Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 16. (Read 9119 times)

This attack has even created additional sell pressure on the market and has been one of the main contributors to stopping the rise and bringing the price down from $30k level. In other words not only attacks such as Ordinals are not going to ever help the adoption, but they do the exact opposite. Not to mention those who "gamble" with the scams called tokens aren't even buying bitcoin to help the price rise, like some users loved to speculate.
This is also going to affect miners since their revenues would go down with the price and after fees go down

The truth is that I think you only look at the big picture that suits you and not the big picture of the world and of BTC.
What is the point of defending everything you wrote if in practice it is useless?
What is the point of keeping intact the theory and the scale of ranks that you postulated if in practice it cannot be used for what it was created for?
What is the point for poor people who were promised financial freedom in transactions and it turns out that now if they want to buy a kilo of bread in El Salvador they pay 1 dollar for bread and 50 in BTC transaction fees?
Just because, because a person who owns 5779241534 BTC is irrelevant to him that the fee is momentarily high?
The problem is that for many people they can't wait for it to go down, so a solution must be found for this, and not just always wait for it to happen.

Look at the case of serveria, why he have to cancel a sell because of this problem? And where its the solutions of BTC for him? If you want to see more people adopt more the BTC you cant have this kind of problem.

Or at least admit the BTC its only a reserve of value and not a currency (here i dont know what its you posture about it).

Yeah, and then it will all come crashing down.

What the hell, the crashing down part has already started: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-14/bitcoin-btc-bulls-nurse-losses-as-pepe-memecoin-frenzy-fades

ALL tokens and coins that completely depend on hype to stay afloat are doomed.

I'll make more of an effort to remain civil.  It's just frustrating that only a few people seem to be looking at the big picture.

It's a question of priorities.  The lesser of two evils, if you will.

If you sacrifice what makes Bitcoin matter in order to make it faster or cheaper, you're making it worse.

My list of priorities goes something like this:

1.  Open-source
2.  Permissionless / Censorship-resistance / "freedom" / etc.
3.  Secure / Strong hash rate / alignment of incentives to secure the chain
4.  Decentralisation / sufficient node count
5.  Fixed supply / 21 million BTC / predictable emission
6.  Reasonable privacy / Pseudonymous
7.  Efficient / Fast / Cheap

During the "blocksize civil war", some (myself included until I learned why it was wrong) argued that we should sacrifice number 4 in favour of Bitcoin being faster and cheaper.  So if I now don't believe in giving up my number 4 priority to make Bitcoin faster or cheaper, then I'm guessing you can understand how I feel about my number 2 priority.  As such, I have to be willing to suffer silly pictures, even though I'd rather not, because the alternative is worse.



In your reply to that customer, did you point out that they could opt to include a lower fee and, as a trade-off, the transaction would take longer to confirm?  High fees aren't compulsory.  When the network is busy, you can either choose to have a fast transaction or a cheap one.  

People accept congestion on the roads as a fact of life.  Is it reasonable for people stuck in traffic to say that certain groups of road users should be discriminated against, or that if it carries on like this that everyone will simply stop using roads?  I don't personally see how it's justified to make those same arguments here.  Sometimes you just have to accept that other people exist.  They all have things they're trying to do and there may be times when you might opt to seek a less congested route.  That's life.  Not everything can be perfect.

You're the serveria.com admin, right? Don't you have LN payments implemented, as a temporary stopgap measure ^{for people who already have open LN channels, as opening them now will make you pay the same on-chain fee}?

Anyways, this is one of the reasons why I usually mass-add funds for 3-6 months of invoices in advance (the other is in case I forget about the invoice and it goes unpaid).

You realize how irrelevant that is, I hope.

Do Bitcoin transactions in general make themselves faster? No, but again, you realize how irrelevant that is, hopefully.

Apologies, but I don't remember myself signing anywhere that I'm allowed to make transactions only if I make the user experience enjoyable.

You realize this is a Bitcoin limitation rather than an Ordinal problem, right? When the network is congested, people pay higher fees. If we followed your path, it wouldn't take long until we started censoring each other to free up space for the candidate block. "Step asides guys. Serveria's clients have priority, because they're clients" -  

If you want from your clients to pay less in fees, adopt lightning. If you don't want that, you're forced to follow the authoritarian law of demand and supply.

It will always do so. Someday there could be a situation during another mempool congestion when your customers payments will be considered as spammy, because some big company will take the same payments with millions transactions a day. It's not the first time we have problems with transaction fees and definitely not the last, and it is not an option to cut off whom we don't like more each time. If Ordinals was never implemented then there can still be a discussion, but now we have a situation when some of other people use them already. Taking off what they have, expropriation, it's not what we expect from a reliable decentralized system. I don't like the idea of Ordinals as long as we have no idea how to solve the scalability problem, but expropriation I like even much less.

Finding solutions, not picking sides. Let's build a network that can handle anything without compromising decentralization

I am on the side of the people that are saying Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant and miners should have the choice to either mine or not mine those transactions. The moment when developers gets involved in the decision making to "censor" certain transactions, they are crossing the line in the sand. (picking sides)

The developers should concentrate on finding solutions to prevent congestion on the network from things like this. They came up with side chains to make transactions cheaper and faster, so they should find a similar solution for projects like this. 

i personally dont care who agrees or disagres with me.
i just wish people just spent a little time actually learning bitcoin and not which influencer to suck upto and treat as their messia..
people should not be relying on humand . bitcoin is code and its the code that should be paramount. code which has been weakened in recent years due to those sponsored to weaken bitcoin just to promote other networks as the salvation.


larry instead od f jumping into doomads bed based on his rhetoric of me.. actually articulate properly what you are agreeing with or not.. because you are not actually saying much apart from your are disagreeing with doomads insane warped and unbacked version of what DOOMAD thinks when he says "franky " not what i actually say

i never said doomad cant use lightning or segwit.. i just said he is stupid for using flawed lightning and over promising and snake oil promoting lightning.. and with all things considered over the last 6 years segwit has not lived up to its promises/expectations either

his rhetoric which he tries to say is mine.. that is just him being a devious idiot lying scumbag who cannot even comprehend history, nor read nor even check out facts

my post history is has been clear about my opinions for many years.. my opinions never have changed and can be backed up by code, blockdata and much more..
unlike doomad who is a snake oil salesman. jumping/sliding around so much he doesnt even know if he is coming or going. he just follows the tribal campfire stories of whatever sponsors are singing. even if the songs change over time

consensus is not about a persons choice to use lightning or segwit
its about rules of bitcoin. rules that should be followed. rules that should not be broke.

such as signatures being signatures, sats being sats. public keys being public keys
rather than just random nonsense data has has no aid or purpose or function related to the utility of moving sats from one owner to another.
bitcoin is a payment network for sats. not a junk data library.
and yes doomad also wants to break the sats rule too.. which breaks the scarcity economics and many things like the runout of halvings date and the amount of halvings and the amount of units available in the end. thats how little he cares about bitcoin. he wants everything about bitcoin broke.

bitcoin for many years actually counted every byte.. now it doesnt
bitcoin for many years actually knew each bytes purpose in a transaction and had a set of rules to ensure each byte met a need/purpose.. now it doesnt

doomad pretends he is all for unity and equality.. yet he loves segregation
he loves the 3 class system. where legacy is the premium class and he wants all bitcoiners to either become rich to afford to pay massive fees just to stay involved. or get lost and go to another network if they cannot afford to use bitcoin

well then i disagree with franky on that. you should have the right to use SegWit and Lightning and any other things bitcoin has to offer. I'm sorry if he feels you shouldn't have that right.


I agree. and I don't want anyone in a position to decide if my transactions are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" i just want the consensus rules to determine that. that's the philosophy of bitcoin.

i guess i was just expecting them to have a statement saying "calm down everyone, ordinals is just something people are using the large transaction witness size to do. we don't control how they use it, they can store anything they want to in it. we don't control how bitcoin gets used"

or i was expecting them to say something like "we didn't anticipate how this large transaction witness might gain the useage that it has and so we had to reconsider why it was set up the way it was in the first place and we decided there was an oversight and we never meant to have this type of thing happening in the first place so we're going to fix it".

they haven't done either. that's the problem. so if they ever do at some future point come and out and say one or the other, it doesn't make as much sense as if they would have done it sooner. like in the last few months. that's just my opinion.   presumably we are in the first scenario. i say presumably because again, AFAIK there have been no reassurances from the developers. no confirmation no nothing. i think communication is important from developers to the bitcoin community. i'm not asking them to change how bitcoin works, i'm just asking is this how they intended it to work for data storage to be possible. so i guess all we can do is assume this is how they intended it to work otherwise it wouldn't be there.

but there are bugs that happen sometimes like the inflation bug. no one would expect that to not get fixed. that was not a feature. they communicate about those things. why not this one. if they are proud of their work why not admit this is how it's supposed to be working and everything is fine. why the silence. they got better things to do? like what?

Yeah, you're right. There is really no use for these so they should just fall off the face of the crypto cliff where they belong. And it looks like that is exactly what has happened, the hype has died down: https://finbold.com/bitcoin-transaction-fees-plummet-as-ordinals-hype-fizzles-out/

Frankly, I don't see any reasoning in your post, just insults, some general phrases, vague points and baseless statements. Well, I couldn't expect more from a crazy ordinals fanboi.

Do ordinals make Bitcoin price grow? No (in fact possibly the opposite)
Do ordinals make Bitcoin transactions faster? No (exactly the opposite)
Do most Bitcoin users enjoy better user experience? No (again the opposite)

So why do we need ordinals? Let me guess: "because freedom"?  

And finally, a letter from one of my customers:

Hello,

Due to high fees and congestion on BTC crypto network/blockchain, it became impossible for me to pay for the invoice.

Current transfer fees are about $19-$50 on average, which would mean I would pay 2 x more for the transfer than for the *censored* itself.

Would you perhaps consider enabling *censored* payments additionally?

I cannot pay any other way because I only use crypto to pay for my *censored*.

Thank you.

But we have the freedom though! We are free from censorship and soon will also be free from Bitcoin if it goes on like this.  

and just days ago doomad switched sides and was temporarily siding that the ordinals scam was using an exploit and he didnt like it..

seems he recruited enough idiots to his ass kissery.. so is now back to ass kissing devs that want to break down bitcoin rules and not take responsibility to fix the things they changed

but hey as doomad says if you dont like that bitcoin rules are getting broken and softened and allowing exploits.. doomad only has one answer 'dont fix it, abandon it and use another network'

and yep for years he has been loving the idea of offboarding users to another network

if he wants a network that doesnt count every byte efficiently and accurately. thats his flaw
if he wants a network that doesnt validate a purpose/function for each byte.. thats his flaw too

however wanting a network where every byte matters and has purpose towards bitcoin. rather then junk. is what most people want. even if some devs have loosened the rules to let junk in and now doomad thinks that tightening the rules again is what he wants to call "activate the self-destruct sequence"

no its not self destruct. its actually called having rules and reason for a efficient monetary system not a meme junk text library

he loves censorship
he loves the 2017 event of blocks getting rejected simply for not flagging loyalty towards segwit.
he loves treating certain transaction formats differently. making legacy a 4x premium
he loves that if people dont pay enough fee (a fee more expensive than a cup of coffee) he wants that rejected too
he loves centralisation. he wants full nods to downgrade to fool nodes by pruning and centralising hte blockchain. he wants to kill off anyone not core. and he wants core to be an authoritarian without responsibility and without taking any community desires unless paid by a corporation.. seems doomad loves government policy/business model after all

the junk has caused more reasons for normal transactions to not get processed than any fix would.. yep the mempool bloat rejected thousands upon thousands of normal transactions leaving people waiting days weeks and in some cases months before trying again.. yep the junk done that.. and doomad just wants that junk to continue, while happy for normal peoples actual bitcoin transactions to become expensive, delays or just dropped from mempools

Ah yes, Ethereum.  A prime example if ever there was one.  I never had any great deal of interest in Ethereum to begin with, but lost what little respect I had for it during the ETH/ETC split (which some people in this topic could learn from).  

What happened?  Well, in 2016, the ETH devs (or should that be dev, singular?) decided to intervene and make something controversial disallowed.  It caused a major divide in their community and the outcome was that many people dismissed the project as a massive failure.  

Now, where have I heard that sort of thing recently....?  Oh, that's right, some of the eejits in this thread want to repeat that mistake!  

I'm glad you're talking sense, though.

---

One of my favourite Bitcoin quotes is the following from 2014:


See, this is why we can't have nice things.  Even members of the forum who have been around long enough to know better have boarded the reactionary bandwagon.  Shame on you and Artemis3.  Legendaries as naive as newbs.  It makes me genuinely sad to see this level of ignorance from those who have had years to educate themselves.

"OH NOES!  BITCOIN IS TOO POPULAR!  WHAT WILL WE DO!?"  

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?  Anyone can produce a bunch of large transactions in a single day and cause congestion.  That's been a possibility since block #79,400 (the year 2010).  If that's a catastrophic problem in your mind, then by that reasoning, you should have abandoned Bitcoin before you started using it!  

I'm just glad most of the Bitcoin devs have greater foresight than Luke Dashjr and are unlikely to activate the self-destruct sequence like so many clueless users are cheering to do.

Man maybe in the whole pic you can have good arguments but WTF its this?.

So BTC for what was invented? YES to make transaction and develop a new way of money where it not rely on goverments, etc etc.

NO to put images/NFT in the blockchain, they can YES, but that wasnt the main objetive.

Dont lose the objetivity man.

Its like the grapich card issue, for what were made it? For playing games , to render etc, NOT for mining and of course you can MINING with them but that wasnt the main objetive.

How it ended? Yes the manufacturers ended up capping the cards. Im not saying this its gonna do in BTC but you can see how the main reason prevail over a post temporal function.

And before you say something, YES you know much more than me in term of BTC, dev, programing etc, im a fucking newbie, but that isnt relevant here. This its more a philosopic discussion than a technical one.

So if someone does make transactions more frequently than Artemis, it is justified to censor them. Lol. Just lol. Principles threw out the window.

Actually, to play devils advocate here, there are blockchains that are much more efficient - but they are much less reliable and/or secure. If anything there is a correlation between a blockchain's efficiency and how it's unreliable, less secure and more centralised. Look at Solana for example, it's extremely efficient while also being completely unreliable (has "shut down" many times) as well as very centralised. These days Ethereum is more or less in the middle, it's relatively secure (even though still quite centralised) and relatively efficient, somewhere in-between Bitcoin and Solana for example. You can even look at other proof of chain blockchains such as Litecoin and Dogecoin, sure they are also very cheap, but they are secured by much less hash rate and theoretically remain vulnerable to 51% attacks.

In summary Bitcoin is for sure one of the least efficient blockchains and that's exactly what makes it one of the most reliable, secure and decentralised. If you want to use efficient and cheap blockchains then you get what you pay for. Cheap = unreliable and far from secure either. I could even argue that Lightning comes into to this category of cheap, but this is besides the point. If you want to play around with shitcoins and the like then use a cheaper blockchain, but if you actually want to hold your wealth or live savings in the most reliable and secure chain then chose Bitcoin. Then the $10 or $30 transaction fee won't concern you.

I bet Artemis3 in his entire lifetime won't produce the number of transactions a bunch of retarded ordinalists produce in a single day. If you don't see the difference between the amounts of transactions I question your sanity.

What if I told you that your transactions are complete trash to my disk space? They're not very different to Ordinals from my perspective. I haven't made them, I don't earn a 'toshi by keeping them, and I even have to be more generous with my fee rate because of them. May I propose similar to you, or shall we accept that freedom is more important than a bunch of extra data chunks?