Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 37. (Read 9124 times)

I'd call that 'supply & demand' rather than 'censorship', but otherwise, yes.  That's pretty much what it boils down to.  There are cheaper blockchains to spam, so this current attention we're getting from the novelty-picture-brigade hopefully won't last long.  If I'm wrong and they keep spamming the BTC chain, then it's up to the collective network as a whole to decide what, if anything, needs to be done about it.  But I'd rather see a productive conversation about it, rather than a witch-hunt.    

---

I don't recall anyone specifically advocating for high fees.  That's just more dishonesty on your part.  Reasonable people are simply suggesting that market forces shouldn't be artificially manipulated one way or the other.  Fee bidding has always been organic.  As soon as you attempt to tip the scales one way or another, the onus is on you to justify why everyone should accept your suggested manipulation.  Your case remains unconvincing.  Come up with better arguments.

One could also argue that those who can only think as far as copying what unsuccessful altcoins have done; Those who would mimic the cheap, faltering, dismal clones of Bitcoin; Those who would willingly sacrifice what makes Bitcoin stand out from the sea of unremarkable shite out there, they would be the one who doesn't care about Bitcoin.  That's you, by the way.  Maybe come up with something more original than "let's do the same thing worthless altcoins did and sacrifice decentralisation for throughput, even though it completely defeats the whole point of having a decentralised network in the first place" and people might start taking you seriously.  One-trick-pony, much?

And for the record, I'm not completely opposed to increases to the size of blocks.  I just happen to believe it will only occur when those supporting the network are prepared to bear the cost of such increases.  And I'm yet to see any evidence to counter that belief.  Individual zealots perched atop their soapboxes, preaching their hate-filled dogma to the crowd, have remarkably little say in the matter.  The network is naturally resistant to such noise.  Sorry, but you don't get to demand that other people pay the cost for everything.  If you want to use the valuable resource others are providing you with, you pay for it.  Nowhere is it said that someone not only has to provide you with a service and also pay for it themselves, just so you can be a parasitic leech and get something for nothing.  But everything you describe in your fantasy-fascist-fuckwit-franky wishlist sounds like you just want free shit handed to you.


  

---

I certainly feel that 'incentive versus disincentive' is a much healthier line of discussion than 'Orwellian crackdowns on freedom', so I'm intrigued where this goes.  Please continue.

I agree, they are very different in nature and it would be hard to use the same mechanisms in Bitcoin. Maybe they could be used just as inspiration and we could create something new that fits Bitcoin and still lets us achieve the same goals.

People have the right to add things to their transactions, but other people have the right to reject such transactions. It's a matter of which group is going to be bigger in the end.

I agree that there should be some censorship and that censorship should not be done the authoritarian way, but rather the libertarian way, with a pinch of capitalism.
If someone came to me and told me they want to spray my car bright pink and do the same with my house because they're making a youtube challenge or something, I wouldn't say no, I'd ask what am I getting out of it. If you pay me $20k, go ahead and paint my car pink, I'll go get it wrapped for 5k and have another 15k left.

You want to spam the network, fine, but how much are you willing to pay?

I'd rather not see a picture of a penguin or a monkey attached to my transaction, but if someone is willing to pay big money for that, so be it. Maybe we'll all profit on this thing one day because Judy will pay 100k to have her instagram link on every full node.

i know you dont talk to people outside your narrow minded buzzword.. thats why you sound like an echo chamber of idiot narratives

but one day i hope you do escape the trap you set yourself
i hope one day you find confidence to escape it and decide its time to learn about consensus and bitcoins rules(code)

i thought i seen you attempt glimmer of that confidence a couple months ago. but today you have shown you have lost confidence and again are shying away from speaking outside your echo chamber bubble group

Here's a minor but important thing to note: those particular cryptocurrencies you mentioned previously didn't begin with this feature, which appeared to be a trouble for some later on. And even if they did, removing it later should be considered censorship. Bitcoin on the other hand allows you to store data since v0.1. Second, as far as I understand, cryptocurrencies like grin and monero don't have the analog of OP_RETURN? Isn't that a serious disadvantage for forward compatibility?

I don't talk with people who don't agree with me on Bitcoin's most important principle being censorship resistance.

businesses and greedy people make no money from a peer 2 peer transaction on bitcoin
because if you can move your wealth to another bitcoin address there is no custodian/business service taking a cut

so those greedy schemers try to built alternative systems/networks and try to delay bitcoin utility growth by trying to claim these other networks are bitcoin 2.0 trying to get people over to other networks that do charge middlemen routing fee's and balance borrowing to get payments from source to destination..

its these greedy schemers that want to break bitcoin to promote their alternative networks as the solutions

they dont want onchain tx scaling growth. they dont want cheap fee's on bitcoin. they dont want people having easily usage of bitcoin. they want to bloat it up and kill of tx payment utility on bitcoin as it feeds into their greed if they can recruit people to their other network

they want the spam they want the bloat they want high bitcoin fee's and low transaction counts.. they dont care about bitcoin. they are altcoiners

Of course like i was saying, this is only the beginning. There is a spam attack going on, some with commercial incentive, and some people want to pretend its nothing.

Its not about NFTs, its about spam. Anything that is not Bitcoin transactions is spam and this spam is going to grow if left unchecked, like some people want. Who benefits from the destruction of Bitcoin?

blackhatcoiner is stuck in the madhatter narrative.
he does not realise that changing the rule for taproot from 'upto 3.99mb' to '80bytes' does not cause any network split or require mass node adoption to activate
it just requires miner assisted activation (them consenting to follow new rule and reject bloaty tx that have meme data)

bitcoin was never a meme library so rejecting memes is not censoring things bitcoin is meant for
its actually ensuring bitcoin remains what it is meant for

bitcoin has always had rules to reject certain data/tx's.. thats why you dont see double spends or sat dust transactions or other altcoin transactions or pictures of shopping lists. or [insert many examples of things not allowed into a block]

I already mentioned some examples how to disincentivize it. For instance, some privacy coins drastically reduce the amount of publicly viewable data per transaction due to encryption of many transaction components. Therefore, the overhead of misusing the blockchain for something it's not made for, becomes much more expensive, without having to resort to increasing the transaction fee rate (as you suggest) which would affect everyone (especially also people just sending money around).

ae92e8302a1532635b7b688363f031992c4e073f1ba534f8ebb0f4efee5584a8
[from: blk760,000 txidh45hbl4hblah output 0
to 1000 bc1pnutty
to 1000 bc1pdumbdum
signed]
meme


ok as you can see meme is appended to the very end it is not put where the satoshis sit  
the data of the entire transaction does not command/inform that the meme is to be tethered to the first "1000"
in any way by any association of actual data suggesting so in the blockchain
its just put at the end as deadweight

emphasis in real blockchain data the meme is not in the 1000 area nor includes anything in real data to say its associated with 1000

when spending nutty THINKS meme is locked to his output. but again no blockchain data even does that. its just an idea of caseys, where casey can change his idea without affecting blockdata

anyway
imagine the human readable tx above gets locked into block 778,000

so nutty is making a tx
1e03044f7c7ff3f04301d9494f25d13d50b5311a0d549a5f939fb7a56cc216ba
[from: blk778,000 ae92e8302a1532635b7b688363f031992c4e073f1ba534f8ebb0f4efee5584a8 output 0
to 1 bc1pfruitcake
to 749 bc1nutty
signed] (nutty pays 250 sat fee)

here as you can see the transaction does not contain the meme
nor any reference in the tx data that there is something special about the satoshi being sent to fruitcake

fruitcake has the txid of 1e03044f7c7ff3f04301d9494f25d13d50b5311a0d549a5f939fb7a56cc216ba to use for its own utxo

but guess what there is nothing about that tx that says anything about a meme property inside it.. no meme itself, no meme in the sat, no special stuff at all.. nothing in the sat area.. nothing in the witness area.. its all just done by caseys "chain analysis" where caseys software decides to follow output 0 taints forward to make a PRESUMPTION that fruitcake owns the meme now

and casey can easily change his PRESUMPTION by changing his "chain analysis" tainting program to just say "follow 'output1' not 'output 0'" and suddenly dumdum owns the meme in caseys software.. all without changing any block data

and thats why it fails the NFT/ownership test. because there is no actual data change/movement/ownership or involvement in each transaction that shows property/value moving with ownership change of the property item supposedly being moved (the meme never moves)

and suddenly by caseys software changing its presumed taint path. ownership can change without fruitcake being involved in any decision

UNDERSTAND NOW?

And I'm all in for that too, as long as the only disincentive to this is the transaction fee. I can't figure out another way to stop this upcoming junk without censoring. And if you have to censor certain transactions for not being in favor of "peer-to-peer electronic cash", you're opening the Pandora's box of "how do you know what's a currency transaction and what's not".

Serious question here: if I create a softfork with minimum recognition, do I make the rest of you less full?

Its the same thing.  


Wrong. The reference is the tx.


Again, if you bothered to take one second to understand how it actually works you'd realize this isn't possible. But you won't. Just don't expect your misinformation to go unchallenged.

and thats the silly stuff that needs correcting..
they are not wrote into satoshis. they are placed as dead weight data into the witness area which is separate to the value stuff.
and when value is spent the next tx has no references in a spending tx that even references the dead weight data.

when/if the silly ordinals go bad and/or casey changes his algo to change which output he deemed is owner. and people are left realising they overpaid for something they have no claim over.. they will say bitcoin cheated them

Good news for NFT lovers, bad news for NFT haters. Yuga Labs, the creator of Bored Apes Yacht Club and who also owns the rights for other bluechip NFTs has launched Twelvefold NFT collection in the bitcoin blockchain. I am not quite certain when an exchange for NFTs similar to opensea.io will be created for bitcoin NFTs, however, I am quite certain Twelvefold will by very popular for the NFTspace.



Yuga Labs, the creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club, announced the release of a new bitcoin-based NFT collection called TwelveFold.

The collection will consist of 300 generative art pieces inscribed onto satoshis on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Inscriptions, also known as digital artifacts, are created when a file, such as an art image like those created for TwelveFold, is written (or inscribed into) units of Bitcoin called satoshis, the smallest individually identifiable units of Bitcoin.

Source https://www.theblock.co/post/215504/yuga-labs-drops-bitcoin-based-nft-collection-twelvefold

right!

just the other day someone uploaded a naked lady with her boobs exposed! i'm sure satoshi would not be too excited that this is what became of bitcoin, a storage place for nudes. 

bitcoin is not a knowledge library like wiki .. its not wiki. its a financial network for making p2p payments of units called satoshis which come in 100,000,000 sat batches called btc

if you want a wiki knowledge library blockchain you can make your own

trying to suggest bitcoin should be a knowledge library wiki blockchain and if people want to make payments they should use alternative sub-networks is a stupid and absolute idiot bait and switch game of foolish twits that hate bitcoin and want to promote their adoration of people that want to break bitcoin

as for meme crap data
well
something that has not been done yet (hopefully wont happen if the "upto4mb" taproot tx witness space per tx is swapped out for logically acceptable and promised "upto 80bytes")

is that people can instead of putting in meme bloat. can put in
(human readable translated for this post)

twitidiot12345 (1000dumbpoints) -> twitidiot54321 (1000dumbpoints)

where its hashed with a txid and signed with some new keypair(i used twit idiot instead of public keys for posts demo translation)

 where by the 'witness data' then includes a new currency system for idiots to then have their own twit-idiot tokens
thus having a idiot transaction WITHIN a taproot transaction

UTXOset database in their idiot nodes referencing twit-idiot utxoset within btc-UTXOset to then transact sub tokens of twit-idiot dumbpoint tokens within the bitcoin network

The bitcoin we're using now is not exactly the same bitcoin that it was in 2009. First there was no block limit, then 1MB, now it's up to 4 with an additional minimum size limit. I'm a maximalist at heart, but I'm not a purist. We do have consensus after all and bitcoin can be upgraded and updated.
As for full nodes, do they change anything when it comes to uploading? If We had a requirement that they have to run a node to upload garbage, you'd still be against it.

What if some knowledge starts being censored and by uploading it to the blockchain people will still be able to distribute it, the way you can get manuals on how to 3d print weapons, or mix chemicals to get drugs and explosives? I know that the answer to this is "but what if they upload child porn or doxxed data?", but then we're going into "what is freedom?" debate.

The problem of ordinals is so difficult because your freedom ends when it starts to threaten others and make their lives more difficult. If you upload useful data, it's fine, but if you upload something that makes the network sluggish and bloats it so that others have to buy more and more storage, they are not going to applaud you.

it is funny when doomad saying pruning is full.. but then and goes and calls a node with pruning a "pruned node" and not a full node. seems even he cant escape the common sense that using different levels of core features/flaws redefines the node status needing to give it a different status/title

i talk about alot of things. you only get triggered by certain topics because they are the things that are paying your income to support your narrative you are made to sell.

either you are a paid snake oil salesman made to say stupid stuff... or you genuinely do earn the idiot title..
..your choice.
snake oil salesman.. or idiot

because your narratives are stupid, they dont even come close to common sense let alone fact.
the version of events i talk about can be backed up by code, blockdata.

so take some time and try just for once. to learn about bitcoin.

---

last funny..
doomad loved that someone abused a flaw to add in bloat.. using the soft method
but dare anyone use the same soft method to fix the flaw and doomad comes out screaming telling people what to do and telling them to get off the network, to leave it be

his old mantra was "conservatism" until things went soft and let anything in.
now its "censorship resisting" until someone wants to change something without censorship

seems he only likes it when certain people change certain things without network consent

but it is funny seeing how his motives and narratives change to fit whatever latest scheme he wants to promote.. shameful, but funny

Fair enough.  Normally you're bitching about SegWit, but apparently today it's pruning.  Forgive me for not keeping up with all the things you despise about Bitcoin.  If you don't want to call pruned nodes full, that's up to you, but don't expect others to obey your arbitrary standards.


//EDIT:


You get triggered by Bitcoin itself.  


//EDIT2:


Wrong as usual.  I'm encouraging you, once again, to release some code.  Build it.  Share it.  Show us how it's done.  It's your inalienable right.  Use it.

Someone might even choose to run it.  But you'll never know unless you try.

^                                                                            ^
someone definitely needs his first ever full body massage

its funny because things like pruning did not exist when the term full was first used thus pruning alters the node usage case thus pruning is part of fool node status not full node

he is the type of guy that wants to pretend pruning was around from the start and thus all nodes were always pruning thus the top level of utility was always prune mode

its also funny that the guy above has been around for enough years to learn about bitcoin. and learn about the service bits announcement to peers to tell a peer how full their status is. .. its a pitty that he never takes the time to learn about bitcoin

last laugh is when he pretends lowly old me is the one changing the terminology. when actual fact is im reminding people what the terminology always has been before his buddys wanted things changed

final point
when the blockchain is the fuel but you only want to fill your tank with 288blocks of 778000
you are only filling the tank with 0.037% of fuel

you wont get anywhere thinking you have a full tank , when reality is your tank only has 0.037% of fuel