Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 14. (Read 9118 times)

Bitcoin purpose is to provide an alternative to Fiat money system. It wasnt made to be an alternative for a image hosting site.

Heck, even turing complete chains like ETH dont store actual jpegs on their nodes.


With all  "Saying NO to Ordinals means NO decentralization" talk, we are making bitcoin look like a bad alternative to fiat.



These ordinal freaks keep saying they help increase miner revenue. What will miners do with higher fees paid, while bitcoin's value proposition to being an alternative to fiat and its USD price keep trending towards zero.

its not a system roll back..
its reinforcing/re-enabling rules and format expectations..
EG its not a scenario of reject all blocks of 2023(rollback) to go back to a clean blockchain without jpegs

its a case of a after block 7xx,xxx rules are reinforced to the set formats of actual bitcoin utility. requiring transactions to have efficient byte utility 
thus the current jpegs stay . but no new jpegs and junk can continue being added to the blockchain after block 7xx,xxx

and yes it can be done. without making things worse. and yes people can still spend their UTXO's just without added junk dead weight crap

But it is done. It is what we have at the moment, not what was centuries ago, not what was yesterday, it is what we have now. And the choice is not between good and bad, the choice is between bad and even worse. And system rollback is what even worse. Of course we know that some other projects easily done that, and why not to use those projects if to agree with that? Because that is what making those projects not the bitcoin. If anything can be undone than everything can be undone.

So I understand what you say. I understand that we've got a problem we haven't escaped. If there was a way to return to the past and not to do so, I 'd prefer that way. But it is impossible. And, as I see it, a discussed rollback is much worse than the problem we face with.

doomad you are part of the idiot brigade. you dont want ordinals to be stopped.
you only NOW AND AGAIN pretend to be against it when you lose fans. and hope calling it junk between adorations of it think you can win fans back with ass kissery

secondly. when features that caused the exploit were promoted. their promotion lulled the majority to sleep with fake promises. and those thats didnt take the promises at face value pointed out the problems, you lot were screaming at those calling out the issues,. trying to get people to shut up about the abuses. saying "its not a flaw its a feature" trying to lull everyone into giving up pointing out flaws and hoping everyone just lets the flaws continue..
you also done things like tell people if you dont like to "f**k off to another network"
heck you even were shouting how devs should not take responsibility. where you wanted to blame it on user error or miner caused. heck you didnt even want people telling devs how to fix things. by saying your authoritarian gods should not be told what to do.. and calling anyone that wanted to get devs to fix THEIR flaws. the authoritarians.

if you think no one was mentioning stuff in the past. CHECK YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS OVER THE YEARS. READ YOUR OWN POST HISTORY

anyways lets use an example of broken promises..
take 2 promises of taproot for instance
1. taproot will look exactly like a segwit where no one can tell the difference between taproot or segwit
2. taproot scripts will only be the length of 1 signature length thus not bloat the witness.

so heres the issue
1. taproot is VERY easy to spot.. bc1p instead of bc1q
2. taproot allows upto 4mb of witness cludge in one transaction

many people have for years brought up the issues when things got softened. you want to pretend "just franky" and then with that ignorance say "because its just franky he must be wrong because no one back him up"

sorry but many have called it out. but its the ignorance of "trust a dev not the rules" that has been heard more.

bitcoin for its first decade had rules that ensured efficiency by not allowing a TX to produce upto 4mb of bloat. where signature space had to contain signatures and methods to prove the spending of a utxo..

the rules have been removed, the checks have become unchecked and data is allowed NOW to be pased without rules or formats

dont pretend that whats happening now is that upto 4mb of bloat has always been the way and where you think that implementing rules is new.. its actually returning rules to how things should be. lean efficient spending of bitcoins

and dont pretend that fixing the removals will stop people transacting. it wont people will still be able to spend their utxos. they just want be able to add dead weight useless junk data to it to the extent that has been RECENTLY exploited

I can see where you're coming from.  But, what I'm struggling with is that, when I first got into Bitcoin back in 2013, I watched a whole bunch of videos, listened to Andreas Antonopoulos and other such personalities, read loads of different articles and websites.  Even back then, people were saying things like "currency is just the first application".  That Bitcoin usage would eventually expand to include things like property rights, deeds and other financial instruments.  If I went looking, I could probably find dozens of examples.

It's certainly possible that people weren't pausing to consider the implications of promoting these ideas.  Perhaps it was just some starry-eyed fantasies about what might be possible with this exciting new technology.  But, when these ideas were raised, no one took issue with it.  I don't recall anyone at that point in time saying "No, Bitcoin is just for money" and that it can't be anything else.  There wasn't any community backlash that I remember seeing when people discussed these ideas.  That only happened once people actually started doing it.  So, imagine my surprise when some people suddenly start saying this can't happen, when other people have been saying it absolutely would happen for the entire time I've been here.

Now, I fully concede that no one ever would have anticipated that the property rights in question would be a bunch of foolish speculators who want to own some inane pictures.  I genuinely do appreciate why some people feel like that's a step too far.  It's absurd.  Borderline insane.  You won't hear any arguments from me on that front.  I don't understand the appeal in the slightest.  I want no part of that.

However, if people have been moving in this direction for the better part of a decade, completely unchallenged, is it really justified to then move the goalposts on them and say it was never meant to be this way?  I get the sense we're trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted.  If we really wanted to prevent this sort of thing, I'm fairly sure we're about 10 years too late.  

My hope is merely that the silly-picture-brigade loses momentum and people go back to looking at the more "legitimate" use-cases regarding property rights and such.  Things that would have tangible benefits for adoption and utility, take up less space and not cause so much disruption.  But I'm not convinced that every single Bitcoin user has been left with the overwhelming impression that Bitcoin was always "just money".  And I'm far from convinced that taking a heavy-handed approach is a viable solution to this issue.  I know slippery-slope arguments aren't considered valid in most cases, but I do have serous concerns about Bitcoin remaining permissionless and open.

That's where I'm at right now.  Thoroughly dismayed by calls for a centrally-planned intervention over something that could have been averted if people had raised their concerns earlier.  Much like Bitcoin itself, I don't see how you put the genie back in the bottle.  This can't be un-invented.

If we'd talked about what will happen if to implement something new it was a matter of choosing the future rules. But now we already have Ordinals and we already have those ones who use it. Taking away from someone else what is not ours is a bad idea. I'm not a fan of Ordinals, I'm not going to use any kind of "tokens" in bitcoin blockchain, but it is not a question of my own preferences, it is a question of expropriating someones belongings. Don't I understand that Ordinals bring instability and thus less security? I understand. But as Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." If we'll start to take something from someone for our own convenience, what will be the difference from centralized systems?

Do we have a problem? Yes. Should a solving be worse than a problem?

and yet blackhat is happy if genuine bitcoin users wanting to transfer actual sats are rejected because a jpeg is taking up the room.

bitcoin had rules. those rules were REMOVED, softened, weakened. so to pretend that jpegs meet the rule is wrong
they get let into a block due to rules being removed to just "is valid" by not applying any verification checks of content of the witness

a lack of rule is not a rule. its an oversight. an exploit

EG imagine a castle that had a drawbridge and knights watching the path to only allowing in real horses made of meat. that are alive and breathing.
and some idiot decided to remove the rules and let the drawbridge stay open where the knights are no longer monitoring the path.

then a wooden trojan horse containing dead monkeys came rolling into the castle. bringing disease into the castle.
would you say well disease is allowed. thats the rule

and when people who want to trade between different villages are rejected from entering the castle.. due to the disease.  is that again a fair "rule". or an abuse causing traders to not be able to trade and instead letting the castle go into economic meltdown of dead monkeys filling up the castle as the main activity

a fair rule is that if the purpose of the drawbridge security was to ensure that traders can trade between villages. where there were rules of showing signed proof of their trade desire. showing proof they were not hauling bloated dead monkeys..  .. then that rule should be brought back in. to protect the castle and to keep the real economic activity alive


i know blackhat does not care about bitcoin or the economics of the community. he only cares about himself. he would rather see people move out the castle and move to a different village, one he can scam fees out of by being a middle man .. rather than care about the castle

There's obviously a difference between storing jpegs and doing monetary transactions, but as a Bitcoin user, I have absolutely no interest in knowing both, because both obey to the same rules. Just as meaningless a monkey might seem to you, the same meaningful seems a transaction moving a million dollars worth of bitcoin to me; zero, I don't care about the business of complete strangers, I only care about mine.

It is a cloud storage, more or less. No matter how it shouldn't be used likewise, it can be a very inefficient, expensive cloud storage. Miners, users, Satoshi himself, did make usage of it, when there was surplus in block capacity. Nothing really has changed since then, except the surplus. People need to transact, but there appear some fellows who want to make usage of this cloud, and are more generous than you. The problem lies with you.

But honestly, let's assume you censor -or as you call it "fix the exploit"- and make Ordinal transactions invalid; what if they adopt another encoding scheme, which wasn't "exploited", like OP_RETURN? What then? You'll soft fork and make OP_RETURN with data_size >= x invalid? What if they switch to completely indistinguishable monetary transactions? That's right. What if they send 0 coins to plethora of 256-bit addresses? Until when will you scrutinize other people's transactions to enforce your Bitcoin ideals?

Why can't we accept that a fool and his money are soon parted? Why do we want to part them ourselves, with the risk of parting the invaluable principles our network relies on?

Exactly. Just one correction: the content of what they store on bitcoin blockchain is not important at all. I keep saying that even if they store the cure for cancer (as opposed to monkey pics), it still is malicious.

Generally speaking the arguments about decentralization, censorship resistance, fee market, etc. that some users like DooMAD keep bringing up are not wrong on their own, the problem is that they have nothing to do with this topic! Since we aren't arguing about normal usage of bitcoin, this Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System that led to all these troubles. We are arguing about a malicious usage of this system for something it is not designed to be (a cloud storage) that is causing problems.

Yes of course congested is always going to be the normal state of Bitcoin. We wouldn't want it any other way, because if it isn't congested that means people aren't using it. But there is a huge difference between congested with monetary transactions and congested with stupid crap like using it for cloud hosting of silly images. Most people I think want it congested because it is useful money, and don't want the people who use it as useful money to have a hard time using it because it is instead congested with stupid jpeg cloud hosting.

We're at a problem now when unintended uses are starting to spam the blockchain. It's not a huge problem at the moment, but during the next bull market, or in a few years when 10x as many people use Bitcoin as today, it's gonna be a serious problem if these Jpeg pushers are still around taking away space from people who are actually trying to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose.

it was just a formula. no one had to pay any attention to it if they didn't want to.


i always said that for me, if bitcoin would have just stayed the same exact way it started, not adding on all these extra things like segwit and taproot, i could be just fine with using just legacy addresses and op_return if i was really feeling like storing some monkey. but bitcoin got way more complex now. maybe you're starting to agree with me that designing something once and never changing it unless it is to fix some serious bug is the way to go? the KISS principle at work. do one thing and do it well. don't try to do too many things because then you might not be doing any of them well...

with that said, we're in the minority if we believe that philosophy so the only option is forking bitcoin to be the way it used to be way back in 2009. fork it at a way earlier block height too.  but we already had bitcoin sv but it didn't adhere to that philosophy as it turns out...

Dogecoin surpassed 1.1 million transactions per day yesterday, which allowed it to surpass both BTC and ETH for the first time ever, or in a long time anyway. The dumbest thing about it is the "DRC20" tokens being minted in these transactions can't be transferred, because nobody bothered to map out all the dogetoshis like they did for Ordinals. So nobody knows where the inscriptions actually are, lol.

Not that there's too many parallels between Bitcoin's situation and Dogecoin's, but the lead Doge dev announced yesterday what he would be doing to combat tx "spam" and the answer was nothing, its up to the nodes to create limits on what they will or won't relay.

https://twitter.com/patricklodder/status/1659165005370073088

He ends with,

"What I will not do, is a software release that enforces a policy once more. This is not negotiable to me.

You're in control now."

I wouldn't be surprised if Bitcoin Core devs are taking a similar approach.

CORE WROTE THE CODE.. nearly every line today is different to the code of 2009
so yes their exploits are their fault
THEY MADE THE HOLE
oh and remember your REKT campaigns of wanting to destroy any other full node brand that was not core, that wanted to propose changes.. yep you love that core are the only rule change proposers..
so yea you evicting other potential proposer nodes off he network means you have no scapegoats left to blame..
.. and no.. an miner(ASIC) does not create code. nor does an asic choose transactions. it just SHA256 hashs a hash

as for the exploit..
YOU LOVE AND ADMIT THEY MADE THE HOLE 'coz freedom'

stop pretending that core has nothing to do with code changes of the bitcoin rules

by the way..
.. you are confused

DOGE was born as a meme
bitcoin was not.. bitcoin got turned into a meme library DUE TO CODE CHANGES DONE BY CORE DEVS that THEN spammers were able to use

i guarantee you that you were not able to put 0.5mb.. 1mb, 4mb of bloat inside one tx previous to the changes CORE DONE

yep years ago there was rules like a 520byte limit for signature space.. now gone
many other rules and checks.. gone

try to learn about bitcoin

stop pretending people always had the ability to put just 1tx with the size of upto 4mb since bitcoins genesis..

Cool, so I'm the "bad guy" now for telling it like it is.  You can put all your hate on me if that makes you feel better.  Shoot the messenger.  Have a good vent.  I doubt it's going to change the situation, though.  Lemme know when you're ready to listen to reason.

Until then, feel free to waste as much time as you like campaigning to ban stuff in an open-source environment where someone determined can create any number of different scripts that allow anyone to upload material to the blockchain.  Or any blockchain.  People have put this crap on Dogecoin and that doesn't even have SegWit/Taproot/"softened rules" of any kind (but no doubt, according to franky1, that's still Core's fault somehow.  Keep listening to him, he's the smartest person there is.   ).  Whatever code you might produce to try and stop them, they can just find a new route around it.  See how for you get with an endless game of cat and mouse.  Sounds like futility to me, but best of luck to you.  You'll need it.

We live in a world where idiots can upload stuff to blockchains.  It's a fact of life now.  Resist all you like.  Blame me all you want.  Makes little difference.

DooMAD is of the opinion that being free to transact, as in freedom, is more important than being free to transact, as in beer. But even if you prioritize transaction costs rather than censorship-resistance: the Bitcoin network being congested should be seen as the normal state. I don't want to disappoint you, but you'll have to be more generous with the miner, because sooner or later you'll become his main income. There is no bright future for Bitcoin without a shitload of unconfirmed transactions, so if you're here for low costs, better study second-layers.

Indeed, it is very ironic to bring the "my freedom" (to spam) argument while at the same time act like a dictator. Whatever DooMAD says is the law and nobody can say or do anything about it. DooMAD owns Bitcoin and nobody can do or say anything against their decision.

You will eat your spam, and you will like it. The omnipotent ruler has spoken.

you think code is magic?? dang you are in fantasy land thinking thats how bitcoin works
CODE makes bitcoin work. lack of coded rules is the problem. so CODE can fix the problems

and when you decide to not be a ignorant guy trying to push your adoration that everyone should try a different network if they choose not to pay high fee..(pretending thats the only option.. pay high or leave) you will learn many people do not like the fee mania caused by CHANGES TO THE CODE... or the holes made in the code that created it.

its about code. not magic.. so get out of fantasy land.

you support fee mania because it promotes the agenda of other networks you prefer people to use. but bitcoiners want fixes for bitcoin.. they want exploits closed on bitcoin. not told that the solution is another network or just put up with whatever corporate sponsored holes core devs put into bitcoin to make bitcoin less suitable for everyday usage

CODE fixes bugs, and CODE can do many things. your lack of wanting CODE to do its job is revealing. you prefer people be patient, hope, and trust.. that is not bitcoin principles. bitcoin relies and SHOULD rely on code to set rules. not "trust" that devs are going to do something sometime, you also dont want anyone but a sponsoring corporation to be allowed to ask what they will do or when. and where you think users should not be able to ask devs to change anything. where you only want corporations that bribe devs to be the only ones telling devs what to do

core have become too powerful. 6 main devs have ultimate control of the protocol and rules and changes. and this year they are pretending they are not responsible whilst everyone else is being told to wait and hope it will work itself out as if the code is some special self repairing AI. its not. core devs made the holes and now dont want the responsibility to patch the holes. blaming users for not wanting to "pay more" as the fault.. shamefull practice that is

Yes, but that mainly took effect when everyone is choosing to pay low fees.  It would not, however, prevent a large number of users who are willing to include a fee from out-bidding those who opted not to include a sufficient fee.

It does not magically guarantee cheap transactions for the "average user" (whoever that might be).


//EDIT:

Notice how when I explain why the code doesn't do what franky1 claims it does, he replies with a rant about how I'm bad and Core devs are bad, etc.
 
Ultimately, given a choice between dictating to users what fees "should" be and allowing them to decide for themselves, the latter is going to win every single time.