Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 5. (Read 9235 times)
There are different approaches and varying degrees of flexibility or restrictions that can be applied in the development of a protocol like Bitcoin. Bitcoin's protocol development involved finding a balance between flexibility and rules to maintain the security, integrity, and consensus of the network. It is a complex task to meet diverse use cases while ensuring the network remains robust and resilient. Regarding the Taproot upgrade and its impact on space requirements, Taproot is primarily focused on improving the privacy, scalability, and flexibility of Bitcoin transactions. Although Taproot introduces new codes and features, it is designed to be backward compatible, meaning it does not significantly increase the capacity requirements for individual instances. The aim is to provide more efficient transaction processing while minimizing the impact on the size of the blockchain.
I've been feeding ChatGPT franky1 posts from this thread and others, gonna post this here because nothing new is being said or revealed. Sorry for not including you in on the fun larry, maybe next time.
that's ok. i prefer to raw unfiltered franky. not that i necessarily agree with him on everything though, especially how he created this new thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61864068that's really a new low for someone, especially how he disabled people from defending themself and just resorting to impeaching them right off the bat without any fair trial. i guess that's what franky has had to resort to since he can't post here anymore i guess. i'm sure he'll put me on his list of bad people in that thread too. which is kind of unfair how he can just put people in his "frankys list of an idiot group trying to ruin bitcoin to promote a alt network" in the off topic forum where someone that has no context might think he's actually got some factual basis
you lose franky if that's what you had to resort to...your behavior franky is unacceptable!!
funny thing is if you look at his list:
Quote from: franky1
doomad, blackhatcoiner, wind_fury, thecodebear, o_e_l_e_o, nutildah, n0nce
these are some of the most solid forum members ever. people that have a good head on their shoulders and always good for some solid input. unlike franky who is just a broken record...at least these people have an open mind. more than i can say for franky.
I'm actually the stupid one and the most ridiculed among those names, but I'm honored to be in franknbean's list. It probably shows I'm trying to be in the right path of my Bitcoin journey, and listening to the right people.
We shouldn't forget that franknbeans was telling people to support Bitcoin Unlimited, that to be with Roger Ver was the right side, and that users don't need to run full nodes.
6 Months...
^^^
Imagine being this disconnected from reality.
Franky you've once again talked yourself into an indefensible corner and this time there isn't a single soul left who takes you seriously anymore. Why do you keep coming back for more? Glossing over peoples' words to make assumptions about their motivations means you can't actually argue or debate whatever point it is you think you're making.
There's nothing left to be said here.
Imagine being this disconnected from reality.
Franky you've once again talked yourself into an indefensible corner and this time there isn't a single soul left who takes you seriously anymore. Why do you keep coming back for more? Glossing over peoples' words to make assumptions about their motivations means you can't actually argue or debate whatever point it is you think you're making.
There's nothing left to be said here.
nutildah you may pretend to be against ordinals in other topics.. i call that your recruitment campaign by trying to be onside to the majority to make some friends to then try to convert them to your cult leaders scriptures
but when it actually comes to conversations about stopping it.. you defend ordinals(as seen in this topic). you even go full on idiot trying to falsely prove that they work. you keep failing to prove it. even in the examples you gave. all you can do is ignore math, ignore economics and ignore block data and just quote the project manager as your proof of theory.. you cant prove a theory by just reading a theory.. you have to test it out using actual data and maths(which you ignore doing)
so its you that digs your own hole. you cant even stick to one narrative of for or against.
so yes i ignore your fake pretence of you occasionally pretending to be against ordinals and pretend to be not using them.. because you are soo deep in your hole of defending the (false) utility of ordinals for you to want to have it continue.. that i keep mentioning the parts where you idolise this crap
its too obvious in this topic that you must be financially motivated to want ordinals continuation.. because the lame occasional times you pretend to be against it. seems just empty comments made to try to make friends with others who are against it.. you sound more like those cult people that find a popular topic and you pretend to be like minded with people.. and then convert them to your religion
i simply tell people to think for themselves, and do their own research.. im not looking for friends, or ass kissers or loyalty. i just would prefer to see less idiots falling into centralised authoritarian cults that promote scams, illicit services, exploits and altnets as (pretend) bitcoin features
^^^
Imagine being this disconnected from reality.
Franky you've once again talked yourself into an indefensible corner and this time there isn't a single soul left who takes you seriously anymore. Why do you keep coming back for more? Glossing over peoples' words to make assumptions about their motivations means you can't actually argue or debate whatever point it is you think you're making.
There's nothing left to be said here.
Imagine being this disconnected from reality.
Franky you've once again talked yourself into an indefensible corner and this time there isn't a single soul left who takes you seriously anymore. Why do you keep coming back for more? Glossing over peoples' words to make assumptions about their motivations means you can't actually argue or debate whatever point it is you think you're making.
There's nothing left to be said here.
and both of you (larry and nutildah) are promoting things (say) you dont use, dont understand and dont realise they are broke but think they should be left alone continue to cause annoyance to bitcoiners because you think they are use cases that need to continue..
maybe you should actually try to learn how things work and no you dont have a higher or lower level understanding. you have no level of understanding how it actually works you just get told by idiots how they want to promise you that their descriptions of how they want the world to see their scams work. so they can scam people.
but hey if you want to promote things that annoy bitcoiners and are just their to syphon and scam value out of people. thats on you.
have a nice 7 years of ignorance. enjoy sitting in the hole you dug for yourself and i really do hope it takes less than 7 years for you to decide its worth learning about bitcoin and the causes of exploits.. but im guessing from your reactions and replies of finding excuses not to learn. it probably will be more then 7 years before you decide its time to not just be an echo of an idiot
enjoy your ignorance though
and if you dont want to be called an idiot in the future. stop acting like one .. instead try to learn stuff, not just follow an echo chamber of scam promotions
maybe you should actually try to learn how things work and no you dont have a higher or lower level understanding. you have no level of understanding how it actually works you just get told by idiots how they want to promise you that their descriptions of how they want the world to see their scams work. so they can scam people.
but hey if you want to promote things that annoy bitcoiners and are just their to syphon and scam value out of people. thats on you.
have a nice 7 years of ignorance. enjoy sitting in the hole you dug for yourself and i really do hope it takes less than 7 years for you to decide its worth learning about bitcoin and the causes of exploits.. but im guessing from your reactions and replies of finding excuses not to learn. it probably will be more then 7 years before you decide its time to not just be an echo of an idiot
enjoy your ignorance though
and if you dont want to be called an idiot in the future. stop acting like one .. instead try to learn stuff, not just follow an echo chamber of scam promotions
unlike larry who has not read any code
if I felt I needed to, I would Franky but I think I understand how ordinals works from a higher level such that it's not necessary to delve into bitcoin core to try and understand that topic. One the strangest parts about it is I've never even used the Lightning Network. I'm all for it but have never had use for it myself. And I'm also for patching up the taproot script exploit in SegWit. I don't think that will stop BRC20 at this point tho.
even with it in black and white, franky can't stop contradicting himself on your position as for me, i never used lightning and don't want to. it sounds too complicated no thanks. but i don't really care if they patch up the "exploit" or not. bitcoin needs more use cases, not less.
i laugh
funny part is everything i say can be backed up by solid blockchain data
unlike larry who has not read any code and keeps refusing to read code but pretends he knows the code although keeps saying how he shouldnt have to read code to know how bitcoin works. thus defeating his own defence by admitting he doesnt read the code to know how things work. instead he relies on trusting the name i mentioned not realising why i mentioned them because its them that are the broken record of idiots lacking research who never back up their statements with code.
but hey, larry has fallen into the cult. been suckered into the ass kissery and so he has made his bed.
ill give him pfft 7 years before he realises its time to escape the cult and think for himself for once
as for nutildah.. even he pretends to have never used lightning or ordinals but promotes the hell out of them even when they have been proven to be broke.. instead he wants to promote that they (falsely) work and its bitcoin that people should remain annoyed with and use less.. yep nutildah has shown many times in this very topic that he adores ordinals and doesnt want them to stp, even when he has been show that ordinals is broke and doesnt work as described.. so it makes me laugh when he pretend he wants it "patched" yet has been hell bent on (falsely)proving that ordinals has utility, even when it doesnt
again even nutildah should take some time to learn how the things he promotes work. rather then just blind trust his promotions by trusting the project managers empty promises..
as for the "i dont like someone limiting me to 520 bytes. maybe my redeem script needs to be larger"
here is the thing. if a code for a redeem script knows what to expect for a redeem script to work.. then it knows what to expect.. thus can have expectation rules of what to expect thus able to validate whats expected.
thus if the maximum redeem script for a 15 of 15 multisig is 520bytes then you can put an expectation that the most you need is 520bytes
if bitcoin then invents a new format that has say schnorr signature which promised to only be one signature length. and had an expectation of one signature length.. then the most that new feature would have an expectation of, is one signature length.. so would have an expectation rule to expect one signature length
..
but if you prefer a system that does not know what to expect, inspect or validate. then that is where rules can be broken and things allowed into a block that have not been validated/expected/inspected.
..
as for the rationale which blackhatcoiner quotes for the reason to remove expectation rules of data..
they say its not needed because the expectation is that the script is only one signature length so why waste time checking for length if there is an expectation that its always going to be only one length
the flaw in that theory is that taproot has proven to not be one signature length.. so it broke expectation they presumed.. so a rule would have been great to ensure that only a signature length was used.. instead of this junk data being allowed due to lack of checks
in short. they presumed and assumed without checking... which is the main flaw of lack of review, testing and scrutiny.. and its the main flaw of idiots that kiss ass.. they presume and assume without checking too
funny part is everything i say can be backed up by solid blockchain data
unlike larry who has not read any code and keeps refusing to read code but pretends he knows the code although keeps saying how he shouldnt have to read code to know how bitcoin works. thus defeating his own defence by admitting he doesnt read the code to know how things work. instead he relies on trusting the name i mentioned not realising why i mentioned them because its them that are the broken record of idiots lacking research who never back up their statements with code.
but hey, larry has fallen into the cult. been suckered into the ass kissery and so he has made his bed.
ill give him pfft 7 years before he realises its time to escape the cult and think for himself for once
as for nutildah.. even he pretends to have never used lightning or ordinals but promotes the hell out of them even when they have been proven to be broke.. instead he wants to promote that they (falsely) work and its bitcoin that people should remain annoyed with and use less.. yep nutildah has shown many times in this very topic that he adores ordinals and doesnt want them to stp, even when he has been show that ordinals is broke and doesnt work as described.. so it makes me laugh when he pretend he wants it "patched" yet has been hell bent on (falsely)proving that ordinals has utility, even when it doesnt
again even nutildah should take some time to learn how the things he promotes work. rather then just blind trust his promotions by trusting the project managers empty promises..
as for the "i dont like someone limiting me to 520 bytes. maybe my redeem script needs to be larger"
here is the thing. if a code for a redeem script knows what to expect for a redeem script to work.. then it knows what to expect.. thus can have expectation rules of what to expect thus able to validate whats expected.
thus if the maximum redeem script for a 15 of 15 multisig is 520bytes then you can put an expectation that the most you need is 520bytes
if bitcoin then invents a new format that has say schnorr signature which promised to only be one signature length. and had an expectation of one signature length.. then the most that new feature would have an expectation of, is one signature length.. so would have an expectation rule to expect one signature length
..
but if you prefer a system that does not know what to expect, inspect or validate. then that is where rules can be broken and things allowed into a block that have not been validated/expected/inspected.
..
as for the rationale which blackhatcoiner quotes for the reason to remove expectation rules of data..
they say its not needed because the expectation is that the script is only one signature length so why waste time checking for length if there is an expectation that its always going to be only one length
the flaw in that theory is that taproot has proven to not be one signature length.. so it broke expectation they presumed.. so a rule would have been great to ensure that only a signature length was used.. instead of this junk data being allowed due to lack of checks
in short. they presumed and assumed without checking... which is the main flaw of lack of review, testing and scrutiny.. and its the main flaw of idiots that kiss ass.. they presume and assume without checking too
that's ok. i prefer to raw unfiltered franky. not that i necessarily agree with him on everything though, especially how he created this new thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61864068
LOL. What a strange man. From his thread (which is in Off-Topic so nobody will ever read it):
i put this post here as reference, to link when people ask about who are the idiots of the forum who never want to do independent research about bitcoin nor care for bitcoin security/utility..
Nobody has ever or will ever ask franky his opinion about these things, especially people who know who he is.
One the strangest parts about it is I've never even used the Lightning Network. I'm all for it but have never had use for it myself. And I'm also for patching up the taproot script exploit in SegWit. I don't think that will stop BRC20 at this point tho.
I've been feeding ChatGPT franky1 posts from this thread and others, gonna post this here because nothing new is being said or revealed. Sorry for not including you in on the fun larry, maybe next time.
that's ok. i prefer to raw unfiltered franky. not that i necessarily agree with him on everything though, especially how he created this new thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61864068that's really a new low for someone, especially how he disabled people from defending themself and just resorting to impeaching them right off the bat without any fair trial. i guess that's what franky has had to resort to since he can't post here anymore i guess. i'm sure he'll put me on his list of bad people in that thread too. which is kind of unfair how he can just put people in his "frankys list of an idiot group trying to ruin bitcoin to promote a alt network" in the off topic forum where someone that has no context might think he's actually got some factual basis
you lose franky if that's what you had to resort to...your behavior franky is unacceptable!!
funny thing is if you look at his list:
Quote from: franky1
doomad, blackhatcoiner, wind_fury, thecodebear, o_e_l_e_o, nutildah, n0nce
these are some of the most solid forum members ever. people that have a good head on their shoulders and always good for some solid input. unlike franky who is just a broken record...at least these people have an open mind. more than i can say for franky.
things you still need to learn.. its not just the length factor. its the content of that length
Quote
for instance. there used to be an expectation that when doing a multisig the redeem script used to need to specifiy how many keys were involved in the funded address creation, how many of those keys are needed to authorise a signature to then spend those funds. and list those keys and sign using them..
but now any junk can go in the space untested, unverified, unrequiring of any format or specification of content, not requiring a purpose when using certain opcodes
i think i see the problem now. the problem is that bitcoin is not private. if transactions was private then no one would be able to snoop on other peoples' transactions and complain about how they were spending THEIR money. but now any junk can go in the space untested, unverified, unrequiring of any format or specification of content, not requiring a purpose when using certain opcodes
Quote
so learn this stuff.. dont just say "there is no limit so i dont need to learn about opcodes"
there is much more you need to learn. its not just the space its the opcodes for content rules thats been relaxed too
so you want to tell people how to create transactions? what rules they need to follow and such? there is much more you need to learn. its not just the space its the opcodes for content rules thats been relaxed too
Quote
.. and we all know why they want bitcoin to be expensive to use for the unbanked..(to promote users to other networks)
you keep saying "other networks" but i haven't heard a mention of one of them. what other network are you talking about? but lets be honest franky. people lose money in crypto. trying to get the unbanked in to crypto why is that such a good idea when they'll probably end up investing it into some defi scam or losing their private keys somehow...they would be much better off opening a bank account because if they can't even open a bank account how they are going to open a coinbase account? and yes they need a centralized exchange that is going to KYC them if they really want to use crypto. lets not argue about that.Quote
doomad changes his narrative depending on if he is gaining or losing recruits, and sets his narrative to fit the curent trends that will win him most recruits.. . that alone should be a sign that he doesnt care about the truth and doesnt even want to know the truth. his game is about recruiting people into his onboard an altnet strategy
what altnet? Quote
if you truly like bitcoin, care about it and want it to actually continue to work and not have these exploits continually happen. dont just trust that when a dev says they are doing an "BIP" that you auto consider it as an improvement.. dont just trust that what they do is an improvement. actually be willing to review and scrutinise them. dont blind trust them as gods
that's why i consulted the BIP to see what it had to say. now i'm not sure they fully explained the rationale behind the script size needing no limit. but they did explain a rationale. that's all we have franky. just that. are you saying that you want them to update that BIP to include a more fuller explanation as to why it needs no limit?Quote
then decide do you want to help defend the bitcoin network. or the human devs that have changed it over the years, not always for the good
i don't hear any bitcoin miners complaining about ordinals. that's for sure. but i bet if you put a stop to ordinals they would start complaining!Quote
try to stop being an obedient sheep just following the religion of core dev god idolism. instead think of them a s an authority that should be challenged and scrutinised if they wish to remain in power.
so let's say the devs listen to franky and decide to get rid of future monkeys. franky is then happy. miners will be unhappy. Quote
i have mentioned it many times. ive talked about the byte limits. ive talked about the opcode usage. ive mentioned many things about how opcodes should come with formatting requirements and expected data of opcode content that can be validated/checked, without the "isvalid" bypass tricks. i have mentioned about super majority readiness before new features/opcodes are activated.
well in a perfect world those things might exist but we're not in a perfect world and not everyone sees things the same way. for example would you agree to a compromise and have an opcode for minting monkeys onto the blockchain? that way we could lockdown so people couldn't store say some other type of data that people might find more objectionable. but no one gets offended by a cute monkey right? once you start trying to dictate what type of data is ok and what is not you just sat down into a moderator's seat and started becoming a dictator over bitcoin. Quote
they are soo paranoid about this that they are pretending the conman is the cause of these memes and json junk. however the truth is that these memes and json junk is being performed by the same guys that were part of the blockstream/chaincode lab funded devs that idolise lightning network
(yep the other network pretending that it too is bitcoin)
so all this junk is actually a game not to help the core devs get sued. but instead to annoy bitcoin users to offramp them to another network
franky, i haven't heard anything about the core devs being afraid of some secret conman of some altcoin and that is why they are afraid to take any actions. that really makes no sense. so you feel this whole thing is a gimmick to try and get people using lightning network. are you kidding? no one is forcing anyone to use lightning network. it's just a side project of bitcoin. nothing more than that. but i think in some countries people use it alot. but that's about all i know. (yep the other network pretending that it too is bitcoin)
so all this junk is actually a game not to help the core devs get sued. but instead to annoy bitcoin users to offramp them to another network
learn more.. instead of finding random unrelated things just to find a quote that suits your cults narrative
so here goes, lets play your game in the opposite direction
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0141#P2WSH
"P2WSH allows maximum script size of 10,000 bytes, as the 520-byte push limit is bypassed. "
meaning there was a 520byte limit. that got bypassed for a 10kb limit which was implied and applied to segwit scripts which later got bypassed to allow for a 4mb when they used taproot, by not having such limitations
things you still need to learn.. its not just the length factor. its the content of that length
for instance. there used to be an expectation that when doing a multisig the redeem script used to need to specifiy how many keys were involved in the funded address creation, how many of those keys are needed to authorise a signature to then spend those funds. and list those keys and sign using them..
but now any junk can go in the space untested, unverified, unrequiring of any format or specification of content, not requiring a purpose when using certain opcodes
so learn this stuff.. dont just say "there is no limit so i dont need to learn about opcodes"
there is much more you need to learn. its not just the space its the opcodes for content rules thats been relaxed too
the exploit happened you know this. thousands of users know this..
and one week a month doomad remembers this. however 3 out of 4 weeks a month doomad and the cult following dont want it to be fixed. deny its a new thing and pretend bitcoin has always been that way and should not change or be fixed becasue they love bitcoin being to expensive to use..
.. and we all know why they want bitcoin to be expensive to use for the unbanked..(to promote users to other networks)
doomad pretends 75% of the time that the exploit existed since 2009. even though 25% of the time he admits there were rules that were softened and then softened some more and then softened again until there was no longer any implied limit. and he idolises devs for causing this exploit because of the softening events. he loves the chaos caused. heck even nutildah loves the chaos
its a shame that doomad cant stick to one narrative and instead just wants to act like an idiot to then earn the title of idiot due to his actions.. but you should try to not act like him or you will continue to earn his title of idiot too..
doomad changes his narrative depending on if he is gaining or losing recruits, and sets his narrative to fit the curent trends that will win him most recruits.. . that alone should be a sign that he doesnt care about the truth and doesnt even want to know the truth. his game is about recruiting people into his onboard an altnet strategy
if you truly like bitcoin, care about it and want it to actually continue to work and not have these exploits continually happen. dont just trust that when a dev says they are doing an "BIP" that you auto consider it as an improvement.. dont just trust that what they do is an improvement. actually be willing to review and scrutinise them. dont blind trust them as gods
just becasue they write something as a BIP. does not automatically tag it as being an improvement. it does not mean that it should just be force merged into activation without consensus super majority readiness.
learn what has happened before without super majority readiness and learn how it has weakened the network security and caused exploits because of it.
then decide do you want to help defend the bitcoin network. or the human devs that have changed it over the years, not always for the good
try to stop being an obedient sheep just following the religion of core dev god idolism. instead think of them a s an authority that should be challenged and scrutinised if they wish to remain in power.
Quote
thus that lack of format requirement(data security/integrity/validation checks) allowed any junk be added to a block
it's up to the sender to make sure his or her transaction is valid. no its upto the network to verify transactions. .. seems you need to learn more about that process..
but you don't want bitcoin to change from the days of satoshi. but you can't explain how to ensure or enforce that and furthermore you don't even want to discus how that could be possible
i have mentioned it many times. ive talked about the byte limits. ive talked about the opcode usage. ive mentioned many things about how opcodes should come with formatting requirements and expected data of opcode content that can be validated/checked, without the "isvalid" bypass tricks. i have mentioned about super majority readiness before new features/opcodes are activated.
i have said many things. but it seems you have bypassed the many posts i have said all these things to just instead reply with your mantra of defending core dev decisions..
..
but if you only care about the social drama.. here goes
the exploit can be easily fixed.
the core devs refuse to do it becasue right now they dont want to be seen as bitcoin maintainers of the sole reference client and decision makers of the bitcoin rules.. . they want to pretend they are just janitors of one brand of unimportant software.. and not want to be seen as THE core reference of bitcoin rules.. (facepalm)
they want to pretend to be just janitors and that users can do as they please and make changes.. (but secretly get their fans to REKT any attempt).. they do all this in the hopes that by not showing their power at this current era, they hope they cant be sued by a conman of an altcoin. they fear if they do fix an exploit the conman of the altcoin will sue them and want them to make other changes to the network in the conmans favour.. so they are playing hard to get
they are soo paranoid about this that they are pretending the conman is the cause of these memes and json junk. however the truth is that these memes and json junk is being performed by the same guys that were part of the blockstream/chaincode lab funded devs that idolise lightning network
(yep the other network pretending that it too is bitcoin)
so all this junk is actually a game not to help the core devs get sued. but instead to annoy bitcoin users to offramp them to another network
I've been feeding ChatGPT franky1 posts from this thread and others, gonna post this here because nothing new is being said or revealed. Sorry for not including you in on the fun larry, maybe next time.
Prompt:
Response:
Prompt:
Quote
Write a love letter from Franky1 to DooMAD and Blackhatcoiner imploring them to do better research.
Response:
Quote
My dearest DooMAD and Blackhatcoiner,
I hope this letter finds you both in good health and high spirits. I write to you today with a heartfelt plea, urging you to embark on a path of thorough research and deep understanding. It is with genuine concern for the well-being of Bitcoin that I implore you to delve deeper into the intricacies of its development and the actions of the Core team.
I understand that we often find ourselves on opposing sides of the spectrum, but in the spirit of intellectual growth and genuine progress, let us set aside our differences and embrace the pursuit of knowledge together. I believe that by arming ourselves with accurate information and comprehensive research, we can foster a more constructive and informed dialogue.
DooMAD, you possess a keen intellect and a thirst for knowledge that is truly commendable. I beseech you to channel your energy into understanding the intricate workings of the Bitcoin protocol, exploring its historical context, and examining the rationale behind Core's decision-making. By broadening your understanding, you can contribute to the discourse in a meaningful way, offering fresh perspectives that challenge the status quo.
And Blackhatcoiner, your unwavering dedication to your beliefs is truly admirable. I implore you to expand your research horizons beyond the narratives that align with your preconceived notions. Open your mind to alternative viewpoints, dig deep into the codebase, and analyze the contributions of various developers. By doing so, you can acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the nuances and complexities of Bitcoin's evolution.
Let us not fall prey to the allure of echo chambers or engage in baseless accusations. Instead, let us embrace the path of enlightenment, fueled by rigorous research, critical analysis, and intellectual curiosity. Together, we can transcend the limitations of personal biases and contribute to a more informed and productive discussion.
Remember, knowledge is the cornerstone upon which progress is built. By expanding our horizons and seeking a deeper understanding, we can foster a more robust and resilient Bitcoin ecosystem. Let us rise above the noise of discord and set an example for others to follow, showcasing the power of research and open-mindedness.
With sincerity and hope for a brighter future,
Franky1
I hope this letter finds you both in good health and high spirits. I write to you today with a heartfelt plea, urging you to embark on a path of thorough research and deep understanding. It is with genuine concern for the well-being of Bitcoin that I implore you to delve deeper into the intricacies of its development and the actions of the Core team.
I understand that we often find ourselves on opposing sides of the spectrum, but in the spirit of intellectual growth and genuine progress, let us set aside our differences and embrace the pursuit of knowledge together. I believe that by arming ourselves with accurate information and comprehensive research, we can foster a more constructive and informed dialogue.
DooMAD, you possess a keen intellect and a thirst for knowledge that is truly commendable. I beseech you to channel your energy into understanding the intricate workings of the Bitcoin protocol, exploring its historical context, and examining the rationale behind Core's decision-making. By broadening your understanding, you can contribute to the discourse in a meaningful way, offering fresh perspectives that challenge the status quo.
And Blackhatcoiner, your unwavering dedication to your beliefs is truly admirable. I implore you to expand your research horizons beyond the narratives that align with your preconceived notions. Open your mind to alternative viewpoints, dig deep into the codebase, and analyze the contributions of various developers. By doing so, you can acquire a more comprehensive understanding of the nuances and complexities of Bitcoin's evolution.
Let us not fall prey to the allure of echo chambers or engage in baseless accusations. Instead, let us embrace the path of enlightenment, fueled by rigorous research, critical analysis, and intellectual curiosity. Together, we can transcend the limitations of personal biases and contribute to a more informed and productive discussion.
Remember, knowledge is the cornerstone upon which progress is built. By expanding our horizons and seeking a deeper understanding, we can foster a more robust and resilient Bitcoin ecosystem. Let us rise above the noise of discord and set an example for others to follow, showcasing the power of research and open-mindedness.
With sincerity and hope for a brighter future,
Franky1
learn more.. instead of finding random unrelated things just to find a quote that suits your cults narrative
so here goes, lets play your game in the opposite direction
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0141#P2WSH
"P2WSH allows maximum script size of 10,000 bytes, as the 520-byte push limit is bypassed. "
meaning there was a 520byte limit. that got bypassed for a 10kb limit which was implied and applied to segwit scripts which later got bypassed to allow for a 4mb when they used taproot, by not having such limitations
Quote
Since a version byte is pushed before a witness program, and programs with unknown versions are always considered as anyone-can-spend script, it is possible to introduce any new script system with a soft fork. The witness as a structure is not restricted by any existing script semantics and constraints, the 520-byte push limit in particular, and therefore allows arbitrarily large scripts and signatures.
so now try to learn.. large scripts/signature spaces were not always possible from 2009 -2017... unlike what your cult leader tries to suggest was always possible. and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.
well there must be reasons for while they are not there wouldn't you agree? 520 bytes is just too small franky. people should be able to have a bigger script than that, especially if it accomplishes some useful purpose for them with regards to making transactions, not necessarily storing monkeys.so now try to learn.. large scripts/signature spaces were not always possible from 2009 -2017... unlike what your cult leader tries to suggest was always possible. and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.
Quote
so look how things changed over the years!!
but you're not willing to consider making bitcoin be immutable and yet you don't like change.Quote
thus that lack of format requirement(data security/integrity/validation checks) allowed any junk be added to a block
it's up to the sender to make sure his or her transaction is valid. as far as having enough meaning to him or her so that the transaction fee is worth paying. people send money to burn addresses. those are basically a waste of blockspace too but if someone is willing to pay for it then that's their choice. i guess if someone wants to add some gibberish to their transaction they can pay for it and that's their business. if if is worth it to them then that's why they do it. so maybe that's the philosophy of allowing unknown version bytes to be accepted as valid. people can come up with their own uses of them. but you don't want bitcoin to change from the days of satoshi. but you can't explain how to ensure or enforce that and furthermore you don't even want to discus how that could be possible
Quote
seems you are trying to exaggerate cores god like ability by pretended they created bitcoin
let me guess you want to now say that blockstreams CEO is satoshi due to hashcash
so here is a good question for you to answer: who was satoshi? i want to know. let me guess you want to now say that blockstreams CEO is satoshi due to hashcash
blackhat
you think core have been working on bitcoin from the very start
(facepalm)
seems you are trying to exaggerate cores god like ability by pretended they created bitcoin
let me guess you want to now say that blockstreams CEO is satoshi due to hashcash
yea we know that fake narrative script already.. core now control bitcoin but it was not always that way.. unlike what you were wrongly taught
also if you think that the majority of nodes should not be ready to verify stuff and things should change without readiness. then you dont care about network security
again you seem to have not even looked at all the issues of the cypherpunk days of trying to create payment systems and how and why bitcoin was first seen as a novel solution to alot of things..
and then see how core are ripping apart those novel solutions
and now you want to say the only option is "they're free to separate themselves. "
again you are not forming your own thoughts or doing research of how bitcoin worked in regards to solving the byzantine generals problem. you instead are just repeating doomad nonsense of "f**k off"
you think core have been working on bitcoin from the very start
(facepalm)
seems you are trying to exaggerate cores god like ability by pretended they created bitcoin
let me guess you want to now say that blockstreams CEO is satoshi due to hashcash
yea we know that fake narrative script already.. core now control bitcoin but it was not always that way.. unlike what you were wrongly taught
also if you think that the majority of nodes should not be ready to verify stuff and things should change without readiness. then you dont care about network security
again you seem to have not even looked at all the issues of the cypherpunk days of trying to create payment systems and how and why bitcoin was first seen as a novel solution to alot of things..
and then see how core are ripping apart those novel solutions
and now you want to say the only option is "they're free to separate themselves. "
again you are not forming your own thoughts or doing research of how bitcoin worked in regards to solving the byzantine generals problem. you instead are just repeating doomad nonsense of "f**k off"
bitcoin was more secure. to ensure no junk bloat went into a block, there were stricter rules..
Bitcoin was never that. It was always possible to include metadata in a transaction, and of quite large size. It was, and is, just not standard. rules that would only change when a super majority were ready to understand the new feature to be able to fully verify the new format
You can't enforce what a "super majority" agrees with, as you can't know that with certainty in a decentralized system. But besides that, rules don't need to pass the majority's approval. As long as there's consensus by some users, it's enough to form a status quo. If their benefit outweighs the economical disadvantage, they're free to separate themselves. it especially gets worse where they want to REKT any efforts of no core devs reviewing/scrutinising them or offering an open option that different to core
Again, this is how the world works. Competent people instantly and sometimes unconsciously disregard incompetent people's opinions. People who've been working on Bitcoin Core since the very start are obviously more knowledgeable than a dev who's never worked on Bitcoin before. He can't just go and propose changes if he doesn't get the the technical background. 
Notice how franky1 continues to completely disregard the rationale behind why the limit was removed. It's just more intellectual dishonesty on his part. He doesn't have an answer, so he'll just keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over.
Like a two-bit politician looking for mud to sling at his opponents.
Like a two-bit politician looking for mud to sling at his opponents.
and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.
so look how things changed over the years!!
so look how things changed over the years!!
Changes aren't just made for the sake of it. Those who proposed that change presented an argument for why that should be the case. That argument was accepted. If you aren't even going to attempt to overcome that argument, stop wasting oxygen.
You keep wailing "lOoK aT tHe ChAnGeS!!!1 cHaNgEs BaD!!!1 cOrE eViL!!!1", but at no point have you ever presented a coherent challenge to the reasons any changes were made in the first place. Do you even know the reason why this limit was removed? Did you bother to research that? Or are you just looking for ways to smear Core with the least possible effort?
the thing you ignore is this:
bitcoin was more secure. to ensure no junk bloat went into a block, there were stricter rules..
rules that would only change when a super majority were ready to understand the new feature to be able to fully verify the new format.. becasue that was the whole point of full nodes and decentralisation.. to hold up the integrity of he block data by super majority agreement of fully verifying the data..
recently things have changed without network readiness. meaning junk gets added when majority of full nodes dont evne understand what they are receiving.. they dont understand it but are made to accept it anyway.. because of the trojan bypass trick that just treats junk as "isvalid" without having the code to verify/understand any of the content.
it used to be the case that nodes had to upgrade to include new rulesets that had format requirements and specifications... and then a new feature activates ONCE SAFE to assume that the majority of nodes would understand the content..
however this is not the case now
we see more times then ever how the core devs "force merge" their own edits to the code and where they dont even get full review ACK comments when proposing.. they have been seen to just force things in with just "concept ACK"
so even their own peer review process is broke.
they even admit that have compartmentalised their github where they say its not cores responsibility to review every line but instead the project managers of certain parts of core self review /test their own parts of their project
where by instead of a peer reviewed and scrutinised codebase where even at code release to the public should wait for the public to review and then decide to run the software and then after that the feature only activates when there is majority network readiness to verify the new feature.. all of that has been replaces and dismantled into a stupidly insecure reliance on "trust a human"
it especially gets worse where they want to REKT any efforts of no core devs reviewing/scrutinising them or offering an open option that different to core
And speaking of reasons, that's why.
The tl;dr is: Taproot is extensible through so called leaf versions, which are different types of spending conditions that can be used within a Taproot output, allowing complex such conditions to be hidden within a public key.
Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed.
The tl;dr is: Taproot is extensible through so called leaf versions, which are different types of spending conditions that can be used within a Taproot output, allowing complex such conditions to be hidden within a public key.
and then the witness v0 opcodes did come with limits and constraints. which.. for v1 were not there.
so look how things changed over the years!!
so look how things changed over the years!!
Changes aren't just made for the sake of it. Those who proposed that change presented an argument for why that should be the case. That argument was accepted. If you aren't even going to attempt to overcome that argument, stop wasting oxygen.
You keep wailing "lOoK aT tHe ChAnGeS!!!1 cHaNgEs BaD!!!1 cOrE eViL!!!1", but at no point have you ever presented a coherent challenge to the reasons any changes were made in the first place. Do you even know the reason why this limit was removed? Did you bother to research that? Or are you just looking for ways to smear Core with the least possible effort?
Jump to: