Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 3. (Read 9235 times)

So we're basically back in between the 100+sat/vB "Bitcoin is too expensive" cost and the 1sat/vB "Bitcoin is useless because no-one uses it" cost.

With a cleared out mempool it makes me wonder if people are going to wish there were more inscriptions happening again

While I get that it isn't great for the average user, it's great for security of the network with an increasing hash rate...

ordinals is really good idea to increase another hype of bitcoin where user again buy and sale bitcoin .

There's no such thing as free block capacity. The actual cost of these inscriptions would be the high-paying unconfirmed transactions that could be included instead.

Source code is frequently updated. You can't go and upload a new source code for every single commit. That's why we have git.

You can't make sure they are real UTXO if you don't start verifying everything from block 0. So you don't have a "properly designed payment network" if there are no full archival nodes.

no but who said anything about storing a binary. i was talking about the source code. that makes it decentralized. when you can store the source code on some place like the blockchain where a third party doesn't have the ability to remove your account.

maybe so!

if i wanted to set one up then yes but i don't want to store other people's data so i wouldn't be too interested in performing that public service...

i don't know. but if i was serious about storing data on the blockchain, i would want it in the utxo set. not in something that could be pruned...


i would say a properly designed payment network would only store utxos anyway. even banks purge old transactions after a certain number of years...or maybe bitcoin needs to move away from the utxo model and use the account model where they just update the balance of the account and no need to keep old transactions lying around. that would be how the banks do it kind of.

Only if that transaction is broadcasted in P2P way to other nodes. In case of almost 4 MB transaction that started Ordinals, it was mined by Luxor. One pool with sufficient hashrate is enough to make the chain bigger. Attackers could reach 1% of the hashrate, and then they can put a lot of inscriptions for free every 100 blocks.

before you go get too upset, look at what that article said: https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-inscriptions-get-revolutionary-upgrade/


OrdinalHub writes via Twitter that the BTC Core client, for example, could be stored on the blockchain. Bitcoin Core is around 15 MB in size and was therefore previously too large due to the block size limit. Again, recursive inscriptions are the solution:

Imagine we could split up parts of Bitcoin Core, load just an executable frontend, and the program “calls” the code it needs from other inscriptions. You’re now running Bitcoin ON Bitcoin.


doesn't that solve one of the problems with bitcoin which is a decentralized way to store bitcoin core? github is not decentralized. it's a central point of failure.

also keep in mind franky, it's not free to make an inscription. they do have to pay. it could cost over $100 right now to mint a picture of a monkey it was a 100 or 200kb file i guess. well over that. maybe $150. not like its free.

exciting?
yep larry has gone full idiot and thinks bitcoin should be used to store large files of junk data of more than 4mb and wants it to happen

Franky keeps sidestepping that fact. Just using it as an excuse for why he or no one else can do anything.

the article you referenced explains the new types of use cases it opens up. hadn't heard about this update but thanks for posting it. it sounds very exciting!

Recursive Inscriptions update for the Ordinals is coming. They want to overcome the limitation of 4 Mb per block by dividing one object to several blocks. Big pictures, games, I guess video... Why? We've faced with problems from the start and the way to lower fees took time. Now it's more or less okay. Why to make even bigger problem? What do they want to achieve testing the strength of the bitcoin blockchain?

If I don't want to take away what some got with Ordinals it doesn't mean I'm so happy with the plans to get bitcoin stuck. No proggramms will work like they expect if the mempool will be constantly over-flooded. And all efforts to over-flood it... I don't understand why. Is it a type of bitcoin hate? To break it?

Stop proposing shit ideas, then.  Simple.  No one in their right mind would entertain adding any of your unworkable nonsense.

Good ideas get approved.  Shit ones get ignored.  Exactly how it has always worked.

larry YOU ARE BEING IGNORANT

you argue that bitcoin core are open and easy to make changes.. then you argue how its not easy to be a core dev and that core devs should only do things their employer tells them..

you cant even see where your initial narrative fails due to your own admission of your secondary narrative

its like your mind says the cult script of lies and empty promises. then you for a few moments try to escape the cult narrative but u just dont quite realise it the moment of clarity, thus you end up ignoring your moments of clarity to then just go back into cult speak of blind adoration of the authoritarian group

core MODERATE OUT any idea's that oppose THEIR ROADMAP. they get idiots to REKT any non core brand that wants to propose changes to the rules

HISTORY SHOWS THIS

stop having opinions spoonfed to you by doomad. you sound like an idiot when you recite his cult-speak crap
try for once to actually learn independently and stick with the stuff you can actually read away from the cultish narrative.. learn from the code, the block data and from the devs admissions outside of their broken promises. then trust your own conclusions you independently come to,. dont then deny your own conclusions just to recite the cult narrative that goes against all evidence

for instance you have a moment of clarity when you admit that they changed the byte limit to conclude:
"i'm not sure if they realized monkeys might be the end result"
so outside of your echo chamber cult chants. you had a moment of admitting they didnt realise the ramifications of their actions..
so why then jump back into the cult echo's to pretend they were the all-seeing, all-knowing gods.. "not surprised"
ignoring that they didnt foresee their own lack of rules would cause

another example is that you start by saying:
"i know the max script size became unbounded up to the entire blocksize but who is going to really do that though"
so you admit it happened and how.. which shows you partially try to admit what happened. but want to be ignorant of WHO done it.. everyone knows CORE DONE IT.. heck in previous paragraph i mentioned, even you had the moment of clarity to admit core done it

however then you ignore what happened. who or why it happened to return to your cultish state of ignorance to pretend it never happened.. when you said:
"how many times did it actually get done? not many right? you're worrying about a non-event"
do you not understand how many hundreds of thousands of users have just been through an event of junk spam affecting the bloat of blocks and blockchain data aswell as the fees they have to pay..  all of which was lasting a few months and can continue with new junky crap, which core currently refuse to stop.. (EG this entire topics discussion of MANY PEOPLE annoyed by what happened)
yep blockdata, discussions like this topic all show it happened..

i know you are just playing the cult script game of "its just franky".. yet read this topic, where MANY people are annoyed. read any topic about the ordinal meme junk. there are many people that experienced the event and annoyed by it. so stop pretending "nothing happened franky is in a fantasy"
you sound like an idiot ignoring the events that annoy bitcoiners due to bad code decisions of core devs. wher you just recite the cult "its just franky"

the exploit is still active and can continue to be abused every day.. IF it was a non-event then:
this and many topics like it would not exist..  
the junk of sooooo many memes would not be on the blockchain.

but evidence shows:
lots of people are annoyed by it.
lots of people can see junk memes on the blockchain
even you can try to escape the cult narrative and see deadweight junk memes on the blockchain.. so open your eyes and dare yourself to escape doomads narrative..

i know the max script size became unbounded up to the entire blocksize but who is going to really do that though franky? how many times did it actually get done? not many right? you're worrying about a non-event. now if someone came along and filled up block after block with a single transaction that might be a cause for concern but that's not happening. so chill out.

what you should be asking is why did they do that and i don't think the answer is it is just something they overlooked.


the bitcoin development process is similar to the linux kernel one. not exactly the same but similar. i don't see an issue with either. they both have developed very successful products which are standing the test of time.

i did read the part of that BIP and they addressed the unlimited script size explaining why there didn't need to be a hard cap on it. so for you to suggest it was just an oversight on their part, no it's in the BIP. i'm not sure if they realized monkeys might be the end result but i hardly think it was a surprise to them when it happened.

i'm a big believer in open source/free software franky. you should know that. but part of that belief means having an attitude of appreciation to the people that wrote the software and maintain it. if i don't like the direction they're going in, i can pay someone to modify it or do it myself if i know how or i can just use something else. but what i can't do is sit there and act like a baby and crying. waiting for someone to come clean things up for me. be an adult franky. fix your own problems. fix bitcoin yourself instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you. if it's that important to you.


they should listen to their employer the person that pays their bills. and if they're really nice, waste some time to consider what others have to say like yourself. but don't expect any promises.

if you think being a core dev is easy franky then why don't you try and be one? you could then put in the changes you wanted and fix everything. you yourself said you know how to program so it should be a breeze. you might need to change your username though so they don't figure out what your real motive is...

i have already mentioned the changes. ive mentioned the opcodes used and also the changes such as to the max_script_length went from 520b, 10kb, maxweight
these things are easy for you to find in cores github and things you can search for using google in seconds.. TRY IT
learn how do do research

i know you want to ignore code. ignore who caused exploits and instead BLINDLY pretend those that caused the exploits are the best authority and no one should independently review, question or scrutinise them.. ok i got it you love centralised authoritarianism with no accountability.. i get it. you are one of those type of idiots..
.. but take a chance on yourself. really push yourself out of your blind comfort zone and try to learn something

your the type of guy that would next be promoting to close the source code to not be publicly readable because you think the core devs should not be accountable for their code changes so there is no need for public readable code to review/scrutinise them..

you are already close minded about independent review by your admission that you think core devs shouldnt listen to the community..

but here is a tip
dont waste years being doomads echo chamber. and instead dare yourself to learn, discover, research bitcoin for yourself without being spoonfed empty promises that get broken

then feel free and correct any inaccuracies. but i don't believe some of the things you say matter as much as you think they do. like fingerpointing about who made this commit or who made that one. it's almost like you take it personally when someone makes a modification to bitcoin core and need to know who it was that did it so you can hold them accountable personally. they don't answer to you.

what does it matter who changed what? it has to go through an approval process. i'm sure they just don't let someone put anything they want into bitcoin core. if that was the case it would be filled with malware and things that stole peoples' private keys. has that ever happened? therefore they are doing a good job.

i guess that's their perogative then. why do you get to tell them what to do though?

maybe it's more like they don't want to hear the same thing over again? they're not there to be abused by complete strangers you know.

larry i have read the code and many technical discussions.. YOU HAVE NOT
you simply get your dreams from doomad

maybe if you did read the code you will learn what has changed and who changed it

they do not want to fix it for many reasons.. not technical reasons.. just political
yes its technically possible to fix but CORE DO NOT WANT TO FIX IT, which is why they are not doing any code changes to fix it and deleting comments and moderating out attempts to try to get core devs to do it.. heck even doomad is trying to get people to stop asking core to do it

well i don't know about that franky. everyone knows that you have to check input length IF you don't want unlimited lengths. everyone knows that. especially beginning programmers. i don't know if it could be that simple of an explanation about why monkeys exist on the blockchain.

you don't just assume something will be one thing when you don't even check to make sure. there has to be other reasons. such as upgradeability in the future or something. if it was just a careless oversight then this thread wouldn't exist since they would have fixed it already.


yeah i think franky might be wrong on that one...

In the meantime, a month-old transaction with 9 sats/vbyte just got confirmed.
Observing 25,810@Stamp.

Bitcoin is winning, (again)

dare you to put a 3.96mb meme into a legacy transaction

dare you to read the code where it changed from expecting a signature of ~73bytes, to then later be 520byte for a new format for "scripts"(multisig)

dare you to read the code where it changed from not allowing 'scripts' to be more then 520byte.. until that was relaxed to 10kb
dare you to read the code where it changed to not allow 'scripts' to be more then 10kb.. until that was relaxed to be less than blockweight

the funny part is your forum-wife(blackhatcoiner) atleast admits the reason why they removed the 10kb limit, it was because core devs (ignorantly) assumed that taproot scripts would be one signature length so they ASSUMED there was no point in length checking a script(save calculation/computational checking time) if the ASSUMPTION was the length would only be a short 1x signature length.. and guess what.. now we are seeing scripts(junk) in taproot that are far longer then the promised and assumed 1x signature length

LIAR.  You are making things up again.  DOGE hasn't "relaxed" anything.




LIAR.  You are making things up again.  You can't help but lie and lie some more.




But we literally just established that Ordinals can still occur without any of the changes Core have made.  Your issue is with satoshi's code.  The potential for Ordinals has been there since the Genesis Block.

You are a liar.

those other networks relaxed their rules.. inspired by what core done
yes core relaxed the rules on bitcoin via wanting to implement segwit and taproot. assuming that no one would exploit the lack of checks, limits, expectation when they implemented segwit/taproot.

and other network simply relaxed the rules for THEIR OTHER NETWORKS purely just to relax the rules, purely to ride the fashion trend of scamming victims out of value for nonsense memes.. inspired by what happened with bitcoin

and it is always funny how you pretend that bitcoin is some AI code that self made itself, where you dont want people to talk about WHO actually maintains the bitcoin network code and decides on rule changes.

here is a lesson. bitcoin is not AI. bitcoin actually does have developers that make rule change decisions for bitcoin. and when you stop wasting your life on asskissing and see WHO made such changes, which allowed the exploit to make ordinals possible on bitcoin. you will learn it was not some doge bunny coder or some altnet that caused ordinals on bitcoin. it was the core devs that softened the rules with their bad assumptions on bitcoin

i am laughing more at your stupidity when you dont want people to look at bitcoin code to see who wrote the bitcoin code(core) that caused this fiasco. even going as far as you pretending core dont exist and are just some boogiemen fantasy..
 but instead you want people to look at doge code and try to shift the blame on them.. much like you pretended that it was miners that were to blame for the exploit

you could earn more pennies doing stand-up comedy of acting like an idiot on stage(seems to be your talent). because if after 6 years of ass kissing if your still needing to penny scrape using sig campaigns and have yet to earn sponsorship from those you ass kiss.. .. maybe ass kissing is not as lucrative as you were hoping and its time you change your role

so remember this lesson.
CORE did soften the rules for BITCOIN which allowed the crap to happen to BITCOIN
doge devs didnt do it to bitcoin. core devs did

and my last point about you (your hypocrisy)

doomad conservative: "no one should use bitcoin to move 0.001btc with <300byte for <0.00001fee  because it causes bloat to have many small transactions"

doomad anti-censor: "anyone one should use bitcoin to move 0.00000001btc with 3960000byte of bloat for 0.001fee because we want bloat and high fees for little value spend because it promotes our other network that people should use for their actual bitcoin value movemnts we dont want to see on bitcoin"