Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 32. (Read 9124 times)

doomad

users can choose to be full nodes, fool nodes or lite nodes or lite wallets

but you trying to tell people that when they choose to not upgrade
when you say pruning is X that in YOUR narrative they are still full nodes.. WHICH IS WRONG

they are downrated to fool node status and for emphasis again is downrating users to fool nodes status
because and whereby they are not doing full validation or full archiving

GET IT

there are changes that occur to the blockchain and allowing crap in, even before core even have a node release

so stop all the harping about "users have a choice to download"

but when it comes to users who want to be FULL nodes, is what my point was about
the set of users that actually want to be full nodes.

when new ruleset is implemented NOW.. what was fullnodes yesterday. does not require the full nodes to upgrade PRE ACTIVATION to trigger an activation anymore.
(security risk)

 but does cause the full nodes of even yesterday to be downrated to fool node status because NOW they are then no longer fully validating a new ruleset if implemented today(now)
...
so i am trying to get you to pick a narrative out of the three narratives you flip between and then stick to it.

becasue you are flip flopping with how you see that consensus works.

again
you previously have said things like
extreme A
there is no true consensus and never has been

b
then you said that nothing gets activated unless consensus is reached
(saying consensus exists is still hard and there was no softening)

c
then you say there was consensus but it has softened

so pick one
pick a narrative and stick to it. stop being a troll who changes narrative just to sound like an idiot, the cry when being called one

..
as for your empty cries about 6% veto and causing hardforks. you are a complete idiot
on many parts of that narrative.

but by trying to say  what you said about how YOU feel about majority consensus pre activation shows which narrative you are favouring today.. the one where you dont want consensus

firstly
soft consensus does not produce forks as that was the point of that trojan backdoor
it just downrates unready nodes to fool node status

hard consensus does not always cause forks
there are  3 main results
1. majority at any scale not reached. thus nothing activates and devs need to try a new idea
2. majority is reached and feature activates with majority readiness thus no fork
3. forced activation in minority causes a fork due to faking readiness but not having the nodes to secure network wide alignment of which blocks contain good or bad old or new rules


oh
last thing
YOU love new rules invading the network without invitation/consent
so that must make you the nazi

YOU love that their is now an army of dead weight monkeys in the network which people cant reject/evict/stop future invasions

YOU want people to just comply and accept an invading ruleset without checking if its good or bad

I think what the demented sociopath is trying to say (although failing dismally at it) is that he hates users having a choice.  At the moment, users can either choose to run:

a) a SegWit-and-Taproot-Compatible node
b) a SegWit node that doesn't support Taproot
c) a node that supports neither SegWit nor Taproot

Whichever they freely choose to run, they can send and receive Bitcoin transactions in their chosen supported formats.    

However, franky1 would rather see a system where SegWit and Taproot never existed because 6% of the network hold a veto preventing 94% of the network from enjoying new features they might want to use .  He would rather see only hardforks, where users would get divided into separate chains and then the weaker chain dies off, leaving users no alternatives (and there were softforks prior to 2017, but franky1 is either too deluded or too pig-ignorant to acknowledge this and persists with the outright and egregious lie that all forks prior to 2017 were hardforks).  With the way things work at the moment, the entire network can remain together and users opt-in to the features they want.  He calls this "weakening consensus", but I would maintain that a network which keeps users together is stronger than a network that drives a wedge between users every time they don't agree on something.


//EDIT:


Repeat it all you like, no one is adopting your bullshit, make-believe definitions.  You are the fool.  You can choose to validate everything by being SegWit and Taproot compatible, but no one is going to force you to do that if you don't want to.  You have the choice, but all you do is moan about the fact that you and everyone else have been offered that choice.  Again, you want a network where users have no choice but to obey fuhrer-franky1, the psychotic despot.  


//DOUBLE_EDIT:


Said the headcase who has spent the last half-a-decade or more whining about "fake consensus", "bypassed consensus" and now his latest gormless catchphrase "soft consensus" because he doesn't like the manner in which miners and nodes reached consensus to introduce the features he despises so much.  I'm happy with the consensus we have.  You are the one who wants to change consensus to prevent future softforks, but you have no code (and no clue, apparently).   

But yeah, please keep asking for the impossible and then whining like a baby when you don't get it.  It shows real maturity and growth on your part.   

If this had actually happened he would have filled bitcointalk about it instead of spreading misinformation with vague claims. As I pointed out above even if a PR is removed from BIPs repository it can not and will not be removed from the original repository of the person creating the PR.

So you are only going to react when it reaches $10? what if bitcoin price jumps up again? What about the others joining? You just mentioned Yugalabs which added to Ordinals, is that the end of the spammers? I doubt it, especially when they report profit from abusing the blockchain its signaling more spammers to come, the floodgates are open...

Have you got a example of this because if the proposed fixes bring more problems then fixes then I can see why they get rejected and any fixes to ordinal could be seen as censorship because you are stopping people from doing what they want to do. I think some thing needs to be done but I do not think that it is a easy problem to solve and there might have been many people who have tried and got rejected but I have faith that they got rejected because their fixes were not adequate to fixing it instead of being rejected instantly.

first of all
the dead weight memes are not NFT's
they are just memes thrown into witness section of a tx and sit there DEAD.

there is no ownership transfer reference in blockchain data. (no hash moving per output)
new "owners" of dead weight are not actual owners of anything in their utxo that references the dead weight.

all they have is taint.. but so does other people that the inititial tx sent to(including itself as change

the BITCOIN protocol has no knowledge of any ownership outside the creation tx containting the dead weight meme

other taints has no references.
if casey wanted to change his chain analysis to be output 2 instead of 1 (code level 1 instead of 0)
casey can change his ownership system without affecting blockdata
thus its not a blockchain immutable ownership system that moves property/value with new owner

secondly
the fee's have not punished bloaters (dead weight memes) instead its made the average person pay more

there was new code added where transactions were measured in sats per kb of data.
this allowed transactions to get down to 1sat/byte fee for a period. and now this bloat is trying to push people to pay more for normal transactions. while the bloat meme tx creators are paying less than 1sat/byte

yep if there was no meme bloat. people would be paying less than 1 sat/byte right now

seems like bitcoin fees haven't really gone up though yet, judging by tx fee charts in USD. They were around $1-$2 the past few months and still in that range. I mean I guess in Dec/Jan they were just under a dollar and now they are back to over $1.00 but doesn't seem bad. I expected based on all the ordinal talk on here for it to be like $10 but it's pretty much unchanged.



Anyway, I'm really wondering what the NFT people think of this. I saw an article by the Bored Apes company CEO saying this is great for Bitcoin and it'll make Bitcoin the center for more of the crypto world and really expand its reach as L1 smart contract chains will start tying into Bitcoin and Bitcoin will become sort of like the central hub for crypto stuff as well instead of just digital money. But this seems like a crazy stretch, specifically he didn't once mention how NFTs will just clog up the blockchain from being used as money as it is intended. I gotta believe he is a smart guy so is this just all self promotion because they are in the NFT business or does he actually somehow see a way that NFTs on Bitcoin is good and there will somehow be a solution to the mess NFTs are gonna cause. Cuz I don't see how he could possibly have that view and I'm guessing he just sees dollar signs for his company so he is just spinning this as a good thing that will help Bitcoin grow.

8th day, my transaction was dropped again. Re-broadcast won't cut it anymore, node is rejecting 1 sat/b. Thanks to the spammers, the "new normal" is now 3 sat/b, here we go again...

ok then pooya
seeing as many have tried to propose fixes for ordinal bloat and got no where

if you think its easy .. lets see you have a bip number of a proposal to lean down the taproot sigop(witness weight) to 80bytes. per input

we all await seeing how easy it is to "just write a bip"

and no dont try to spin it back where i have to link something thats been removed (thus no link)
but if you claim its easy to get a bip listing. display the ease of it
(hint many have tried)

most dont get passed the mailing list moderation..
but if you think you can get a bip published that solves the meme junk. using one of the many ideas found in this topic and other topics like it.. please do use your special access VIP pass

There are no "tests" to go through first. Like any other repository on Github There are certain criteria before the PR is merged otherwise abusers and trolls would spam the repository.

Post actual examples of these cases. It is not like the proposal disappears from Github, after all you have to first create a fork of the repository then make your commits.

1. its not simply 'write a bip' in a format and submit it..
it requires going through a few tests first (yes the guidelines of now 'bip guideline 2' (which are treated as rules not just a guide))

they have become very anal/ god-mode about their status to remove/ban stuff for lame silly reasons to avoid things that people want
in total theres like 3 levels of them moderating it in or out before it even gets listed as a proposal on github with a bip number

and like said before and by many people for years if anyone tried to make a different brand full node with a proposal included where they just let people openly download it.. core see it a a competitor/opposition rather than a decentralised node brand that should be able to do what core does on the same level as core

2. nope not status changes. i mean actually not even publishing bips and just banning users from access to whole bitcoin github if they see a bip that diverges away from cores roadmap even if it still meets majority user benefit and keeps bitcoin philosophy

there are hundreds of devs that left bitcoin over the last decade to make other cryptos due to the god-mode moderation of core devs with ego trips

and its why its taking so long to even get a simple fix to be proposed officially

1. What do you mean by pass few tests? Guideline on BIP 1/2? Something else?
2. I don't know about user got banned. But do you mean "Status: Rejected" or "Status: Withdrawn" when you mention said "many bips get removed/revoked/not acknowledged"?
3. Yes, it's true not all BIP will be implemented on Bitcoin Core.
4. I mention Bech32/Bech32m only as example of same primary author. For example of listed BIP due to persistence, BIP 100 to 109 should be better example.

not everyone can "just create a bip"
first you have to pass a few tests of core demands for core to even acknowledge the bip as acceptable just to be listed

many bips get removed/revoked/not acknowledged and users banned because bips didnt follow the core roadmap

secondly even if you get your bip listed in the core github list of possible bips. this does not mean core will automatically commit to code then merge it into a release candidate. especially if the proposal opposes the core roadmap


as for the bech32 and bech32m. they are not simple edits of one proposal being persistant..
bech32 was segwit using witness version0 which is limited to certain segwit functions of opcodes,, and bech32m is for a different level of tx formats of witness v1 opcodes. for things like descriptors of taproot and such

but yes both segwit and taproot stuff was wrote by Pieter Wuille(and luke JR help) and yes both segwit and taproot ended up getting pushed into code with activated rules due to his insider circle of devs
and yes both segwit and taproot got activated without majority node readiness prior to activation and where both segwit and taproot were activated without finishing the code to make both formats secure and fully functional for their purpose/promise

contrary to doomad(he cant stick to one narrative)

the sole main full node reference client that all other wallets emulate/follow is core.
the core devs admit they are a central point of failure and they are the "reference client" aka the core(center) of the network..(yep they did not pick the brand name randomly)..

people dont choose to run core and then cores new rules activate.. its instead cores new rules activate and people then have to rush to run core updates to stay in full node validation and archival status

and thats how core dominated the network

heck even doomad admitted to it previously that he loves that core are the defacto dev group of protocol change decisions

yep doomad and those involved in core REKT campaigned any other brand that wanted to be a true full node that had its own proposal mechanism and its own new ruleset implementation effort

and doomad knows it and when sober he admits it.. seems he is drunk right now and cant remember what he said previous to this morning

funny part is

just last week doomad was saying the opposite saying how there was no true consensus and saying how people dont vote dont consent and core devs should and do get to push through any code they please..

now doomad is trying to back flip and say things the way i said how bitcoin worked 2009-16 (hard consensus era) but HE pretending its still the case now. even though recent posts of his was adoring the soft consensus methods of core in recent years

he can never get the right narrative for the correct period of time

doomad:
pick a narrative and stick to it
A. your old misleading narrative that there never was true/hard consensus. and it was just a franky dream

B changing rules requires majority node consent with a true mass consent/acceptance/readiness BEFORE activation. where nodes had to upgrade first

c. there was hard consensus requiring mass upgrade pre activation.. but has been softened in recent years where rules change without mass upgrade first

Contrary to what some might tell you, the Bitcoin network is formed of individuals with minds of their own.  Those individuals are making conscious decisions about the code they choose to run.  At the moment, the vast majority are choosing to run Core.  Devs don't have "control" because if Users don't approve of what the Devs have coded, they can simply refuse to run it.

I wouldn't personally mind if other people formed Dev teams of their own.  However, it remains to be seen that other teams would be able to compete and provide a platform as stable and robust as what we currently have.  I get that people are upset by spam, but this is clearly a case of unforeseen circumstances.  It wasn't possible to know in advance that someone was going to exploit a feature for this purpose.  The intended purpose was, in fact, to assist with scaling.  It was designed to allow more transactions to fit in a block.

Users and Miners are the ones who hold the most "control" in Bitcoin.  Unless, like franky1, you believe all the Users are "sheep" and unable to think for themselves.  His entire outlook is predicated on the notion that all Users (and Devs, for that matter) are complete idiots.  And then, when he's finished insulting everyone to their face, he expects everyone to be receptive to his ideas.   

until you realise that the dog poop was sold by the dog owner to the dog owner thus costing and receiving the dog owner zero profit/loss..
.. all so he can then put it on a real market hoping someone will then pay 2btc in the future..

you can spot this becasue when a crap meme pops up and its instantly bought up for mega amount............... month later same crap meme is been on the market for months but still showing the same named owner

if something was truly desirable to be TRULY bought up so quickly as a first purchase within short time. then the desire would remain to sell buy sell buy repeatedly at same speed

its like real estate
if a luxury villa was bought up quick.. other admirers would be trying to call up the recent buyer to buy it off them(quick flip) for more even if its not now on the market. people would still want to buy from the buyer
however if it went onto market again and lingered there where the buyer is seen as the same owner for months.. then that fake first purchase 'to flip' was a fake price action because it doesnt fit the markets real demand.. or lack of

There are always gamblers around who want to make bets on price of anything they buy in the cryptocurrency market. If you manage to put dog poop in a pretty package and advertise it well, you will be able to find lots of them who would buy it.

segwit had a 2event process in under 2 months to activate it in 2017
NYA (economic nodes  threaten mining pools of rejecting blocks that dont comply)
MAHF (miners went to unnatural 100% block flag)

taproot only needed 1 process

as for your other assertions.. i think you need to do a little more research on events. and due to certain people crying each time i tell people how events occured i wont spoonfeed the info. so its best you do your own research by looking at actual block data and flag events of the periods to see what actually occured

economic nodes can make the same threat of NYA where pools that include deadweight block will get their blocks rejected. thus not even getting the 6.25btc reward. let alone the petty 0.0x fee you think they worry about

yep using the exact same tactics of segwit adoption against those that loved the segwit adoption
in short using the trojan against the trojan adorers. to get rid of the trojan and close the gate on its way out

that's correct. incompatible changes is what causes hard forks. compatible changes causes soft forks. so i guess segwit was a soft fork. same with taproot. bitcoin cash was a hard fork since they made the blocksize bigger.


but isn't that a big assumption that it is going to occur? it doesn't seem like the devs are going to play any role in that so that means you have to convince a majority of the bitcoin miners to go along with it. how likely is that? if i was a miner, it would be hard to do something that would reduce my profitability. that's why i mentioned "forks" because that might be the only way forward. clearly that would be a last resort option but if you can't get it done any other way then what other choice do you have? 

forks are where things divide out .. knives just cut straight through the crap in a straight line

we need to stop using concepts of forks and just cut through the crap and bring things back to a semblance of sanity and trim off future ability of the dead weight fat.

strengthening consensus rules does not cause forks. because.. a upto 80bytes at block 7x9,999 still fits within the current ruleset of upto weight(4mb)
because simply 80 is still within the limit

i wont destroy old blocks but will make new blocks collate leaner transactions and reject fat transactions trying to get into new blocks

thus it actually uses the trojan back door of sliding in a new rule without needing mass node acceptance. all it requires is majority of mining pools to implement, which then seals up the trojan back door on its way out

the whole scream if you hear "fork" campaign and then call everything a fork is stupid
especially since they use a backdoor that doesnt create forks..

hence why i have been saying softening consensus rather than softfork
and hardening consensus instead of hard fork

..
what should happen is once the hardening of census occurs. then yes there would be opcodes with unset parameters. but these would be disabled by default whereby if a new tx format wanted to become part of the ruleset. then devs need to release it as a proposal for users to download. and then only enable the opcode when majority is ready.. like how it used to be