Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 12. (Read 9235 times)

The idea satoshi had for scaling was "just turn most of the userbase into SPV users", but that's part of the design those who run a non-mining node seem to disagree with (so take it up with them, collectively, because that's not my fault).  They don't have any desire to be relegated to SPV status against their will.  We also need to take into consideration how mining became centralised at a pace far greater than satoshi anticipated.

If the only cost to consider was the cost of transacting, you would have won the argument years ago.  But you're only looking at half the cost.  The cost of running a non-mining node is now a vital consideration.  That cost also needs to be affordable for those in less prosperous financial circumstances.  Why do you think it should be full nodes for the wealthy and SPV for the poor?

There is a balance to be struck between cheap transactions and cheap independent validation of those transactions, without needing to rely on third parties.  Both are equally important.  Stop giving in to your bias that only one side matters.  It's ignorant and dangerous (but then, that's just franky1 in a nutshell, isn't it).

Build a time machine and go back to 2017 if you want to dispute any of this further.  This is not a scaling topic, so stop turning it into one.  It's over.  You lost the argument.

---

//EDIT:


I made no reference whatsoever to "mining costs" in my post, so I don't know what new and baffling tangent franky1 is embarking on now in his following response.  I was talking about the decentralisation of the network.  I honestly don't know if franky1 didn't pick up on this because he cares to little about decentralisation that it doesn't register in his brain.  Or maybe he suffers from a learning disability and can't read.  Either way, any further responses directly to franky1 will only lead to further topic derailment.  He couldn't stick to the subject at hand if his life depended on it.  All he does is disrupt threads with incessant nonsense and gibberish.  Avoid engaging with him directly.  He's not worth wasting your time on.  I would strongly encourage everyone to place him on ignore.

imagine a cryptocurrency where you can't change the source code. it is embedded in stone. now we're talking.

when you have something that people can modify because it is open source then you're going to run into battles between different groups who see things different ways and one of the groups tries to make changes that the other group doesn't want. but imagine if the source code could not be altered because the genesys block contained a hash of the entire source code. now we're talking!  

i don't think consensus rules can just get deleted with a mouse click without some serious discussions taking place but maybe you have a different opinion but i'm not even sure if these rules, policies and formulas you're talking about were even part of the consensus rules or just something recommended.

and i don't know what that means. and i doubt miners had to use it if they didn't want to...

was that part of the consensus rules?

now if the developers suddenly said "you know what, this 21 million cap thing seems silly lets just increase it to 21 billion" well then that would be a pretty serious breach of the consensus rules. you're lucky they're not trying to do that.   but there's no guarantees in life especially when you're dealing with people. people can make strange decisions sometimes. but just imagine if there was a cryptocurrency whose code was immutable...

i think what we have here is an example of a situation where some of the flaws of bitcoin are coming to light. nothing more nothing less. but that's just my opinion. it happened with eth with regards to fees, no big surprise.

larry with your mutterings about "thats the designers fault".. and then read all my posts you wil see that i have been blaming core all the way.. i only mention the ass kissing altnet fanbase as the ass kissing that makes the core team feel all warm and fuzzy inside as if their exploits are justified and thus makes devs not want to fix their junk

and by the way bitcoin did have fee rules years ago.. but fee rules and policies and formulaes have been removed.

you might want to do your research becasue now you are just spouting the same crap as doomad.

yep there was a fee formulae with a priority score..
there were other motivations like lowering min relay when market prices 10x so that low value payments were still allowed, as were the min fee lowered when market prices rose

 there was also (when bitcoin was ~$0.30 per coin) a max_tx_fee of 0.1btc

but NOW the devs are promoting 'people should pay more' and are removing rules, mechanisms to keep fees low and instead trying to push people to pay more or use bitcoin less

.. but yes it is insane for people to make pizza price payments on bitcoin due to fees.. EMPHASIS: DUE TO FEES
and its the game of promoting "pay more or F**k off the network" that does not care about low fees so that the unbanked can use bitcoin. its "premiumise bitcoin so only elite 1st worlders can use bitcoin"

wow franky, you're blaming doomad for bitcoin's shortcomings. you can do better than that. if bitcoin has a transaction fee problem then that's the fault of the designers of bitcoin. clearly satoshi did not design bitcoin in any way that would ensure people paid reasonable transaction fees. i'm not sure how he could have since bitcoin is not tied to any fiat currency. so if you want to control transaction fees, you first need a way to determine the fiat value of 1 satoshi and then go from there. satoshi didn't do that so here we are.

well to be honest franky, i think anyone that thinks they can buy a coffee or pizza using bitcoin is out of their mind right now. it's just not efficient or financially feasible given how fees have gone up. that's not doomad's fault. that's the designers of bitcoin's fault if that's not how they wanted it to be, then they should have made it a different way...but how do you propose that bitcoin could have a fee cap in usd value? i'd like to hear your thoughts on that. let's hear them. how do you put a fee cap in usd value on bitcoin transaction fees while keeping the network decentralized and not reliant on any 3rd party?


well, mass adoption of bitcoin seems to cause transaction fees to rise, franky. so we've gotten more of what we wanted which is the world using bitcoin but now we're complaining because it made fees go up. i guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

YOU love centralisation.. hers 3 prime examples
1. network/blockchain centralisation:
you are the one telling people to prune the blockchain so that there are less full nodes decentralising the blockchain..
yep YOU promote prunning..

2. centralising userbase to first world countries:
high fee's.. yep you dont want the unbanked 3rd world countries using bitcoin

3. development centralisation:
you love core being the only protocol reference and proposer source. you REKT anyone else that even tries to offer solutions outside of the core roadmap


you even admit it yourself many times you dont want people using bitcoin. whether it was coffee before or now pizza amounts. and you want the fee to be more then things like paypal western union and even wire transfers..
who the F do you want bitcoin to be useful for?? no one by the looks of it because you want everyone to use LN.. a system that cannot cope with everyone.. LN has a fundamental flaw called routing liquidity. it cannot cope with values moved by bitcoiners

you dont want people to have a choice. you want them to be forced into moving to other networks by making bitcoin too much of a premium to even use

check the average value moved by a bitcoiner.
latest block 791080 - average value per tx  3.31796697 BTC
previous block 791079 - average value per tx 3.99348915 BTC

do you know how much % of a block fits into the narrow effective utility window of LN..
(if you ignore the current SPAM tx moving ZERO sats and dust amounts that are not real bitcoiner utility)

you love kissing dev ass if they do things that cause fee mania. and that ass kissing has caused them to permit that version of censoring out users.. yep they dont want to fix the spam exploit to help with fees because morons like you kiss their ass telling them not to fix it.
thus YOU ARE censoring and admiring censoring bitcoiner utility

heck i got hoards from a long while back so im not personally hurt by fee's(though the fees are stupidly higher than FIAT payment methods).. but atleast i can think about others like the 3rd world countries(unbanked) that cant get to use bitcoin. all you care about is yourself trying to con and scam people over to other networks so you can syphon value from them.

.. and let me just predict next decades scripts you want your family to recite
"no dont close your channels bitcoin cant handle you using bitcoin, stay in LN forever just rebalance inside LN never go back to bitcoin"


how the hell can you cry with one eye that the <1mb segregate space for tx data is not enough for bitcoiners mainstream and saying using more then 1mb is a apocalypse event yet you then glisten with $$ in your eyes that the segregated >3mb of witness crap is ok for money memes to do what they like

and if you think that a $20+ tx fee is acceptable how can you then cry about a $100 hard drive that can cope with YEARS of blockdata

if you want to cry that $100 is too much for a hard drive. realise that you are saying 5tx is too much utility for 5+years.. because you are saying people should only use bitcoin once a year. in your vision

funny thing is when people buy a PC to use the internet for normal life stuff.. these days they come with a capable hard drive.. its not 2005 anymore its 2023.. so those using a PC and wanting to be a full node have no $100 problems of hard drive space. yet they do have problems of $20+ tx fee's

It can become so, why not. I believe in technological development. But as at the moment there will be many problems with scalability if bitcoin adoption will go too fast. 7 transactions per second which we have now is not enough for any big enough project, number of microtransactions or any other transactions is still limited. So we have layer 2 solutions to fix some of the problems we face. I hope it is temporary and one day there will be a solution which can bypass the blockchain trilemma and we'll get more scalability not losing in decentralization and security. But now we have what we have even if there will be a bright future in which I believe.

Bitcoin was destined for micropayments , high fees are just nonsense .

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7687

"Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial."

Storage and bandwidth are at extremely low costs and btc has insane fees . So either satoshi was wrong or core . I tend to think that satoshi knew better .

Listen clearly, you insidious, manipulative snake.  What any of us "want" doesn't come into it.  It's about what's possible.  You can twist and distort what we're saying as much as you like.  Doesn't change anything.  You're living in a dream world if you're deluded enough to think your moronic "dOuBlE fAsTeR" approach would enable millions of people to use Bitcoin purely on-chain all the time with low fees (or at least do so without annihilating the decentralised nature of the network).  You'd have to possess the intellectual capacity of a root vegetable to even briefly deem that plausible.  All manner of other options will be required in order to support real scaling.  And that includes off-chain transactions. 

Just imagine a future where Bitcoin was mainstream.  Say a significant proportion of the world's populace was using it.  If people choose to pay what, one day, might be huge sums in fees to buy a coffee on-chain, because there might be a billion or more other people all competing for space in the next few blocks, they're free to do that.  But I'd rather see a future where people have options open to them which are more cost-effective for the level of security they require.  Then, at least, they have a choice.  But you never think about the future and you certainly never think about people having a choice.  You only think about your sad little crusade against the devs that mocked you for being an obnoxious fuckwit (and deservedly so).  And you opportunistically seize on any chance to stir up shit about the direction Bitcoin is headed in because you're a bitter and petty loser.

blackhat yet again copying his forum wifes script again.. without thinking of what he is even saying on repeated echos

few years ago doomad was talking about coffee not being on bitcoin. now blackhat is saying pizza amounts shouldnt be allowed on bitcoin.. (aka censorship)

soo doomad didnt want people wanting to use bitcoin for $3 amounts. meaning people earning $0.30 an hour(~800m people) should not try to remit 10 hours of wage using bitcoin or buy groceries or other things equivalent to 10 hours of wage..

and now blackhat wants to censor people moving $20 of value. which is about 1.5b people on the planet using bitcoin

yep they want to censor 1.5bill people using bitcoin but happy for bitcoin to be filled with monkey memes and json junk data..
fools

..
other things that $20 is equivalent to in first world countries that doomad and blackhat dont want bitcoiners to use bitcoin for:
a train ticket. taxi fares, few days groceries, music purchases, games, gambling, lotto, giving people tips, drinks at a bar.the list goes on

as for 3rd world countries.. ~$20 is a weeks labour for hundreds of millions of people.. so thats rent, bills, groceries car payments, buying furniture, pretty much everything day to day

Bitcoin is more important than that. If you want to buy a pizza, use lightning. We can't all have pizzas on-chain, it simply not scales. You should expect to be charged a lot in a network with limited transactions per second, used universally and in a permissionless manner. Don't treat it as if it's a financial institution. It's superior.

And for the millionth time, Bitcoin is destined to have high fees. We either have expensive on-chain Bitcoin transactions, or no transactions at all. It currently might not seem necessary, but in about two decades, when it will be even more established, the incentive will depend on those fees.

Relevant:

Green is more expensive than Blue, so its exactly the opposite. Since Feb, transactions are much more expensive, about 20 times.
The chart has the 2018 history which peaked in January and by March declined; but this one remains ongoing because the rules changed ever since.

Not really, OP_RETURN added about when Bitcoin Core 0.9 released[1]. It seems the main goal was to remove incentive from abusing address to store arbitrary data (which bloat UTXO) rather than facilitate people to store arbitrary data. Although i agree people's main issue actually is about high fees. Imagine what kind of complain we see if someone decide to make BRC-20 clone (which use OP_RETURN rather than Taproot witness data) and suddenly become popular.

[1] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain

i don't know how temporary these higher fees are. i just know that i used to think ethereum was great because it only costed a penny to move whatever amount you wanted. those were the days. but then we got a rude awakening and it went something like this: "ethereum doesn't exist to help you pay low transaction fees for sending a few bucks around the world, you might have to pay way more than it would cost you to use western union or some other more traditional service." that's when i knew that cryptocurrencies were designed wrong. 

the solution is simple. don't use JP Morgan to send money to a friend so they can eat pizza. send it some other way. that's your only real option. no one is forcing you to use JP Morgan just like no one is forcing to you to use bitcoin, right? whether someone wants to use bitcoin or not is up to them but if it doesn't make financial sense then they are just kidding themself that bitcoin is a good match for their needs...that's what i learned with ethereum and you only need to learn that lesson once.

please do complain. i like seeing people complain about the high fees because i'm not using bitcoin if it costs me $10 to send $100.

it seems like it should be easy to have a maximum transaction fee on a network. the problem is even if that were possible, that would require centralization which goes against the philosophy of bitcoin. you would need an oracle that told you what 1 satoshi was worth in a certain fiat currency like the becoming more worthless everyday US dollar...

Agreed, however, it will not be dead. I reckon it will always be there to begin another wave of bullishness when the NFT market is ready.

In any case, Coindesk is presently hyping Ordinals and bitcoin NFTs hehe. The skeptic and the contrarian in me says that for now it will start decreasing in popularity.



Bitcoin-based non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have risen to second place for NFT sales per blockchain, according to Web3 data platform CryptoSlam, which is remarkable considering Bitcoin NFTs didn’t effectively exist before the enabling of inscriptions on the Bitcoin mainnet in January 2023.

The data shows that in the past thirty days, Bitcoin NFTs have grossed about $167 million, which is several figures shy of Ethereum’s near-$397 million.

Source https://www.coindesk.com/web3/2023/05/22/in-nft-sales-bitcoin-jumps-to-no-2-spot-in-a-matter-of-months/

to be fair, i haven't seen anyone complain about paying a $1 fee although it would be nice if it was just 1/100 of that. people really start complaining when fees get 10 times higher like in the $10 range. i think people tend to assume that transaction fees in crypto should be tiny. well they might be but then sometimes they might not be and there's nothing you can do about it.
[/quote]

Exactly, no one complained strongly about a fee of one dollar, the complaints begin to arrive when they are worth 10 dollars, the problem is that surely you are going to put another one there but, since "it is only temporary, do not complain"

But the reality is that people who move small amounts are killed by that. Imagine the scandal you would make yourself if, in the traditional system, JP Morgan charged you $1 for transferring $10 to a friend to eat a pizza.

So what? That claim is legitimate, but we can't complain about the 10 usd fee?

It seems that we do not measure everything with the same rod

right. so people saying that bitcoin shouldn't be used to store data well, that capability has always existed. what those people really must have an issue with is if their fees go higher. that's what they're really complaining about...because they never complained about op-return.  

to be fair, i haven't seen anyone complain about paying a $1 fee although it would be nice if it was just 1/100 of that. people really start complaining when fees get 10 times higher like in the $10 range. i think people tend to assume that transaction fees in crypto should be tiny. well they might be but then sometimes they might not be and there's nothing you can do about it.

Precisely, this is why you see the mempool go from blue to green txs, because the fees are declining and there is less demand for high fee transactions. People said the same nonsense back in 2017/2018 when fees were very expensive for around 3 months (more expensive than they were this year), claiming fees would "never go back to normal", and regardless of segwit they did come back to reality quite quickly.

The only difference is there aren't people trying to shill BCH over high fees like back then, not much else. Just pay your $1 fee like a normal person and get over yourself.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

All that can be done is to present favourable conditions in which to transact more efficiently.  But it involves sacrificing a small amount of security in order to gain the cheaper method of reaching their destination.  On-chain will always provide the most security, but it's not the most efficient method.  If people choose to take the inefficient and costly route and are prepared to pay for it, that's their prerogative.  This applies equally to both financial and non-financial transactions.  At the end of the day, the protocol is going to recognise all of them as valid.

all they want to do is create scammy fads. its their business model. create a new hype, con idiots into handing over value. let the idiots realise its a scam. run off with victims money and restart new fad

its a fad because its only the crap creators spending tx fees to themselves and when they realise no one is buying because not everyone is an idiot they give up.. and start a new fad

the thing is they gave up when no one bought the jpeg memes and then tried brc-20.. now they realise brc-20 doesnt work so i guess they will try brc-70.. then next month brc-721 then july brc777 and then august brc 1155.. and then and then.. you the the drift

it must be expensive nowadays to store the image on ethereum. strange how they only made 512 of those when obviously the possibilities are more than there are bitcoin private keys.  

that article is way out of date now. they don't even mention the biggest on chain storage option which is ORDINALS.  

oh, by the way, I checked out Anton Antonopolus youtube channel and he hasn't really been active there in the past year. maybe he put up 2 or 3 vids but that was about it and NOTHING about ordinals. so I guess you have to pay for his patreon to find out what he thinks about monkeys on the bitcoin blockchain...