Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 15. (Read 9249 times)

bitcoin had a fee formulae.
priority = sum(input_value_in_base_units * input_age)/size_in_bytes

but was removed around the era when bitcoin-qt became "core" managed
heck core doesnt even count bytes as bytes anymore either. let alone not having rules for fee selection

so its not that core are plugging holes. its that CORE MADE HOLES and now widened the holes more over the years.
yep bitcoin USED to have rules where at the time of under 0.5mb of blockspace 0.05mb(10%) had a 'priority' where older coins would get priority even if they paid little to no fee..

there were other things too that helped keep fees low for the average users.. but that has all changed. and NOW its just a 100% bidding war with no controls, no formulae, no rules to keep fees low.. instead its the opposite

but hey it seems you have been suckered into the spoon feeds of an ass kisser lulling you to sleep with his fake charm..  rather then doing the research. well goodluck with that. doomad has a new clan member. enjoy it.

but i do hope one day you do try to do your research outside of the charm offensive clan

as for doomad pretending the new upgrades have helped..
check out the statistics of fee's before and after the upgrades.. they are up. not down.. even when there was/is a drop in mempool usage below last years average mempool levels..  the fee's are higher than last years levels

taproots upgrade promise was lean transactions which only required one signature length.. that was the promise. but reality is that they allowed upto 4mb of bloat instead

i guarantee you that in 2009. no single transaction could have been more then 0.5mb let alone 1mb let alone 4mb
so look how things changed and dont just take the spoonfeed of a altnet charmer pretending the situation now has always been this way since the start.. actually do the research and realise what rules have been weakened, softened, removed completely over the years. and see who made the holes.

the more of your things i read the more reasonable you sound doomad.

voice of reason.

i was just thinking the same thing but you put it into words. if they really cared about having low transaction fees then bitcoin was not designed properly. because the fee can be literally anything. either because sat/byte is high but bitcoin has a low usd value or because sat/byte is low but bitcoin has a high usd value...so you can't really control it. it's like trying to plug holes in a barrel of water that keeps getting new holes into it...

very reasonable point of view and i have to agree. if someone wants a guarantee that fees will always be low then bitcoin is not the place for them. neither is most cryptocurrencies. because they all have the same bidding system. pay a higher fee, get your transaction put into a block faster. kind of like people that tip delivery drivers. want to get your big mac as fast as possible then leave a big tip. don't tip at all? then they might not even pickup your order.

indeed it is just how it works. and that's a good explanation that they should read and understand why there is really no basis to expect anything else.

indeed. maybe they'll increase block size or do that in tandem with only allowing transactions and not monkeys into the increased space who knows. that's all up to the developers. i think alot of peoples' unhappiness with bitcoin fees situation comes from a misunderstanding that they thought fees should be a certain thing. well that's not how bitcoin works. we all want low fees but as you have pointed out, bitcoin wasn't designed that way to guarantee any certain fee. neither was litecoin neither was solana i guess...

In your opinion, is it technically possible to eliminate the vulnerability so that previously created records in the blockchain with its help do not lose the ability to change the owner using a valid transaction? Or will they become a dead monument to the name of the successful exploitation of a vulnerability, losing all value along with the ability to change ownership? In the second case, it will be a strong (perhaps even fatal) blow to Bitcoin's reputation as a reliable, censor-resistant network for storing value.

It was difficult to read past your first sentence here as your claiming that Bitcoin's popularity has nothing to do with number of transactions whereas Bitcoin's "popularity" (quantifiable utility I assume) has to do with a lot of things, not just it's value. The number of transactions, value of transactions, number of users, number of accounts, these are all metrics that matter to Bitcoin in order for it to qualify as popular, which continue to increase. Whether you like it or not, Ordinals and other BRC20's are making these metrics increase, therefore increasing Bitcoin's popularity. Even if it's not in a way that you like, support or agree with.

Also you say that no. of txs is irrelevant because we have LN, which also proves a point that we don't need to be making small payments over the mainnet right? If so then why is it a concern that transactions are expensive if we instead use LN or other L2 solution? If we're all using Lightning, then the use of mainnet is simply to increase/decrease liquidity of channels, or otherwise open them. No offence but I'm really struggling to understand your argument if you're complaining about high fees but yet claiming that LN is the payment method (the latter I agree with).

Do you know what happens when a rock star or a famous pop singer dies? People start to listen to their songs more. When an artist dies, his paintings' price increases. So if ordinals will be banned, the existing ones will cost much more (in case devs don't delete the metadata tag completely of course). It's a win-win situation. Bitcoiners will get rid of spam and ordinalists keep their precious NFTs and even earn some hefty sum perhaps. 

Nobody is talking about undoing transactions. HUGE difference. You are pro exploit, vulnerability found, do nothing, let it break because Bitcoin sucks anyway, use something else, go do your normal mundane bitcoin transactions elsewhere. According to you, Bitcoin is now a spam general database for memes or whatever and bitcoin transactions should go elsewhere.

Insulting and ridiculing others for actually using Bitcoin for bitcoin won't get your point across, in fact, it just proves what you want.

doomad you forget history too much,. and just make up crap about how you like things now. not how things were and supposed to be

bitcoin had fee formulae. that was taken away.
bitcoin had rules limiting length of scripts. it also had rules to expect certain data after certain opcodes and sigops. those were taken away too
many "assume" code was added. many "is valid" replaced actual validation rules

thus it was not initially designed as a bidding system for any junk. it became that once the corporate paid devs took over the maintenance (slowly bating->simmering->boiling the frog instead of instantly throwing it in boiling water)

YOU KNOW THIS there have been many debates over the years about the fee formulae. and the many changes..  so dont play ignorant now pretending what is now was always that way

as for the space.. well you wanted to keep space limited. becasue you wanted a bidding system.. but over the years people wanted more space. yep 10 years ago bitcoin hit a 0.5mb limit and they fixed it to allow 1mb. then at 1mb they fake-promised 4mb but they put restrictions on how that 4mb should be used. with a 1mb txdata 3mb script cludge. with bad math of miscounting bytes.

then when they promised a new tx format which was promoted as using only one signature length.. the actual result was upto 4mb per tx of space waste

funny how you years ago wanted to restrict space and restrict how many people can enter a block but now pretend to be "censorship resistant"

you motives follow the capitalist mantra of corporate banking world. everyone reading your post history can see your morals and scripts are not to benefit the masses. you just want to kiss up to corporation hoping one day someone will hire you so that you dont have to penny pinch small income from sig campaigns.

if you are still after many years scraping by on small income from promoting scams and schemes maybe its time you choose a different career. because if they have not hired you yet for a proper job, its time to realise your not on the interview short list for a job with them.. kissing ass hasnt seemed to have made you rich thus far. so get the hint

It's all "pro-poor" talk. Bitcoin performs much better when it is used less. With an increase in the activity of use, a transport collapse occurs. You can accept this as a given or try to fix it somehow. The developers tried, but it led to unexpected side effects in the form of an unplanned blockchain use case. Now we must accept the consequences of our decisions and move on, or accept that the weakening of consensus as a result of the update of the taproot was a strategic mistake and try to fix it so as not to damage the reputation of bitcoin. Because the holders of the brc-20 tokens uploaded their stupid pictures to the blockchain according to the current consensus rules and paid for it with real bitcoins at the market price, one cannot deceive their expectations about the preservation of the value that they entrusted to the most reliable network, and about the possibility in the future to freely spend their exits.

Cause and effect.  Action and reaction.  The things we do have consequences.  

We would all moan if devs didn't look for a way to scale Bitcoin.  But now we're moaning because Devs tried to improve scaling in a manner which elegantly doesn't sacrifice decentralisation.  It was meant to be a win-win.  Something very rare when it comes to scaling.  Unfortunately, others reacted to this by utilising the potential for greater throughput to start filling the chain with what they wanted.  They saw the opportunity and they struck.  They're paying for what they are using.  As such, the protocol accepts it.  Opportunistic?  Absolutely.  Against the rules?  No.



It's not that we should support them, per se.  It's that we should stop to consider if we're shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to stop them (we may not be able to, because this update isn't the only way to inject things into the blockchain that you might not approve of).  Again, this update, in the long term at least, should help with scaling.  Reacting right away and undoing the change is likely the wrong approach.

---

I guess the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what Bitcoin was "meant to be".  If it was always meant to be affordable for people in less prosperous financial circumstances, it's arguable that Bitcoin shouldn't have been designed the way it was.  A bidding system to include your transaction as a priority is wholly unsuitable for that purpose.  With billions of people around the world, there was always likely to come a time where the wealthier users could out-bid the less wealthy ones.  

Bitcoin spent plenty of time with low fees, yes.  And maybe people came to expect that it would always remain as such.  But as we grow the userbase, that expectation, in the light of cold, hard reality, appears to be misplaced.  High traffic means some people will bid more and their transactions will be included first.  That's just how it works.

And at the moment, it's silly pictures and other nonsense we'd rather not see, but at least it serves as a test case for what things will look like when we have an even a greater number of users making regular payments.

Fully agree with this and i think BEFORE any start a conversation have to be in concordance with that statement.

---

I really feel some guys are losing the north of BTC and his main purpose.

I think a lot dont concive the idea of use other blockchains for other purpose, X blockchain for art, Y blockchain for smartcontracts, W blockchain for tracking ,etc, etc.

And this doesnt have any bad, WHY everything has to be in the BTC blockchain when it wasnt designed for that? Why a few guys confuse BTC dominacy with Blockchain dominacy?

So again bitcoin was invented to be a payment system for the unbanked NOT for other things and not matter if that other things have value or not.

soo to certain idiots.. all spam 2009-2020 was spam attacks even though those transactions didnt contained nonsense junk
but the junk of 2023 is not an attack nor spam..(in idiots minds)

seems someone lost the logic of their redefinitions

so to certain idiots.. transactions should be rejected if they dont pay enough fee.. did they not realise that more transactions are censored due to their "just pay more" theory

yep over the years more people have stopped using bitcoin and moved to other networks due to silly idea's like "just pay more"

bitcoin was invented to be a payment system for the unbanked. not a payment system just for the rich
there are more people in the world whos hourly wage is less than a bitcoin fee.

if you think a payment system should cost more than an hours wage to use. thats a failure of economics

That is more or less what I said:
Which is somewhat contradictory. You can't have one's cake and eat it too.

The people who make the transactions perhaps?

What's "useless spam" for you isn't necessarily for every user of the network. To repeat my analogy: your transactions, right as everyone else's, are as important as Ordinals for my disk space. Yet, it has never crossed one's mind to remove those, or count those as "spam".

the way i see it is, if it's a feature of bitcoin then we can't really blame other people for using those features. i've used segwit addresses i would imagine at least a couple times so does that make me a bad person? alot of wallets now default to that and people just go with it. doesn't mean they are bad people who want to destroy bitcoin. same with using the lightning network. i don't use it, never had a use for it, seen other people trash talking it on reddit so i'm not so sold on it but i don't know much about why someone would want to use it as far as an everyday bitcoin user. i have no need for it. if i can't use bitcoin directly i dont want to use it at all. maybe other people feel differently. that's fine. let them use it.

i'll be honest with you franky. from reading some of your posts, it makes it seem like doomad is a terrible person but then the times he actually replied to me, he comes across as totally reasonable and openminded and not trying to shove any type of agenda down my throat. so i'm not sure we share the same view of him. i don't have anything against him. and i dont know why you would either.

while your arguments and statements might be based on correct technical things like code and blockdata, that's not an excuse to insult someone like doomad who has been nothing but civil to me. you talk in alot of hyperbole about doomad as seen below:

this is not specific and doesn't really explain anything so i don't know why you keep saying things like this. be specific or don't say anything at all when you're talking about doomad.

that's something i agree with you on. but where i disagree is in attacking other people that are using things that bitcoin allows. and then saying you don't like them or calling them out because the things they are using are against your idea of how bitcoin is supposed to work. now maybe bitcoin is not working exactly how you want it to work, i understand that. but we can't blame users for that. doomad is just a user just like you or me.

i tend to agree with you pretty wholeheartedly on these matters. unfortunately that's not how it is working right now and if other people don't feel the same way we can't really call them out because of it. it's an issue we have with the developers, not with users. they have every right to use bitcoin in whatever way they want to and if their transactions are put into blocks that's none of our business. that's just kind of how it has to be franky. sorry if you can't agree to that.

i doubt doomad wants bitcoin broke. he never told me that. and i doubt he ever would. but if he comes here and replies to my post and confirms your above statement, that's the only way i think i'm going to believe it  

i agree with you that this is a tragedy but that's how things work now with bitcoin. we have to accept that the developers intended for this to be the case otherwise i guess they would say something by now. but it's possible at some point they do speak up and change things but that seems rather doubtful that they've allowed it to go on this long and not done anything and yet they're going to do something down the line...

i don't know franky. the writing is on the wall anyway. people don't need doomad or anyone else to advise them on whether bitcoin is a good match for them. they can look at the fees and decide for themself. me personally, i wish there was no fee at all i even started a thread once about why we can't make bitcoin have free transactions but that was before i understood if you do that then you get alot of spam and abuse of network resources so you can't do that...

Becoming popular has nothing to do with the number of transactions. Bitcoin IS popular as an asset, hedge against inflation, store of value, investment etc. You mean if it becomes more popular as a currency or payment method? Well, we have LN for that.

And please stop making up things. Your assumption is wrong. I was against big blocks back in 2017. You can easily browse my post history for proof. 

Lol, what? As far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of Ordinals pay minimum. It was just the recent fuss with BRC-20 which raised the fee rate to the ceiling.