Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 7. (Read 9248 times)

its about doomad being for ordinals and wanting it to remain by not wanting people to tell core to fix it.
its about doomad pretending ordinals memes of upto 4mb being able to occur for all 14 years of bitcoin, by denying core involvement in creating the exploit. but then being the hypocrite salivating over how core done it and pretending its all to benefit bitcoin. even though it only benefits those that want to push people to other networks

its about doomad showing his ignorance of what actually occured, who caused it and who should be responsible to fix it because if he thinks the only solution is for non core node users to fork off and create an altcoin. he is very delusional about what bitcoin was invented for, and ignorant of things like consensus and decentralisation and the solution to the byzantine generals. all of which have been bastardised over the years by core devs which lead to this exploit

there are actual code solutions to fix this crap by making bitcoin rules refined and structured again requiring opcodes meet certain format and content requirements. but at this present juncture it does require core to do something because they have become the central point of failure and they need to stop REKTing any attempts to fix cores mistakes and instead fix their own mistakes and voluntarily relinquish their centralist power to allow non core node brands to propose things

i have already mentioned this but doomads ignorance forgets things fast and he cant even take 3 minutes to search for things.
and nutildah you are just as bad as him becasue you sound like his echo's 95% of the time, as does blackhatcoiner and winfury and new recruit larry (you know the same echoing voice saying the same crap as each other but never looking at code, doing math, checking bytes, or blockdata.. just screaming and crying about people and egos)

you all want ordinals crap to continue and you dont want core to take responsibility for them causing this chaos.. but hey you al then want t pretend im the one causing chaos..
and thats why you lot earn the "idiot" status

doomad your an idiot

first of all my node is based on my code that i started with before core was even core. which i edited/updated over the years. and so yes i get pissed off when core change things without some super majority activation because it means i got to go through all their cludge to see whats changed and then adapt it to my code..  because they dont actively propose shit for non-core devs to then look over and implement in their own nodes to then vote on before an activation occurs.
they instead activate shit and then say for others to update their nodes

yep many changes core done have not been with the consent of the masses to activate a new feature where the other brands are ready upfront before such activations.. that was cores whole point of the "consensus cleanup" campaigns over the many years. to make it so that core can change rules and bypass shit, activate shit when they like.. where by anyone actually wanting to be a FULL NODE actually has to (A) rewrite their node to stay in compliance and actually validate the new feature. but not get a vote on if it should have happened or not or phased into being a non full node by not fully validating. or (b) just be a sheep and just use core

the shit gets even worse when core cant even be bothered to validate their own new features fully and thus let many crap stuff pass. which makes non core nodes have to decide to disable stuff too to stay in compliance with CORES decisions or find new ways above and beyond what core does to validate the cludge in some meaningful way without losing compliance with CORES decisions.. which again is not allowing for non core devs to propose stuff or prevent core exploits

this is another reason why many non core devs just give up even trying to offer a diverse node.. firstly becasue of the tricks core play when they change the network without super majority activation where its given time for other brands to review and code their versions.. and secondly when non core node brands are not even allowed to propose any changes themselves. most non core devs just give in and just become sheep or give up and move to another network

if you think consent is about being just a sheep to core then you are proving your admiration for the central authority.
bitcoin is suppose to be that core should not unanimously be able to change the rules without super majority of diverse node brands

but hey all you care about is central authority and wanting anyone outside of that to be treated as opposition.. much like how cults act.. pretending to be against government whilst idolising their own religion as one. but not wanting to admit they love forming their own government that hates outsiders that dont want to convert to their centralisms(communism)

Yes, he's running an altered version of Bitcoin Core, forked from Core's repository and based on code made by Core contributors.  But franky1 doesn't have the courage of his convictions to admit what client it is.  Perhaps he's too embarrassed or ashamed.

I'm pretty sure it's "Bitcoin Unlimited" if you were genuinely curious.  As far as I'm aware, there's only one publicly-reachable node on the Bitcoin network still running that client (which they should be aware carries certain privacy risks, if it is in fact theirs).  All of the other BU users forked off to BCH.  But franky1 remains, like a stubborn faecal blemish that won't wash out.

When he says:
This means he actively gives his consent and voluntarily chooses to adhere to Bitcoin's consensus rules.  Further, every subsequent keypair he has ever generated, every satoshi he has ever sent or received and every block his wallet client has accepted and relayed is further testament to the fact that he has given his consent to abide by Bitcoin's rules.  He can claim he doesn't agree with them, but he freely elects to follow them anyway. 

Sounds like a massive hypocrite to me, but then again, I'm just a cult leader.   

my software is not core software because my software actually does more/proper validity checks, where as cores software has too many "assume valid" bypasses. and byte miscounts and other silly methods of validating things in an improper way

yes i have also had to disable a few things on my software to stay aligned to cores cludgy rule changes to ensure i am not rejecting blocks. but that is the point.. core have made it so that transactions are allowed into blocks without being rejected due to loose rules core caused.

the point is not that people can run software. its that anyone not a core maintainer centralist who want bugs fixed, exploits removed or features not listed in cores roadmap, is treated as an attacker/opposition/threat

thus it has become a point where core who caused the exploits that allowed ordinal memes/json junk to exist in block data, are the only party that have the controls of protocol changes to fix their own exploit but they are unwilling to hold themselves responsible for their actions and want their fanbase to deny its cores fault to evade having to fix their exploit.

yes users can set their own node to reject junky transactions that contain memes and json crap. but that just separates those individuals from holding the same blockdata as the bitcoin blockchain.

majority of core users are not devs they just use whats handed to them and core love that. they love having the decision power and majority are just blind followers just trusting the core devs.

and as said many times. certain idiots dont want core devs to be scrutinised and critiqued and asked to fix their own bugs. they love moderating out comments that go against their roadmap.

if anyone was to release a full node that defies cores roadmap. they will get REKT and treated as a altcoin fork attempt rather than a valid option to fix the bitcoin network exploits

so what needs to happen is for core to take a open approach and actually start acting like a decentralised part of the network whereby other brands can co-exist to propose upgrades/patches/fixes.. rather then treat diverse brands proposing upgrades/fixes/patches as opposition

i'm curious franky. what version of bitcoin core you got running at home? is it one that is written by the "DEVS" ? surely you would not be using a product that you disagreed with on such fundamental levels and yet i bet you do use the DEVS bitcoin core. but that kind of makes me question your sincerity about the whole thing if that's the case...

even if it's a patched version of the devs bitcoin core franky, i'm not sure you have much of a leg to stand on in that case...

i guess it's always possible you're running a pre-segwit version of core like one of those holdouts that runs some old version of linux kernel because they dont believe in modern computers...

again the idiots avoid talking about the causes of this ordinals crap and dont want the core devs to take responsibility and instead pretend that im the authoritarian that causes the problems. even though they lack any actual evidence of any debunking on their part. all they can shout is "franky is wrong"

i have given them years of opportunity to look at code read blockdata, and instead they find excuses not to even do the most basic of checks to work out who actually caused what and how

boring

Feel free to whine as much as you want about my rhetoric, and "social drama". Whenever I encounter crap like you, I'll talk. Given the situation of your mental health and inflated ego, I'll probably talk a lot.

Edit:
You are the one who avoids the essence and switches to social drama. Whenever I'm correcting you, you start cyber-attacking me, doxxing me with my real name, calling me a "fanboy"/"fangirl"/"DooMAD's wife" (wtf, how old are you?), account me for being a sig spammer, and all that shit that makes me wanna ignore and move on.

So listen up. Just because I have a life, and I'm not 24/7 in front of a screen, whining about what consensus should be like, retired because I happened to buy the dip in some 2012 bear market, it doesn't mean I won't be debunking the shit out of you whenever I find the time.

blackhat yet again proving the core authority by suggesting the only other option/choice people have is to produce a different network if they want to reject the core path
and wanting no one to intervene into core discussion

such boring rhetoric which within 3 posts blackhat will forget and then deny he said it just to be an ignorant hypocrit social drama queen of switching rhetoric just to keep social drama going to earn a few more pennies on his penny pinching sig campaign(sole income) and to avoid holding himself to any thing he ever says because his preferred narrative loses him fans

edit to reply to below
again idiot wants to avoid any talk about code and devs. just to talk about ego and emotion..

oh well cant be surprised by the same half dozen idiot brigade of the core fanbase that cant even get the facts straight about what bitcoin does and did do and how things have changed that this topic actually shows is annoying bitcoiners.. and no its not just franky thats annoyed by ordinals, but it is sure as hell the same idiots wanting ordinals to continue hoping bitcoiners will stop using bitcoin and move to their broken altnet they pretend is a better version of bitcoin even if its name starts with an L

Core is not a general, let alone the only. Producing code and executing code comes with different responsibilities. At this point, it's like arguing that gun producers are "the real military", because those are where military relies on.

You see it as "blackmailing", I see it as inevitable compromises to sustain backwards compatibility, which is an invaluable property of a decentralized software of that kind. You can't have a decentralized network with everyone's approval. Clearly, some groups of people have opposed interests; miners and users first and foremost. We don't live in a Nirvana. You can't have everyone happy.

However, we don't limit ourselves to that. We are not arrogant or certain enough to impose this perspective on everyone. You are welcome to disprove this claim by establishing a superior network of your own: [Fuck Core!]. What you are not free to do is continuously intervene in other people's discussions, without any basis in model, paper, or code, and disrupt their understanding with your personal issues.

Code does nothing if no one runs it.  Those securing the chain are choosing to run the code.



I'm accurately describing how consensus works.  It is merely a statement of fact when I say that no one can prevent opt-in softforks.  You can't prevent freedom of choice and I wouldn't dream of doing so even if I could.



Legitimate issues are welcome to be raised.  But no one can implement your "No softforks allowed" idiocy, and whining about it changes nothing.  What you want is not possible.  Move on.  Find a new stick to jam up your arse and then blame someone else for.

in normal byzantine generals scenario they cant force..
but here is the thing you pretend to ignore when it suits you..
core have become the only general. thus the soldiers are forced to follow the major general

it used to be a case that nothing upgrades unless there is super majority of diverse independent generals all agreeing to the same rules

and yes its you that know full and well that the super majority process has been broken because you have been hollering and howling the praises of core bypassing the super majority natural vote. you love soft consensus, you love the mandated blackmail process to activate things without natural super majority. check your post history you love how core dont need natural diverse independant super majority opt-in. due to soldiers not needing to upgrade nodes to vote.

you own post history has shown that consensus has changed and you love the new process that avoids super majority.
you even say how you dont want people questioning core or asking them to do things. you also dont want core to return to the process of needing a super majority becasue you think thats censorship to stop core activating their master plan

Exactly.  If we stick with the military analogy, developers are more akin to R&D.  They'll merely design the equipment and come up with new technology.  They can't force Generals to put new gear into service.  Generals can use old gear if they choose to.  R&D are not in charge of the military.  And developers are not in charge of Bitcoin.

Anyone who claims devs are in control doesn't understand Bitcoin.

Code is not what's securing the chain. "Coding" doesn't solve the generals' problem. Mining does. Generals in this case are miners. The developers are merely hobbyists who implement solutions, generals will later use in practice. There are no soldiers in Bitcoin, unless we accept the term "user" as that, because we all follow the miners' order (of transactions).

This neither makes sense. Order is authoritarian command. There is no such command from Core developers beyond your imagination. Developers write code, and literally everyone is free to run it. Nobody forces you to run Core. Nobody prevents you from altering Core, and running your own rules. Mining pools aren't following any such orders. And the act of running Core is a very conscious one. 

Accept for once you've made a mistake, and enter adulthood.

generals MAKE the orders
soldiers FOLLOW the orders

the blockchain does not make its own code.. its not Ai..
code is made by DEVS

again you want to play dumb pretending devs have no responsibility or involvement..
.. this is you again shifting the blame of the exploited code onto the mining pools by pretending the mining pools are the generals making the orders..

sorry the mining pools are the ones following orders, producing blocks that follow the formats ordered by devs rules
the devs made the rules for which the mining pools and node users follow

because thats the paradigm we are in
you have now tried to pretend bitcoin works differently again by saying devs do nothing. after spending pages with your dev adoration campaign..

maybe spend a little less time jumping between dumb and insanity of defending devs by either calling them gods or nobodies.. and instead actually learn how bitcoin works and how that has changed over the years from decentralised to centralised
heck core can admit it.. they even named their brand the center CORE

The "generals" are those securing the chain, you ignorant dullard.  Devs are not and have never been "in charge".  How are you this unbelievably stupid?

If you don't always agree with everything franknbeans says clearly its because you've been brainwashed, lol


You wrote a post on the Bitcoin Forum.
Franknbeans says you don't understand what you're talking about. Is it because:

a) you can't read
b) you didn't do research
c) you've been fed false narratives
d) you're an echo chamber choir member, or
e) all of the above

You must choose one to continue!

i don't think you want the code to be immutable. i don't even think you ever stopped to consider what would happen if that was the case though, did you? so maybe that's a different discussion for some other time.

those aren't the only two options but the code never changing is certainly one option that would stop negative changes being made to bitcoin core. so for you it is something not to take lightly and you should consider all options including bitcoin being immutable.

franky, i know about byzantine general problem which satoshi solved. that has nothing to do with bitcoin core development at all...it has to do with the protocol whereby messengers dont have to be trusted singularly. something like that.

that's exactly how it still works to some degree franky. every week there are apparently new people proposing new features to bitcoin. maybe you're just not aware of that but it is happening. doesn't mean those things will get adopted but i think in general the bitcoin community at large has an open mind about these new proposals, of which they come down the pike every week or month. now many of these proposals may not be something you consider to be "bitcoin core" but that's kind of splitting hairs.


i'm the one that's been trying to convince you that there really is a 3rd option if you feel like you're being subjected to some form of discrimination as a bitcoin user by the core devs. i've already told you you can make your own version of bitcoin core and tighten up some of the rules so that you are happier with how it works. that's your other option franky. but you won't discuss it. unless to say that it's impossible because the core devs have all the power. you have to try franky. if you don't try you cannot succeed...

i just hate seeing someone as smart as you feel like they are so helpless when they're really not. you have some nice stash of bitcoin. you could use it to further bitcoin development in the direction you prefer but you have to be willing to take action. if that involves putting up some cash then you have to do that. or find someone that will work for free.

i have my own thought process no one told me how to think about this whole thing. 

larry you think i want code to be immutable..
your teachings from the echo chamber are again flawed. you have gone full idiot by thinking this thought..

larry you are obsessed with the stupid thought that the only two option are dictatorship or code never changes..
you seem to be reciting the same wrong suggestions spoon fed to you by the obvious echo chamber yet again..

you think thats how bitcoin can only function.. you have completely ignored the things like consensus, decentralisation diverse proposals and the byzantine generals stuff

really do separate yourself from the echo chamber teachings.. and actually look back at the real past of events where by decentralisation meant something. where by different devs not associated with each other proposed different things and where bitcoin was treated as decentralised
whereby even the cypherpunks seen the beauty and elegance of the consensus solution to the byzantine generals problem.. and blockchain fundamentals of not requiring a single corporation/group mandating the changes.

learn the plural of the byzantine generals. it does not mean one general major incharge.. even though a single major general is now incharge. and thats what bitcoin has become. its not how it should remain and its not how bitcoin always was

learn the past. learn the mistakes of the current to plan for a brighter future

if you think the only option is core or immutable code that never upgrades/gets fixed. then you are the NEWBIE that still has alot to learn

whomever has taught you your stupid recent thoughts that core or immutable are the only options.. is the one lying to you. they want you to be indoctrinated into the stupidity mindset of centralisation.

and if you post one more time suggesting that you think the only option is immutable development. where you think (wrongly) that its what i am saying.. then you are really becoming ignorant to facts and the whole point.

so take a chance and learn from your mistakes. do some real research on the subject. and stop being a centralist script reciter. you are sounding too much like the doomad choir now

there is a third option franky. i keep telling you but you keep ignoring me about it. which is to create your own special version of bitcoin core. but not to make it into something incompatible with bitcoin, i.e., an altcoin. i think it's a misconception that just because you modify bitcoin core, it has to be called an altcoin. if it still follows the consensus rules, you can tighten up the belt buckle a bit and it's still running the same blockchain.


finally. you at least acknowledge the term "immutable" but now you have another misconception. i never said without core dev team bitcoin code would be immutable. without the core dev team, bitcoin would be a mess. because there would be no one overseeing its development and path. now if you don't like the maintainers of bitcoin, then that's a different story. thats a personal issue...

scrutinized and reviewed by who though? how many people are knowledgeable enough and furthermore are willing to do something without getting paid? but yet i hear you complaining that the core developers are on somebody's payroll. well, if they weren't then why would they waste their time doing it? so whoever is paying them is the one that gets to make the rules kind of. they're putting their money where their mouth is aren't they?

why don't you put your money where your mouth is and sponsor your own dev team. you can tell them all the changes you want and theyll have to do it for you because if not you can fire them and replace them. that's what you would do right? if they didn't do what you told them.  

i think that's where we have a disagreement. i think the reason they became "REKt" might have more to do with them not being good enough to gain traction. no one was interested. there's no grand conspiracy theory franky. you have to create something that the world wants in order to get it adopted. obviously the world wants what the core devs are doing otherwise they wouldn't be using it.

that development model worked for the linux kernel where you had a small group of developers, mainly linux torvalds who oversaw everything. it's called a benevolent dictator franky. that's how you have to look at the core dev group too. they're trying to make bitcoin better. if you don't believe that then i'm not sure if you believe in bitcoin.

somehow even if bitcoin was able to be made immutable you would still be complaining about it. but don't you think that's the solution to your entire problem is to freeze the code base and turn it into something immutable so that you can sleep better at night?  

the only question then becomes "how do you do that?" well and that's a good question. how does one go about freezing the bitcoin code base for eternity? so that no changes can be made to it again? would you agree to that? if so then we need to figure out some possible ways to do it.

doomad being an idiot again
i never said segwit and taproot does not exist. thats just doomad having no clue of reality..
i said how they got activated is not the best method of security of bitcoin upgrades..
doomad cant even make sense of reality of past debates thats why he thinks past debates dont make sense to him. because he has no clue what they were about..

doomad thinks the core devs are infallible gods that should make all rule decisions. and where users only have the right to follow core devs code. where users should not question the devs

doomad, you forgot the meaning of consensus and the whole point of decentralisation to not need a central authority governing the rules

also you pretend that core devs are not responsible for the bugs, exploits and faults that they did actually code.

you want to talk about other networks without blockchains that have different protocols as the solution to "bitcoin scaling" so its you that want to discuss other things while not want people to talk about bitcoin code and blockdata

you been playing that game since segwit where you have pretended its activation is different to what the code and block data show. even when i shown you the flag events and code of mandating block rejections using censorship to remove non segwit flagging blocks. you were spouting stupid rhetoric that segwit activated due to your silly version of what you think is consensus .. even when you contradicted yourself by saying super majority is not naturally able to occur at 100%. yet then say how it achieved it naturally pretending the users got to vote it in. even when you then contradict yourself again about the backward compatibility of not needing to opt-in to activate it.

you cant even get your story straight and any time you are asked to do some math, check the blockchain or read code you avoid it and just shout nonsense trying to use insults.

so you are the one avoiding code, and blockdata. you just what to spout rhetoric like a sales man with a sales pitch handed to you by some PR campaign

but in all the years you cant back up your rhetoric outsoide the echo chamber of comments from without your fanclub

soo fact is.. bitcoins rules have got softened. those softened rules have allowed the ability of 4mb of bloat for a single tx.. its something that has happened in recent years. not something that was possible right from the start..

its something that has not always existed. even though you want to pretend that the bloat has always been possible since bitcoins genesis

again 4mb of bloat for 1 tx has not always been possible. something you avoid investigating researching, learning and something you definitely dont want to look into the cause or who caused it.
transactions used to require specific data to be in the signature space. where such data used to be only for the proof of the utxo signing process. that has all changed.

so go learn how these ordinal crap was made possible. learn who caused it and learn who is responsible for it and who should fix it