dont care if people dislike me for being frank with them. but they can atleast try to learn something.

as for those idiots saying "yea ordinals is BS and will die down by itself". yes ordinals and json junk crap is all scammy BS.. the bigger problem is the exploit of bloat allowance of nonsense data persists even if ordinals version x.x dies. because they just invent a new scam to use within the exploit
meaning when "first sat" trend died. then memes came, that died then brc-20 came, thats dying but now there is brc-70.. then brc-721 then brc777 and then brc1155

all of which are scammy ways to con people out of their money. aswell as cause fee mania for everyone else. and these will persist unless the exploit is fixed

heck the altnet fangirls then want bitcoin to store stablecoin "tokens" so they can then play with fiat on an altnet. thus making regulators jump in because fiat stable coins would be higher regulated than bitcoin. thus make bitcoin more highly regulated if it was containing stablecoin tokens..

the main problem is that if bitcoin is able to create ICO "tokens" regulators will make tighter restrictions on bitcoin to control ICO scammers. which no one wants(not scammers or regulators). so we need to get back to bitcoins main purpose, instead of allowing in things not bitcoin related which then gets regulators jumping deeper into things

A nice feature of open source is that you can always clone the bitcoin core into your github and continue development in a new direction, make your own version of an alternative full client with stricter consensus rules, more in line with Satoshi's original vision. The only problem is how to get anyone else besides you to use this alternative full client.

By the way, I followed your advice and studied the architecture of the brc-20 tokens in more detail, and you are right - this is complete crap. I don't know who in their right mind wants to use it. But still, I remain of my opinion that idiots should have the right to remain idiots, you cannot force someone to stop doing stupid things if it is paid at the market price.

i agree that the bigger problem is the centralisation of development comes around to the idolation of 6 maintainers being the gods/authoritarians. and we(everyone) needs to stop that.

whenever anyone tries to oppose the authority. they get treated as opposition by their fanbase. so we need to stop treating core as gods and actually get back to a system of diverse full node brands where other brands can propose upgrades. without the REKT campaigns.
where by first step is to get the core devs to listen to the wide community instead of their current moderation policy (this forum, irc, stack, mailinglist, github) that only likes the pro core echo chamber club of ass kissers

the reason its taking so long is that core wont relinquish control in an instant. people(many) have already tried for a while to ask devs for changes and got ignored. other othering a different brand client with changes have been ignored or REKT

core need to stop being authoritarians.. heck even the last lead maintainer that left managed to admit the centralisation once he was out of contract.

the reason its not happening in an instant is the "civil war" has to come to a end result before any big change is noticed

it is funny how you think the only option is "no way that's going to happen" or "would have been done already" there is a middle ground
it is funny how you think the only option is "do nothing" or "make an altcoin" there is a middle ground

you've already made yourself perfectly clear i understand what you have been saying.

who is "you"?

ok. if you say so franky.

you keep saying do this and do that. who do you expect to do that. like "fix the exploit" who are you asking to do that exactly? me? i'm not a bitcoin developer so how am i supposed to fix it?

i highly doubt, franky, that we are going to see anyone do anything about this whole situation. because if something was going to be done, it would have already been done. not waiting around for weeks and months while the blockchain fills up with useless junk...they would have put a lid on it right away. no need for waiting around.


you're living in a fantasy land at this point if you think they are going to do all of that. there's simply no way that's going to happen since it hasn't already happened and there has been plenty enough time to do it. don't you think?

a fork is when more then one chain sustains and persists..  AKA creating an altcoin
otherwise its just an orphan event of rejecting a few blocks where pools all congregate and follow one chain of blocks(aka not a fork(not a altcoin))
(hard or soft consensus is about whether a change is done with super majority consent or not requiring consent respectively)

now let me make this as clear as possible

you can upgrade/downgrade/change/reinforce the rules again, without causing a fork.
the only option is not to only make changes on an altcoin

stop with the crap of pretending that the only option is to create another network.. stop telling people to use another network if they dislike what bitcoin has been broken into. there is another option. fix the exploit

i know you are becoming just like doomad thinking only the 6 lead maintainer devs of core should be the only superpower to decide what upgrades get merged into core thus into bitcoin. but thats the mindset of the authoritarian/centralists.. dont fall for it. dont start promoting that centralisation is good for bitcoin by idolising 6 maintainers as gods

your falling into the same dumb scripts as what doomad is recruiting people to say. dont fall into the dumb trap

there are ways to fix the exploit without needing to move to another network
putting limits on lengths of witness per transaction again will just as nutildah admits grandfather old memes and json crap(we are stuck holding that old data) but it pretends new transactions from including long useless data
also having rules again to expect certain validatable data per opcode/sigop use where the bytes need to meet a specification/format or be associated with a certain policy would mean even short junk would get rejected becasue it isnt a script/signature

they would be grandfathers without any descendants though. no more making new monkeys.

how do you attach a 1GB file to a transaction in bitcoin? they don't allow files that big. 

I understand this. But bitcoin has exposed a weakness which can stop blockchain. And if it can happen, it will for sure.

You can't stop arbitrary data from being added to the blockchain. It's an age-old debate almost as old as bitcoin itself. What the devs can do is close the hole that allows for superlong taproot scripts in witness data.


All pre-existing monkeys get grandfathered in to any sort of new fork unless you're including some kind of rollback to the pre-Taproot Wizards days, which makes things super complicated and let's face it, isn't gonna happen.

well about the only thing someone could really do is fork bitcoin. bitcoin has forked before. small blocks vs bigger blocks. this one could be monkeys vs no monkeys. but no one has stepped up to the plate to do that YET. maybe franky could do that. he would need to be on the lookout for things like the ORC-20 tokens though. 

https://www.bei24.com/post/what-is-orc-20-an-upgrade-of-brc-20-orc-20-vs-brc-20-exploring-the-future-potential

and blackhat is anti-blockchain as just proven

stupid thing is bitcoin never leaves the blockchain so he is pretending his favoured network is bitcoin without the blockchain. even though his favoured network is Msat without the bitcoin

his game is the same as fiat bankers.
you know the story "19th century bank notes are gold".... decades later people realise they are not and lost value due to the lies

yep his favoured network can create msats without being locked to any bitcoin value. its been done many times. confirmed bitcoin is not required to create msat value.

so while he pretends his favoured network is bitcoin and the BTC network is not bitcoin or not the way bitcoin works. he has things the wrong way round

his favoured network is flawed broke and not able to cope with the liquidity of value bitcoin does. his favoured network gets worse the more popular it gets(payment success % levels decrease). but hey he does not care. as long as he can get idiots to move value into contracts destined to scammers like him he does not care. he will just wait them out until users have no balance on their side and instead all on his side and then and only then close out a proper bitcoin transaction paying him. while leaving the idiots he scammed with nothing

heck his favoured network is already showing the failure becasue instead of independant nodes moving "pizza" amounts 100% successfully users are ending up having to use custodians(factories) to hoard the value where users then just play around with "inbound balance" controlled by the custodian

yep majority of his favoured networks liquidity is locked up in factories(custodians) like bitfinex


but it is always funny to see them say dont fix bitcoin. and then start advertising their other networks

Ultimately, whether we are talking about Ordinals, or the off-topic subject of scaling, the result is the same.  Ask yourself the following question: 

Aside from voicing your disappointment on a discussion forum, are you going to *do* anything to change the status quo?

If the answer is "no", then Bitcoin will continue to function as it currently does.  If nothing changes and those securing the chain continue to follow the path we are currently on, the way Bitcoin works will not change in the way you would like it to.

Whether you agree with how others are interpreting your views or not is immaterial.  It's all moot.  If you want change, don't just talk about it, get something done. 

You are trying to twist my words , but i didn't expect something different from you , let's don't forget that you have ask banning people from a free speech forum .
As i have read in many of your posts you are not a fan of 1 MB blocks either , so why are you mention that i'm in favor of big blocks ? Also i said that every one that can do bussiness on bitcoin has interest to run a full node . Bitcoin is about building services and value , not hodling to buy lambos .  Guys like you want to cripple bitcoin so that people turn to L2 solutions that don't work .
If we follow your logic about everyone having the right/ability to run a node , than we should have Kb blocks and 56k modems as a prerequisite to participate in the network , as some people in 3rd world countries can't afford even to have a rapspi or a Mbit connection . And you dream of btc global adoption , so funny .
As you might understand someday " Δε βαφoνται με πoρδες τα αυγα" .
https://www.slang.gr/lemma/6318-me-pordes-den-bafontai-auga
Cheers .

PS. Apologies to every other member for derailing but i had to respond .

Bitcoin is the most inefficient, distributed database. For Bitcoin to tackle the same (on-chain) tx/sec rate as with financial institutions like Visa and Paypal, it has to become one. It simply becomes impractical for the average user to run a node.

But, to clarify to everyone reading this: HmmMAA is arguing for BSV, and does not acknowledge value in running a full node unless being a miner. Given that, it is justified to be in favor of large size blocks. But Bitcoin is destined for micro-payments, indeed; it's just not the blockchain the way to go.

first of all miners cost has no association with transaction handling.. AT ALL

miners(asics) do not select transactions. do not review the content of transactions do not check if transactions meet any rules. . all a miner does is hash a hash. thats it. it does not matter if a block has 1 transaction or 4000tx. it doesnt matter if a block is 300bytes or 4mb, a miners work is still the same. the difficulty adjusts based on timing of blocks. which has nothing to do with transaction counts or anything. so trying to blame miners for transaction COST is an utter misdirecting point the blame finger away from the devs, a stupid ploy you are trying to push
learn the difference between a miner vs a pool manager. ill give you a hint. a miner is an asic. an asic is a device with no hard drive and no store of the blockchain.
a miners job and cost is to hash a hash which is a electric cost no matter how many transactions are in a block.

secondly. you want to pretend to be the caring person of peoples PC cost for being a full node.. yet you are happy if transactions cost $20 per use. but you think a $100 hard drive for 5+years is too much..
do the math.
again you think bitcoin should be only used once a year if we play by your numbers. because you feel that $100 is too much for anything under 5 years. but $20 is ok per transaction.. thus you want people to only use bitcoin once a year to be of equal cost to the threshold of what you consider too much

again anyone that uses a pc in 2023 is not running an MS-Dos or windows 98 computer with only a few gb hard drive. its 2023 modern computers as standard come with capable hard drive space...
again people buying a PC for other normal life needs automatically get a hard drive with their PC. becasue guess what PC's do come with hard drives so not an extra expense just to use bitcoin. its part of standard PC for standard PC life requirement

heck there are people that use PC's for gaming that install a new game that is 50gb every month. and they are not crying.
i know you want to pretend its 2003 tech but we are in 2023. you about 20 years out of date when you want to pretend you care about PC hardware utility issues
also its weird for you to want to have transactions rejected to not take up blockchain space. but then say let the memes continue dont censor the memes even though memes were 1000x larger than a normal bitcoin users tx

yep you are happy to censor people using bitcoin to buy their lunch or pay bills or even rent for unbanked countries. but happy for nonsense memes to flood the same space..

doomad it is you that think that bitcoin utility (using transactions to make payments for goods and services) should only be for the wealthy.
and you kiss devs ass to make devs think its ok for them to soften the rules to let it happen.. but you dont want others objecting to your mind set to speak with devs. you dont want anyone who wants the exploits fixed asking the devs to fix it.
you want devs to only hear your social clubs echos, so they think that its the only voice they should follow

if you actually cared about bitcoin users costs. then it would be the transaction fee you would want to keep low. so that users can transact without it costing them multiple hours of minimum wage to do so.

as for everything i have been saying throughout this topic..
i have not been an advocate for bloat.. YOU have
i have said refine and return the rules that ensured lean byte utility for bitcoin payments not junk
that way more people can transact for actual bitcoin payments without having to outbid junk
rules that dont prioritise/prefer junk and ensure every byte of a transaction has a purpose to prove a payment is authorised by the utxo key owner
also fee rules that only harm the spammers but dont harm everyone equally
thus not making bitcoin expensive to use per transaction for those that want to use bitcoin to buy real goods and services

This episode was just a test run for the real thing: how to stop Bitcoin.

Here is howto do it if you have 200K bitcoins and you are willing to burn them all just to stop bitcoin:


Divide available 200K into two amounts - 95% for fees and 5% to send over network
Set fee per transaction 50$
Attach 1 GB file to each tx

Number of transactions = 190K*Present_Price/Fee_per_transaction

190000*26700/50 = approx 100 million of transactions
Value per transaction 10K sats

Blockchain size will grow to  = 1TB + 100.000.000 GB = 100.000 TB!
Try to run BitcoinCore node at home? Impossible.

Blockchain will simply stop.

UTUXo and mempool databases will be also enormous in size.

If you want to run a full node you need a Cray supercomputer at home.

So if somebody has 200K bitcoins and hates bitcoin very much this attack is very feasible.

How to fix it?

i do not know.

In fact I think it is inevitable and that is coming soon - it will be somehow connected with the next elections in US.