Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 8. (Read 9235 times)

No.  You don't.  You want to discuss things that exist only in your mind.  SegWit is Bitcoin.  Taproot is Bitcoin.  And not just "bEcAuSe TeH eViL dEvS" but because ordinary people are running the code which makes those things part of Bitcoin.  If you want to discuss your make-believe blockchain which doesn't include SegWit and Taproot, then you don't want to discuss Bitcoin.  The Bitcoin you want sounds like the shitty forkcoins.  Those are not Bitcoin.  They don't have SegWit and Taproot.  You can talk about them in the altcoins board if you like.

Anyone can see empirically that Bitcoin includes SegWit and Taproot.  You are in disagreement with observable truth.  You claim "social drama" but you're totally in denial.  We have code.  You have endless crying and screeching.  Your so-called "arguments" are easily pulled apart.  You are the social drama. 

yawn.. more idiots avoiding checking blockchain data, code and avoiding looking at who wrote the code and scrutinising them... yawn.. boring social drama..



doomad funnily enough i been talking about your cultish crap for years..
you even cried when i called you lot fangirls and choir and a flock of followers

ive been saying about your adoration of authoritarian control for just as long
heck you cant even read your own post history to stick with your own story and its you that uses my words as your arguments.. and now you want to pretend you invented it..
you have never had an original thought in your life. you sound like a snake oil salesman. a cult leader. someone that wants to break bitcoin for greed


secondly. you dont use logic or math. you just want to avoid negative speak about core devs by insulting anyone that speaks badly of core devs. even though the core devs are the ones that are supposed to be critiqued and scrutinised the most. not blindly followed like some godlike religion

heck you pretend to be against certain things until you are told that core support the bugs and suddenly you want to call them features.
you even use this tactic as part of your recruitment. try to get people who hate something to think you hate it to to win them into liking you. then you tell them to love the thing they hate as if its the only option they have.

and you go hell bent on treating their bugs/flaws/faults, as things people should use. whilst then telling people to stop using bitcoin for normal currency uses of normal real life purchases.. to instead only do normal real life purchase stuff using other networks or systems your sponsored to promote

the only thing you ever try to say for "franky is wrong" is quote one of your previous posts or one of the posts of your clan who are also saying i wrong" yet there is no actual logic in what they are saying apart from the "franky is wrong"

take for instance nutildah trying to pretend that he debunked me. nutuldah has not even done the math on the example he gave of how he thinks ordinals transfers.. heck he cant even see using blockdata that if you follow the theory the results dont go to where he thinks they go to. instead he wants to trust a broken theory of a display more so than actual block data and sat movements. and that even before the crap about how the crap like means. dont even sit inside tx data, but are appended outside at the end and not assigned to any output

but hey when you shout "franky is wrong and hurting my head" to a moderator and get your cult to do the same to cause the moderator to ban me from a category due to your cries.. and then you use that to say franky must be wrong becasue we cried to a mod. the you use that you then say franky must be wrong becasue we showed our buddies that he was wrong becasue we cried to a mod

all your showing is just echos of "franky is wrong becasue we said so" without actual proof

you have never actually debunked me once about anything.
you are jsut using echos of social drama thinking if you can keep saying "franky is wrong" then it becomes true

i however dont want or need ass kissery or a clan or cult. i dont even want to spoon feed people. they should just grow some balls and brains and do some research for themselves for once and actually read the code and block data for themselves and look at who caused the shit thats affecting the masses

all you care about is recruiting people its all you can think about. its why you think thats what i must be doing too because its the only tactic you know so you think its the only thing thats happeneing.

i dont care who likes me im not looking for friends or a social club. i want to discuss bitcoin and the devs that are causing problems for bitcoin..
shame that you want to avoid such topics or dismantle such topics by making it all about franky.. the funniest part. is you say i dont write code. so how can i be the authoritarian that has controlled bitcoin..
your games of shift the blame away from core and onto me is hilarious.. illogical. lacks common sense, and not part of reality. but it is hilarious to see you try to make people avoid discussing the things CORE HAS DONE IN REALITY but then want your cult to "talk about franky" as if "franky is controlling bitcoin"

you are the delusional one that does not have a sense of logic and reality

If "accurately describing how things work" and "dismantling logical fallacies" are enough to qualify me for cult leader status, then I guess I'll just have to accept it.  I shall call it the Cult of Reality.  All are welcome, unless they're unhinged fruitloops like franky1.   

Also, for someone with an imagination as vivid as his, you'd think he could come up with an original insult.  I called him a wannabe cult leader a month or so ago (wannabe, as he doesn't have any followers who listen to anything he says).   

I don't think I've ever seen someone so adept at alienating people.  It's almost impressive.

when half a dozen idiots avoid talking about bitcoin issues and the devs that caused it.. and instead just wat to advertise scams and valueless junk and then try to make anything bad be frankys fault.. well everyone else outside that idiot group can see the idiots

but the idiots will only want to see their fellow half a dozen echoing idiot buddies. while ignoring the thousands of people that are discussing bitcoin issues.. but hey if they think its only franky speaking of bitcoin issues.. thats the idiots problems and so they earn being called idiots

so if you dont want to look like an idiot and avoid being called one.. take a chance on yourself and do some indepenant research for once

Seems like one man's 4D chess is another man's mental illness.

Its amazing how he's managed to unite everyone against him. What part of the 4D chess strategy is that?

I'm trying to train an AI model to write responses in the style of franky1 but its more difficult than I anticipated. I will definitely name the model franknbeans.

i already replied to your question

your mutterings are about a stupid theory handed to you by the cult headed by doomad that the only two options are core do the decision making or no one does unless they want to make an altcoin

you keep bring up the things like immutible code.as if without core it would be immutible.. which i responded with thats not how consensus works and thats not how consensus manges code. consensus and blockchains work by allowing for diverse brans to all have options to propose upgrades and the brans then unites and all happily imploy the feature that has been scrutinised reviewed and shows benefit to the community..
however recent years diverse brands have been REKt into becoming altcoins or sheep followers of core and any brand not core who try to propose an upgrade gets treated as an opposition that "should just f**k off" even your cult leader says this statement all the time. so dont pretend its not a game being played.

your whole mutterings is to love core being the solo architect of bitcoin code change. while at the same time wanting people to not discuss the mess core causes.
then if people suggest options other then the core road map even you recite the rhetoric of go make a smart contract network dont change blockchains dont mess with cores power house and dont speak bad about core

again you ned to realise what core has done becasue yes CORE DONE IT
bitcoin is not some self aware AI that built its own code. core devs done the changes to bitcoin in the last decade. so yes they do need to be talked about when it comes to this junk thats been allowed to occur

and again incase you missed it. consensus is not suppose to be broken down to let any junk in its suppose to be strict rules where the majority suppose to agree on the formatting . where data is suppose to have purpose
and yes it does make me laugh that in 2017-20 era doomad was reciting the "conservatism" mantra of not allow bloat.. and now he has gone polar opposite with the "censor" mantra of not wanting bloat stopped.
but one common theme on both his plots is to stagnate real bitcoin usage, premiumise the cost of real bitcoin usage. all to promote his other prefered network everyone should use instead.. and it seems you are falling into sounding like his sales-man-in-training, rather than caring about bitcoin

i don't think miners are against it franky. if i was a miner i wouldn't be against it. why? because the people that are paying for monkeys are paying my power bill and putting food on the table. not the cheapo people that want to pay 1 satoshi per byte. 


you keep deflecting my questions. and i dont know why. it's like you don't want to acknowledge how bitcoin really works. it depends on people people have human behavior. human behavior is not always predictable or rational. i think what you really need franky is a smart contract. put bitcoin in a smart contract so that no dev can ever make any changes to it. then you would be happy. but then you wouldn't have anything to be critical of bitcoin about because there woudl be no use complaining or anything because it couldn't be changed. 

you want to know if people want monkeys or not

check this topic
its not "just franky" thats against the dead weight crap

but it seems you have entered the half a dozen idiot echo chamber group that dont want it fixed

and you are now also reciting their other narrative of thinking without core being the sole arbitors of code decision the only other option is no change. where you then repeat that you think core are needed as sole decision maker for the benefit of everyone else

here is the thing.. your recent change of mindset where you are suddenly sounding too much like doomad.. is not even an original thought by you. instead its just that same echo. its like a script. same echo's same words same buzzwords and chants.

many can notice the same scripts are being said by the same small minded core adoration brigade of whats sounding like the echo chambers of a cult

however if you dare try to challenge yourself to look outside the mutterings of that script you will see many many topics talking about how annoying these exploits are affecting bitcoin users.

your cult leader you recite near verbatim now, keeps wanting you to think its "just franky"
but look outside his scripts. and actually see the many topics and thousands of people in such topics all asking for BITCOIN scaling.. not other network pushes.
many thousands talking about high fee's and how the memes and json junk is causing fee mania and tx count issue of real bitcoin utility. all the topics about spam and other things.

topics about how core are doing the "great consensus cleanup" and softening consensus

look outside of the cultish scripts. challenge yourself, actually try to make posts again that do not sound like a rehash of the scripts doomad has got his flock to recite . break away from the echo's of the idiots.. think for yourself. actually look at the many different topics about stuff core caused where many are talking less ass kissery about core.  dont get stuck into the ass kissery and ignore anyone that doesnt sound like a confirmation bias cult member echo. becasue if the only comments you want to read are from the echo chamber. that will be all you ever see.
ignorance and blindness are not virtues or features you want to inherit.. because those features are not working for the penny pinching sigcampaign idiots of the clan you are being indocrinated into

i am not asking for you to believe, trust, kiss my ass.. im saying just open your eyes beyond the doomad crap. and actually read the thousands of other posts by other random people that are not the half a dozen buddy group of doomads little social drama cult

look at the code. look at blockchain data. use logic math and common sense. not project managers quotes of broken promises
work things out for yourself. realise cores broken promises and neglect to fix the crap the caused

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

so how do you know you're not in the minority about what you want? maybe the majority wants monkeys on the blockchain. have you polled a suitable sample size and gotten some statistically significant result that says "with a 1% margin of error we know that 75% of bitcoin users don't want monkeys". if you had a scientific study like that which was duplicatible then it might have some reason for asking if that's the case then "why are there monkeys on the blockchain?"

well in theory yes but everyone has to agree on the consensus rules. if they can't agree on the consensus rules then it's like democrats vs republicans. sometimes the democrats might get control of the whitehouse and do some changes. then republicans might take the whitehouse back at some point and try and undo those changes and make some changes of their own. starting to see the problem now? it's a human being problem, not a technical problem. something bitcoin can't solve because it has nothing to do with bitcoin and it has more to do with human behavior. especially in large populations and how they align based on their views...

in order for bitcoin to survive though changes need to be made so that miners can continue to have a good revenue, that's an argument someone could make for why new use cases for bitcoin need to come about. miners are not going to be speaking out against them, that's for sure.


i understand someone that has a significant investment in bitcoin not being happy with things in the sense that transaction fees have gone up. i totally get that. but before you make that investment, it is wise to consider what type of adverse outcomes might happen with that investment. simple as that, franky. i'm not the one that needs the luck because i already understood how bitcoin works in that it is controlled by different people at different times over the course of its long existence. to think that it will never change would be like thinking that new york city will always stay above sea level. it's sinking at a rate of a couple millimeters per year, did you know that? 

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/as-rising-oceans-threaten-nyc-study-documents-another-risk-the-city-is-sinking/4375989/

but if you like maybe you could turn bitcoin into a smart contract so that it never changes. but then what would people have to complain about anymore? the weather?

Legendaries mental breakdown? I believe we haven't seen everything yet, but we will! Starting with Gold bug Peter Schiff.


Franknbeans' 4D Chess is working on you.

 

its not about "immutible"

you are reading echos of idiots that are saying that if core cant change it no one should by which if core cant change it then the code should never change again(immutible)

thats the echo chamber FUD campaign of suggesting that strengthening consensus to require super majority opt-in to activate upgrades would be treated as never upgrading if core are not controlling the upgrade process.. which is the FUD/lies

pretending bitcoin becomes unupgradable without core being the authority is not the facts or the point

its not even what consensus is about. consensus is not about having one ruler who makes decisions and people are to choose to follow the single ruler or make an altcoin(their other fud echos)

the point is that before bitcoin even existed there were cypherpunks trying to create digital money that was different to the authoritarianism of fiat. whereby they were looking to have a system with no central point could control the rules of a currency and no individual could break those rules. but where a majority could align to some good rule policy which does change when there is majority acceptance. in a way that there is no single brand being the major. but unity found in decentralised diversity of brands and software.

bitcoins very invention solved this. consensus and blockchains is not a by-product. its the main feature.
the reason why they seen the elegance of consensus and blockchains solving the decentralisation problem is very much the reason bitcoin got popular in the first place.

you have fallen into the echo chamber trap of thinking that the only two options are: expensive bloated junk crap data with soft/lack of rules. or a ruleset that never changes ever. that is also stuck with the current cludge, where the only option for cludge hater is to make an altcoin..

you have been told bad advice about the way things work and the options available. as the advice you have been told is all about, essentially "accept unscrutinised centralisation or f**k off"

think outside of that echo chamber. actually learn the history of bitcoin and where the problems lay and what actually occured along the way

consensus is about a super majority of the masses voting in a change.
however that has been broken down recently where changes are made to the main protocol rules where it does not require supermajority readiness before new features activate anymore

then came the lack of checks on byte arrangement, byte counting, format requirement data expectations of tx data.

and when you look at who caused it. you notice the same names..

the solution is not to ignore who done it or try to echo chamber "franky wants to break bitcoin, miners want to break bitcoin" actually look at who wrote the changes that made bitcoin annoying to use for the masses.

we as a community are suppose to scrutinise and criticise those that are responsible for code changes of the bitcoin protocol. we are suppose to hold them accountable and responsible when they make errors and yes we are suppose to get them to fix their bugs.  

at this current moment trying to offer a differing brand will get rekt becasue the echo chamber is so loud that people are too dumb to see the echo chamber loves the controls and hates to see their idols be responsible or become required to be open to decentralisation. they love the central power house too much

people need to be more open to decentralisation and actually open to peer review and challenging the core devs. then the core devs would and should be more open to proposals not made by just themselves or just their sponsors

the echo chamber of asskissing authoritarianism is what should be dealt with. instead of idiots becoming the echos and trying to call anything not part of the authority. the authoritarians(shifting the blame)

but i guess you seem to have already dug your hole and now you are stuck in it, where the only thing you want to hear is your own echos of the same voices telling you to sit in the hole

goodluck

---

as for nutildah.
 i see you cant be bothered to do the math. for yourself. seems math does not make sense to you.
and i know your game is cry that you cant do math so someone spoonfeeds you the math. and if you dont like who is spoonfeeding you the math you simply shout their math is wrong. which is why i keep saying do your own research so you cant play that ignorant game

so here it is.. and yes i can tell your reply is just going to be to ignore the math.. but hell seems you are crying that you cant do it yourself. so here goes

the value shift of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og 0.01024404 where the first sat sits is here:


12YJUgKwcEmvCuNZexVV1ZTVMciJ1J4S1u         0.00671313 \
16JqNeHqhpBg1SyvSqXR3ShvNY1rJtaTkN          0.00007000 -- 0.16738313
1H5E2CeoXn7nk1sB9kWPzecp1goK8aeVSm        0.16060000 /   
128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og   0.01024404
               
this means that the 0.16738314th sat is the first sat of 0.01024404 (128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og)

so follow how much is being spent. in order(counting sats) to see where that sat ends up
         
so count the sats

here ill show you
the inputs being spent total 5.01000002btc (5.0079479 if ignoring the fee)
where by the "first byte" of the block reward is the 0.16738314th sat (if you ignore fee spent first)
so you look at the outputs and notice the first 5btc go to.. wait for the logic to set in. wait for the maths to settle into your head.. yep the "first sat"(of the blockreward)  inside the spend of the tx in question goes to... 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b

which then because the "first sat of blockreward" is stil part of the first 99% of the 5btc not the last 1% .. then still goes to the 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW in
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd?i=0

check it out for yourself..
do the math
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd?i=0

You're assuredly just trolling me now. With each subsequent response you make less and less sense. I'm out.


Honestly I wouldn't waste your time anymore. I think franknbeans is just wrestling with personal demons at this point.

I thought TECSHARE was stubborn but franknbeans is a whole nother level of autist OCD stubborn. There's no point in conversing with him, but when he tricks impressionable newbies into believing his misinformation I feel compelled to point out why he is wrong. In this way he is kind of a menace and I understand why he was banned from posting on the more serious boards.

just admit that bitcoin has shortcomings one of those is how even though we like it, it is not immutable. for various reasons that would be hard to do and may not make sense to try and do it. but if you're worried about some group of bad actors taking over bitcoin "development" then why would you be against the idea of making bitcoin source code immutable? that really is the only way it can truly be trustless.

but if you want to live in a fantasy land where you think that there's always going to be people acting in your best interests with regards to bitcoin then maybe you can be ok with its current model of development.

these things are a byproduct of alot of people running the same software that has the same source code logic. there might be some people that try and run something with different rules but there's not enough of them to overcome the entire network.

obviously you consider the current core developers to be an example of this. so why not advocate for a bitcoin whose source code is immutable. then we could discuss other things like how much it costs to buy a cup of coffee using bitcoin and not have to worry about if developers were opening up bitcoin to exploits by orangutangs...



if bitcoin source code was just immutable that would solve the entire problem franky. then we woudln't be in this mess in the first place right?


..
it was just a speculative play there's a possibility that guys product might become worth something. maybe not alot but who knows? if it's free then why not but i don't know if i would be willing to pay anything. if i have to pay i could just upload my own monkey. 

it seems like you would be a strong advocate for a setup where bitcoin source code is made immutable after all major bug fixes are done. that could have happened pre-segwit, no?

but if bitcoin was immutable source code then none of that could have happened. i'm surprised you're not promoting the idea of immutable source code based on your numerous rants against the current core developers. how much of that does it take before you realize it is a broken system the entire development model. or do you acknowledge that? trustless only applies to the protocol itself but not to the people who invent it or maintain it. you can't always trust them i guess. not to act how you want them to. lesson learned for you.

you trust the ordinals explorer more then actual block data

dont blind trust the ordinals explorer..  instead:
follow the MATH, LOGIC, ECONOMICS, COMMON SENSE not the project managers of a broke explorer

he may say that gorillas belong in the mist and then display a webpage of mist.. it doesnt mean that gorillas live in the webpage. real gorillas are found elsewhere in the world.

learn common sense
check the block data not a explorers interpretation. then when you see the real block data and the math. you then see how broke ordinal is

---

i cannot beleive that after soo many weeks now you are still finding excuses to not look at the hard data of block data. and instead insisting on blind trusting the ordinals explorer. (facepalm)

why are you wasting weeks of your own time avoiding looking at the math and actual hard data and applying logic and economics to the hard data.. why are you obsessed with blind trust of a project managers empty promises

you seem too financially motivated to want to assume that ordinals work

..
and as for your other assumptions about the "change" being secondary/final.. you might want to check your own example. of that 1GQ address path of funds that move portions of the 5btc. yep its not always sending the change as the final output.

do the math.

Ah but it does. It explains that change goes back to the sender secondarily. You can't send change first, that's just how it is, sorry if you don't like it.


None of this makes anything that remotely comes close to resembling sense.

The fact that you're still trying to argue with what the ordinals explorer says is sheer ridiculum of the highest order.

Stay mad franknbeans.

Maintainers are developers who've made significant contributions. There are literally thousands of pull requests which were implemented after discussion made my non-maintainers. If you think the Core team is an alien group, or whatever, which thrives to centralize the project as much as possible in cunning ways, then I don't know what else to say.

I read a little bit below that, where I noticed a "sig campaign" mention, and I got the message; ignored for multiple time, I have lost count. Do you really want to talk to people? Seems rather you want to talk at them. Please see a psychiatric.

core is not using the byzantines generals solution because the byzantine generals solution is about diverse and independent brands of full nodes(generals) that can all propose upgrades where the supermajority agree on a path to follow.. .. core however want to be a single major general making everyone obey core and have no one question cores orders.

as for thinking that someones getting REKT because their idea is flawed. that has not been the historic past of examples. they got rekt simply for not being core. and treated as the enemy for asking for something not in the core roadmap

doomads social contract is his belief they everyone should obey core, but never criticise, scrutinise or ask anything of core. to instead trust that the 5 maintainers will self govern each other and trust that they will do such.

in short he thinks the only general of bitcoin should be the 5 core maintainers. and no other generals should exist outside of core. no one outside of core should be able to make proposals to the core generals, nor ask the core generals for other options that contradict the core general.

he thinks other brands should just be infantrymen following orders and echoing the orders of the only general

Before anyone replies further, consider the following points:

If someone is complaining about getting "REKT", where people shot down their ideas, try to see that for what it really is.  It's not an injustice or some sort of conspiracy.  It's merely an admission on their part that they failed to make a compelling argument.  That their ideas simply weren't good enough.  If ideas are sound in reasoning and logic, people will generally accept them.  So, it stands to reason that any ideas which got "REKT" did so for a sensible reason.  It was just a weak proposal that didn't stand up to scrutiny.  And they're bitter about it.

When people refer to 'Byzantine Fault Tolerance', the very problem which needed to be solved was the issue with social contracts and people needing to be trusted to do as they were instructed.  The entire premise is that you don't rely on trust.  So if someone is telling people to "learn Byzantine generals problem" in one breath and then claiming that the solution supposedly involves asking every single coder on the face of the planet to "do as they're told" in the next breath, perhaps that individual doesn't understand things as well as they claim.  It sounds to me like such a person is in absolutely no position to lecture others about anything.  Social Contracts are not Byzantine Fault Tolerant.  

that quote of caseys description.. you are using as your rebuttal has nothing to do with the counting sats method you are trying to use as an explainer of your exampled taint path

because that 5btc is not breaking up the coin into 3 amounts where the 'rare' sat goes to the 3M address.
not is it about shifting sats around. to end up with the specific rare sat ending up in the 3M address

JUST DO THE BASIC MATH !!!

why do you waste weeks avoiding the logic, math, and instead just want to blind follow some project manager
have you ever tried to think about verification of blockdata rather than "trust project manager "
just spend the 2 minutes required to do the obvious instead of wasting weeks avoiding the obvious whilst trying to find lame excuses to avoid it just so you can remain a loyal ass kisser to a project manager rather than math/economic, logic proof


your a noob with alot to learn
changes used to be made when supermajority are sticking to the same rules thus the blockdata accepted by the majority unites around those rules

however there is only one full node brand that has become god like, that wants to be the new rule proposer and treats any other node proposer as the enemy.
meaning that one proposer is the central point of failure..(anti-decentralisation)

the whole point of consensus is that it does not need one brand to rule them all.. learn the whole point of consensus solving the byzantine generals problem

there should not be one major general in charge making all of the proposed orders. there should be many generals able to coexist all proposing possible ways forward where the best path follows. and then a different general can come up with something new next time. .. with no reliance on one general giving the marching orders everytime.

LEARN DECENTRALISATION
LEARN CONSENSUS
LEARN BYZANTINE GENERALS TOLERANCE
LEARN CENTRAL POINT OF FAILURES

the reason this ordinals crap has not been fixed is because people cant propose a fix .. becasue core BAN people proposing such. yep there is no BIP on their github to fix it. heck even Luke JR who used to moderate the BIPS cant even get his discourage ordinals into a BIP. thats how controlling core are. and even when people add a discourage ordinals patch and try to release it to the masses.. core and their fan club REKT it by saying dont trust it. its not signed or reviewed by the 5 maintainers of core.

..
also i see you have fallen into the trap of thinking stupid things like ordinals are real assets. you were even willing to accept an ordinal just yesterday in another topic..
you have much to learn. but goodluck ass kissing the idiots that want to scam you and control you.
maybe just for once break out of becoming another echo of their plan. and do some independant research. think more about bitcoin as a system that should be decentralised that uses the mechanisms that made bitcoin work in the first place .. the invention of consensus.. to realise bitcoin does not and should not be controlled by a central point
and then learn that not every project manager exists to help the community. they are there becasue they have been sponsored to harm the community, whilst promoting their other favoured networks they want people to move to

dont just read a project managers concepts, theoriies, promises. read the code and how it affect the blockdata. becasue its the code and the blockdata that is more important then their broken promises.
and certainly dont still ass kiss them when their broken promises are shown to the world
EG
promise: taproot makes witness usage lean..
actual result: a tx can use upto 4mb of witness for dead weight junk unrelated to proof of signing a utxo

I've removed all the rhetoric because its pointless to even read, so we're left with this:


We went over this before: the ordinal doesn't go to the change address according to First In, First Out, according to the actual theory (not Franknbeans Ordinal Theory). I provided you with an excerpt from the documentation which explains this, you once again ignored it in favor of stampeding over reality.


Just because you continue to misunderstand the theory doesn't mean its broken, it means you don't understand the theory. At this point I think you're just trolling me instead of having to concede you were wrong -- I don't think you are actually this stupid.