Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 51. (Read 9235 times)

You do realise your (entirely imaginary) vision of Bitcoin would make it cheaper and easier to spam the blockchain, right?  Or are you really so blind and dumb that you genuinely don't grasp that very real consequence?  Along with weakening decentralisation by making it more costly to run nodes, you would simultaneously make the blockchain cheaper to attack.  So it's a good thing your vision will remain imaginary when it comes to this chain.  Mainly due to you continuing to have moronic ideas, no code and nothing to offer besides a load of hot air.  You sound exactly like an SV supporter.  Go use their crappy knock-off if that's the Bitcoin you want.



Quoted for next time franky1 pretends it's the LN advocates who are the ones saying "Bitcoin doesn't work".  It's really franky1 who believes that, purely because no one wants to relent to his obscene, totalitarian demands.  He states over and over that Bitcoin should be better than it is and that there's a sordid conspiracy to hold it back from fulfilling its potential.  He repeatedly claims Bitcoin is "stifled", "hindered" and "stalled".  There isn't a single LN advocate that slags off Bitcoin as much as franky1 does.



It has delivered a damn sight more than you ever have.  What have you achieved lately?  How many additional transactions have you enabled?  Is it zero?  I'm pretty sure it's zero.  Twunt.

dont be so quick judge
bitcoin doesnt really have a proper well know subnetwork. even less one thats only designed to operate with bitcoin and bitcoin alone

root stock is a subnetwork bridge. it allows bitcoin and ethereum
just becasue rootstock give away some RKS if some bitcoin mining pools put a rootstock blockheight hash into a bitcoin coinbase reward output
does not mean its integrated to only be function for bitcoin

rootstock can continue on making its own new blocks without paying a pool to mile stone its chain at certain random heights(include a rootstock hash in a bitcoin block)

rootstock can also function even if it only handles eth erc20 tokens
same goes for liquid

Ln has always been a cross border subnet bridge. even its first transaction was done using litecoin, even poons whitepaper called it a cross platform network

..
ethereum has HUNDREDS of subnetworks and yes majority are bridge subnetworks

but bitcoin is slacking behind. it needs to stop wasting years on half assed subnetwork bridges and "conservative.. patience" that after years have not met promises..and maybe start a completely new subnetwork. one that actually solely functions as a subnetwork for bitcoin. and has some integrity, purpose it can meet, utility it can use, some policy and accountability of security. and let that grow into something with some niche utility like "bitcoin backed NFT"

I also see it as an attack which is only beginning. Devs should find a way to prevent further spam attacks like this, or make it expensive to spammers.

It is a terrible idea to be left to miners to do such rejections, the correct way is to leave it to full nodes to reject these types of spam transactions just like they do many other types of spam transactions. It also has nothing to do with censorship resistant, etc. and you never see anybody complain about those transactions being rejected!

I repeat what I said in other topics, the Ordinals attack has to be treated as non-standard and full nodes should reject these transactions.

you have CONTINUOUSLY snake oil sales pitched subnetwork bridges as the current scaling solution for years

telling people that there are other options but your idols and your preference is to not touch bitcoin and instead the current option they are trying is a specific subnetwork bridge overpromoted as "is bitcoin" and people should be patient for other options as other options are not needed any time soon. even going as far as in 2019 saying your favoured subnet was only 2 years old and still new and people should be patient. and again each year since that people should treat your favoured subnet as the only option, due to lack of wanting or having core develop others

..
yet now your ok that core speedily pushed through another option that surprisingly allows crapdata bloat on the mainnet. . and your ok with this speedy thing and ok for the bloat and just want everyone to go away quietly and forget that it happened, and just let it continue..
you are shameless

where has your "conservative" mindset gone now, oh wait it only applies when it helps with your preferred services you can profit/gain from

...
you think its a finite resource in regards to users btc transactions. where you want everyone to offramp to your preferred subnet for last 7 years for payment services(routing via middlemen)

but now think bloating the "finite resource" with nonsense non-payment data is acceptable and should be allowed(facepalm), including its rushed activation.

yes.. i know your game.. as do many others..  you dont want bitcoin as a payment tool for individuals. you want it to fail as such so you can offer an alternative network where you can make profits from offering "routing fees" for individuals

you lack any care for security, utility of users value. you just want to profit from it

---

bitcoin devs should concentrate on bitcoin scaling stuff of allowing more transactions FOR PAYMENT UTILITY (p2p digital cash)
(no this is not a time for dev politic idols like the above core'porate shilling hypocrite to think its a "block size debate to allow bloat")

bitcoin scaling is about expanding transaction count utility of allowing anyone to transact to make payments peer to peer without being congested due to bloaty spammy nonsense non-payment data. where everyone is then penalised with confirm delays thus everyone penalised with paying higher fee's to prioritise their payment over the spammy crap

there can be fee formulaes that penalise certain transaction formats (yes it can be done)
and those that want to bloat the space with spamming metadata can be penalised.. without it costing genuine users extra

where those that want to spam with nonsense scripts of funky formats and added metadata can use subnetworks... not the other way round

I don't think anyone is convinced that is my "sales pitch", because I'm not trying to sell anything.  I'm simply describing the situation as it is, not how I think it "should" be (eg.  that thing you do 24/7).  If you can present an argument to counter the reality that space in blocks is finite, I'd love to hear it.  But as usual, all you have is whiny noises and no viable alternatives.  All you want to do is pass the cost onto those who don't want to pay it.

If people want to buy coffee on the Bitcoin blockchain, they're free to do so.  They're also free to use a laser cutter to open a tin of beans and hire a helicopter to take them to the local supermarket.  However, there are more economical alternatives to doing those things.

^
says the guy that for years didnt want to see people buying coffee on the bitcoin
(equivalent amount to a 3rd world populations daily/weekly wage, he didnt want populating bitcoin)
calling bitcoin tx count a "finite resource" mainnet.. and he wanted everyone to off ramp to flawed subnetworks to avoid spamming the bitcoin network as the "solution"
(his main salespitch for his favoured, flawed subnetwork bridge)

---

the bitcoin network should be for transacting of bitcoin for things wanting to be paid for in bitcoin. but should not be abused with metadata/lengthy script spam of data unrelated to simply moving coin to someone else

its weird that a guy is against 3rd world countries moving btc value of a days wage or a 1st world person buying a coffee onchain.. but is ok with spamming the blocks with useless metadata that has nothing to do with buying goods/services between peers..
very odd mindset he has

and he wants everyone to just go to sleep and forget about it and just let it happen

---

my view
bitcoin should be for transacting bitcoin and subnetworks should be the bloaty meta data/script bloat of smart contract stuff of niche sub features

It all seems a little dramatic to me.  People seem to be concerned about possible attack vectors, but if Bitcoin can withstand pressures from world governments, it seems almost laughable that people think it could be brought down by a few assorted JPEGs.  

I take the "c'est la vie" approach.  I get the sense that, as with most things, market forces will dowse this little fire pretty swiftly.  Bitcoin seems to resonate most strongly with people who place value in security and privacy.  People understand there is a cost for these desirable properties and they are generally willing to pay it.  The novelty picture brigade, on the other hand, is an altogether different demographic.  They'll likely find cheaper blockchains to spam, assuming they even bother to leave their present ETH cesspit in the first place.

Issues surrounding fungibility are always a concern, but if there isn't sufficient demand for it on Bitcoin's blockchain, then it shouldn't become an issue.  I'm honestly hoping that in a few months' time, everyone will have forgotten about this already.

The development of the Ordinals protocol has sparked a debate within the Bitcoin community about the intended use of the currency and the appropriate level of customization for the base layer. While some believe that Bitcoin should remain open for experimentation and development, others believe that it should be protected from features that could have negative repercussions.

The issue of fungibility is also a concern, as unique inscriptions on Satoshis could potentially decrease the currency's value as a medium of exchange.

Overall, the debate highlights the challenges and complexities of maintaining a decentralized, open-source currency like Bitcoin. It's up to the community to continue the discussion and determine the best course of action to ensure the stability and longevity of the currency.

but WHY need bloat of ordinals on the mainnet?

what does it do that it couldnt do on a subchain.
after all if your locking up a few sats to use as a reference for something
lock it up. end of
then have a set subchain network that uses that reference but adds on the extra block metadata which can allow other functions and features

its not about saying no to ordinals. its saying without coding anything new. you can have ordinals.. just be clever and do it on a subnetwork
that way you dont have t plead to core gods for permission of proposal and activation.. yep you can have ordinals right now that only function via a bitcoin network by only TRULY(unlike other subnetwork bridges) operate using only bitcoin references

bitcoin already has a locking mechanism for sats.
so nothing stopping you starting a ordinal subnetwork this second to add utility which needs people to buy some bitcoin to then lock to then use in the subchain.

but also we should not use a proposal for ordinals to then further delay onchain scaling by promoting a subnetwork as something everyone needs to move down to to escape the congestion of bitcoin or premium fee of bitcoin

Sometimes it makes me feel sad when Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin is somehow belittled by what we prefer to make of it today. But perhaps it's just the way it is. After all, Bitcoin is not static. But it's not a question of Bitcoin being bigger than Satoshi; it's about Bitcoin being bigger than what it was originally intended for.  

Anyway, I'm also imagining potential problems down the road, but there will certainly be solutions as well.


But a crumpled and soiled 1 USD bill has the same value and purchasing power and is interchangeable with a smooth and newly-issued 1 USD bill. However, a Satoshi inscribed with a work of art or a pricey monkey JPEG might carry with it a heavy premium and, therefore, won't anymore be interchangeable with another Sat.


Or is everything right now just how Bitcoin organically develops? All or nothing, take it or leave it. It's either you make it open and allow all kinds of features to sprout like Ordinals or close it and forget about an on-chain scaling solution along with all kinds of possible ridiculous features.

firstly many people keep playing the fungible card. waving it around

but fungibility is not a 2 option: yes or no
its a scale
    a scale of suspicion/uniqueness

nothing is 100% fungible nor "fungible: yes"
everything is a scale. even paper cash

heck for 14 years now we have ALL treated 'satoshis stash' coins as different to our own.
where if his stash even moves, it would send many people into some social drama craze.
other stashes get different treatment
the mtgox stash, the bitfinex 2019 theft stash. many examples of showing that bitcoin is not 'fungible:yes'. but instead where some coins are 100% and some are 50% and some are 1%

where after so many taints, people care less about their "dirtyness" or origins. where by if a CEX has vetted them and let them be withdrawn showing good taint of not being recently mixed or from a known stolen stash. people give them a higher fungibility rating

and yes people can 'color' some sats to be identifiable as a function/property/reference. where their fungibility is locked to 0% because the lock is used as a reference point for some property/item/known purpose or entity or identity or value to be ported to a subnetwork

---

secondly bitcoin doesnt need to be an 'all-in' thing offering every utility under the sun with hundreds of bloaty options to hold weird funky metadata thats got nothing to do with moving simple satoshi units from one address to another.. on the mainnet

the problem so far is the only promoted subnetworks are overly promised, under-committed, half assed shoddy badly programmed subnetworks that dont really have good monetary policies or network protocol of accounting and verification to be deemed viable networks for majority use or even minority use
(but thats a problem for those subnetwork devs)

however trying to remove normal peoples transaction utility off bitcoin main net and then bloat bitcoin blocks up with just elitist batch reserve swaps in bloaty scripts and output listings is not the purpose of bitcoin either. nor is delaying onchain scaling by years to instead over promise some other subnetwork phished as bitcoin2.0 will do the job that then doesnt require bitcoin to scale.. but then has not succeeded in doing the job its promises. but still wants people to be patient and not scale bitcoin while we wait years for fake promise subnetworks to flourish

bitcoin should allow people to move bitcoin easily and cheaply on the mainnet AND then have choice to lock coins as a reference , to a secure, functional and non-flawed/non buggy subnetworks that actually do provide real utility for niche purposes.. and not some fluffy snake oil promises

bitcoin can lock value easily without code modification.. it should then be upto a sub network to then do the dynamic stuff it wants to add extra functionality of some weird service option not native to bitcoin
but where the pegging is actually strong,secure and non buggy on the subnetwork side

basically, short and for emphasis:
.. anyone can lock 1sat now with no need for extra metadata/coding needed on the bitcoin network side
then using that lock as reference. have a subnetwork that only serves bitcoin(no crossborder bridge) to then do the funky stuff with that reference in subnetwork data thus no need to bloat or change bitcoin
but it requires better pool of devs than the current lame teams playing games with current shoddy subnetworks

Honestly, I am very impartial on which one's making sense and who's right. On one hand, Ordinals and their supporters have a point. At this point in time there's no use appealing to what Satoshi would've wanted for bitcoin. The project is bigger than him now and is already self-serving, so I don't think any of his opinions matter at this point. On the other, I can see this causing problems in the long run, they won't be the last project that's going to run in the bitcoin blockchain, thus this may cause issues down the line in the matters of transaction processes.

Purists do not have a say in this. They are clowns at most.

I know there's already a thread on Ordinals in the Development & Technical Discussion board but it's more on the technical side of things.

I guess it's interesting to hear what others have to say on what this latest development fundamentally entails or implies. There have been opposing views on this even among Bitcoin developers.

Some would say this kind of non-financial transaction isn't what Bitcoin is designed for. Surely, however, somebody could just brush this off somehow putting Satoshi's original idea seemingly subservient to what the community currently wants to make of it. Ordinals' Rodarmor himself asserted that Bitcoin has already "transcended the intentions of its creator."^[1]

While a core developer dismissed this controversy as a non-issue, another core developer went as far as calling this an attack on Bitcoin itself. While somebody doesn't understand the fuss over something which is dumb and should simply be forgotten, even Adam Back, perhaps out of frustration, had to call it a "fair-game for miners to censor the crap as a form of discouragement." Of course, he had to retract it in the name of Bitcoin being censorship-resistant and permission-less. But even Rodamor himself had to also censor, at least from Ordinals' site, a lewd image inscription.^[2]

The launch of the Ordinals protocol even put into question whether Bitcoin's base layer should be left alone or be kept open for anybody to tinker with and develop. Some would even call for Bitcoin's ossification to protect it from features that have possible negative repercussions.

And then there's also the issue of fungibility considering that a Satoshi assigned with a unique inscription such as an image or even a video is no longer the same with the rest.

What is your opinion on this? Are you in favor of this or not?

---

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/01/31/bitcoin-community-erupts-in-existential-debate-over-nft-project-ordinals/
[2] https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-creators-look-for-fix-after-first-instance-of-shock-porn