Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 50. (Read 9235 times)

I don't think its about censorship, but some of the suggestions made by franky1 make sense, stricter rules to ensure its bitcoin transactions and not bloat. This needs to be done before its too late...

Sure miners might enjoy the high fees, or even those interested in promoting parallel blockchains... Unfortunately this comes to the expense of nodes and actual bitcoin transactions.

Note that already half of the network is being polluted with this bloat. Now its a race of pushing down the transactions not belonging to whales. High priced NFTs are willing to pay the high fees a mundane transaction wouldn't. Who benefits more from this sabotage to Bitcoin?

If the choice is between 'temporarily higher fees' and 'forever abandoning permissionless freedom', yes, I'd personally take the higher fees.  For many early adopters, the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is a significant part of the value proposition.  Tread carefully before you join the side of those who would embrace totalitarianism.

Your debate is for censorship-resistance. That's very understandable. The day the miners censor anything from being included in the blockchain, or are coerced to censor, will be the day Bitcoin failed. BUT calling purists, clowns? That's a little unfair, because the purists' concerns if Ordinals will be a success are about, blockchain bloat, possbility of constant high fees, and Sats lose fungibility. It can be used as an attack vector as well. Those concerns shouldbe YOUR concern too as a user. Plus Bitcoin users who doesn't know the meaning of RBF will definitely know the meaning of RBF.

at a near 4mb ordinal is near 4,000,000 bytes
so a min of 1sat per byte = 0.04btc which is under $1k

however they can just throw in any sat amount because of silly things like "freemarket" and unenforced fee rate formulaes and also sat per KB is allowed measure too so it can be under $1 too as a byte per ksat

its funny how certain people say "freemarket" want everyone else to pay more while also shouting "freemarket" let spammer pay any small amount they like

end goal is certain people dont want consensus or rules (code) to control a network. they want bitcoin to be lawless and expensive

its all about promoting everyone else moves to subnetworks/altcoins and make bitcoin hated and useless as a payment network

corporations cant get money out of a true peer to peer network of self custody. they only make money from people using middlemen networks/service. and thats where the want people transacting

so exactly how much does it cost someone to store one of their NFTs using ordinals? haven't heard too much about that. but if we're talking about $40 or $50 that's really nothing. nothing compared to what people have paid for doing nft transactions using eth.

Not to mention all those fees they'll be paying to compete with megabytes of normal transactions.

As long as miners follow greedy profit theory and only mine the transactions that will net them the most fees, then the mining of ordinals will be largely restricted to one or two miners who specifically look for ordinals, so there isn't much to worry about.

There are already heaps of images stored in the blockchain. This is not something new.

This whole phenomena will probably die out in a couple of months/years, just like every other controversial thing surrounding Bitcoin

right. no one is arguing that.
the problem with that is the fees will go up for everyone not just for the abusers, right? does anyone here want bitcoin fees to go up? 

I think it will be interesting to see who will actually pay for this in the long run.

I mean let's say an average bitcoin transaction size is half kilobytes. That means that a 1MB jpeg equals to ~ 2000 transactions.

Now if you accept to pay $2/monetary transaction that means including one JPEG is $4,000.

Also I believe large pools should/will(?)/can enforce minimum transaction cost / KB, making large transactions exponentially even more expensive.

So to me as of today this seems to be a bit over-hyped.

the data size in regards to PC hardware is not a concern. its not like it causes more signature checks and verification functions. its just DEAD WEIGHT
the issue is more about it being wasted DEAD WEIGHT.. (data thats not payments)

EG
instead of blocks being ~2000tx at 1.3mb per ~10min
instead of blocks being ~6000tx at 4mb per ~10min
its instead examples like ones given above where only 139tx payments got added(+10 dead weight)
meaning there is atleast 1860 payments that didnt, thus can cause a node unconfirmed mempool increase in its listing of un-confirmed tx. (thus everyone "paying more" to outbid the spam deadweight)

oh and if the spammers are ruthless.. can fill the 300mb mempool with 1,000,000 memes pending.. and have no genuine payment tx pending

you are correct about the mass being ~210gb

however the impact is actually
if there are say 10 image blocking up ~3.5mb of a blockspace. leaving the other transactions to try to squeeze into the (leaving only 0.125mb of the base tx data wall for legacy or 0.5 for segwit native transactions to fill)
meaning less transactions per block

note block
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775085
3.8mb but only 149 tx

The number is slightly off. Even assuming each block has exactly 4.000.000 bytes (maximum possible size in theory) it's only equal to 210.24GB. It'll have much bigger impact towards people who want to run node for first time (which means download whole blockchain) rather than those who already run synced node.

average block was 1.3mb with ~2000 tx

now there are some pushing over 2mb with no extra tx count to associate with that 0.7+ extra bloat


https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775113
2.6mb - 753 tx

They can't spam the chain more than the block weight limit allows, so the total blockchain size in the end won't be that different with or without this spam. Not to mention that the fee market will kick in if this gets worse and they try to abuse the system and fill the blocks more with spam.

My take on Ordinals is that it’s awesome a new project on the Bitcoin blockchain is getting so much notice. As far as my opinion on whether it should be happening or not, I would say this… Bitcoin doesn’t care. Developers can say whatever they want and urge blockchain censorship or going away from a permissionless leger but Bitcoin just doesn’t care. This is the attitude we’ve had and will keep. Those trying to censor transactions or want to give their permission for you to make transactions are showing their true colors.

rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.

doomad

i am talking about how core devs put in their crap code of a fee regime to appease the corporate shills that want that silly subnetwork to appear desirable.. AKA your social clubs subnetwork

also the other features CORE implanted without having majority nodes ready to validate or even have a chance to veto it. (a security risk, but you dont want that talked about and you funnily THEN pretend people dont have the power to veto it)

sidenote: when i speak of "you" im also talking about the royal "you" of the monarchy /hierarchy of certain people. (it just gets boring to keep saying your group. of sub-nutters)

so when you keep saying how you love that fee's are high.. dont play dumb that you think its user decided to cause a fee hike

users didnt write the code. devs do. and again you dont like that i critique the devs, and you want shift to blame to everyone else but the devs.. inclding trying to blame me as if im the totalitarian coder making bitcoin central(facepalm).. you really are shameful

and dont play dumb .. core could remove the cludge to reduce the fee hiking principles and replace it with something else.. we both know your silly group you shill for want things a certain way of premium bitcoin to then offer discounted something else.. . and "you" dont want core devs or even an opposing brand offering something that can give better utility to bitcoin and reduce the spam while also not causing everyone to "just pay more"

you may just be a sponsored snake oil sales rep type of guy, but you know exactly what your "community" want
and no your "community" is not the same as the wider community of millions of users that want to use bitcoin

stop playing games and trying to tell people to let core do what they like as long as they get sponsored to do what the corporate merchants want which then pay you to promote their services

its now obvious by how much you disregard bitcoin protocol scrutiny, and security that you must be getting paid. unless.. only other option is, that you are a scammer wanting the other subnetwork rammed full of naive people for you to scam their funds off them.. one or the other i smell greed in your tactics

but it is funny how you played the conservative card to say bitcoin shouldnt add more dataspace to allow more transactions (when talking about payment tx count) but now you want people to shut up and pretend its not a problem when discussing meaningless metadata spamming up those mostly unused 3mb block alloctions

your tooo obvious

you want ordinal spam on bitcoin main net and people spending value on your crappy flawed subnet bridge.. yea we get it you dont want bitcoin used for payments peer to peer. we know

quoting for properity
doomads usual techniques confirmed
☑ lack of care of bitcoin security
☑ not wanting to go against the core roadmap.
☑ just let the spam occur
☑ wants people to forget about it, dont fight it

What I "want" or "don't want" is irrelevant.  Users decide for themselves what fee they want to pay.  You are not in a position to arbitrarily force your own fee formula onto others like the demented little fascist you are.




Without any input from me, people are choosing to run Core.  I'm doing nothing at all to influence that.  Blame me all you like but it won't make a difference.  People can code what they want and run what they want.  However, they need others to work with them if they want to move forward with new ideas.  Even if you did have any good ideas (and you don't), no one would want to work with you, because you're an obnoxious, relentless, insufferable, unyielding tyrant.  

And there is no point repeating the course failed forkcoins have taken.  We've had years to watch them get absolutely nowhere and we aren't going to repeat their mistakes.  If you like their "dOuBlE fAsTeR hUrR dUrR" approach, it's only sensible to use their substandard product.  If BTC users wanted that nonsense, they'd run code to make it happen.  



Cool.  Care to specify a timeframe for your unhinged prognostications?

(facepalm)
again your thinking in boolean only 2 option
its not a case of allow everything or allow nothing

bitcoin was invented with a byzantine generals solution feature.. its called consensus
where it should not be an all or nothing. but a consensus to decide what to allow or reject
EG big rules cant change(consent by majority survey(consensus) wont consent to big rule changes. thus they become hard rules of consensus), small rules can change, some formats proven to work, to be allowed if consent is majority..  other formats that failed to be rejected
..
WHY is it that people who registered years ago to this forum dont even know the basic things of bitcoin
..


yes i know the consensus mechanism has been bypassed since 2017 which is why they think that bitcoin has no rules.. and new rules and formats have been slid in without network consensus (consent by census(mass survey))
but thats because dev politics.. people need to realise whats actually happened in bitcoin and realise what bitcoin was about and is about
what rules were hard rules in 2009-16, now reduced to soft rules 2017+, and such..
so that..they can know where they stand

---

you are an idiot
you dont want fee formuleas in bitcoin to make spam/bloat expensive. you want bloaty transactions of batches and length witnesses to be discounted. you want the spam.. you want it so you can sales pitch the flawed subnetwork you adore as the solution everyone should offramp you.. when bitcoin gets congested
yes you want the congestion. you want the premium fes on bitcoin.. as it aids you selling your snake oil subnetwork. which cant even be capable of handling most case tx values that bitcoin process
(LN can in best case only handle 95% success for under $30 value payments)
(bitcoin does about $2b in movement a day and 350k tx a day=average $5700 a tx)
people can move billions in 1 tx on bitcoin no issue. but LN has a 5% fail rate with just $30 and a near 100% fail rate above $800
...
suggesting everyone should wait because LN is the thing devs see as the progression path. is a patience plea that has been running for too many years now
..
you dont want bitcoin devs to remove the cludgy code holding payment data down to a 1mb limit. because again you want to limit transaction counts per block while saying you love how devs allowed a 3mb addon weight for bloaty scrypts/metadata/etc. thus again wasting data space while not uprating the tx count to be more useful
and as just shown in your quote. you think anyone peed off with core should f**k off to other networks. again you think the only option is adore core of use another network
YOU are the totalitarian centralist adorer..

bitcoin should be the payment network and subnetworks should be the bloaty data crap. not the other way round



the funny thing is you slag it off alot. after all if you thought bitcoin was doing its job you would not need your stupidly flawed subnetwork and not need to try recruit people over to your crap network
bitcoin does work but it needs to evolve too. needs to progress. this progress was growing 2009-2016. but then.. the onchain scaling stopped.
you silly guys saying that there are "scaling solutions" but onchain scaling is not going to happen anytime soon because devs prefer other option where you have for years been saying "just be patient" .. well you said in 2019 just be patient you favoured subnetwork is only 2 years old just wait. well 4 years later you still want people to wait. with the hope your silly subnetwork will(sometime) suddenly flower and bloom into the pretty thing you lot promise..
yea we see your delay stall tactics.. and no your flower is not going to be the thin it was promised as..


funny part is many other subnetwork bridges that have bitcoin value pegged to it have achieved alot more in 15 months than LN has in 7 years

your whole, pretend it didnt happen but let it happen narrative of stifling bitcoin transaction payment scaling growth is obvious
your whole enjoyment of seeing more then 1mb of blocks but not an equal increase in transaction count is obvious

your recruits might be lulled to sleep. but many many people in the wider community see your games they just dont care to call you out and debate your totalitarian dreams

people can see you adore bloating up and making fees expensive(for normal p2p payments) on bitcoin and cheap(miscounting bytes) for bloaty scripts and metadata. where you want everyone to move over to a flawed buggy subnetwork so you can steal value off them.
your shameless sales pitches are getting so bad now that even your own recruited posse are starting to question your narrative and move away from your idolisms

here is something you will learn
people have had enough of your subnetworks unmet promises and hopes. they will leave you behind. whereby other subnetworks will be created that offer things your subnetwork cant even dream to offer let alone fake promise offer. and your wasted 7 years will be for nothing

I don't think there's a way to stop anyone using ordinals.

Also, I don't think it's a big issue.

People have been putting all kinds of things in the blockchain, there's even a file uploader up there.