In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,
- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.
they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse
frankandbeans, you're making it sound as if there's truly an "exploit" that "hackers" could covertly use to break the consensus rules. Laughable.
you do realise that this junk is causing a form of DDoS attack. stopping users having the ability to transact freely
you do realise by not needing general population full node vote of readiness before activation. a sybil attack by economic nodes can mandate pools comply or have their blocks rejected(yep it happened and is backed up by blockdata and code)
look into the NYA look into things like blockstream Fibre, look into the mandates. look into the blockdata to show real versions of events
look how "nonstandard" used to not relay pre-confirm. and now does
see how things have changed
consensus has been softened, it has never been this soft since the start
start caring more about bitcoin for your own funds security, rather than your forum daddys emotional security
consensus has already been compromised.. LEARN "backward compatibility"
nodes no longer validate all data. they allow junk in and nodes cant veto an upgrade anymore
thats what core love, being able to trojan in new funfy stuff nodes dont understand without the consent of the masses
learn what this entire issue is all about. and no dont ask your forum daddy for a new script to recite full of silly buzzwords you dont understand
learn about bitcoin for once
core added a f*ck-tonne of new opcodes that bypass validation.. they then use the strawman that there is no point stopping one opcode because exploiters will just use one of the other..
well disable the pre-confirm relay of the f*ck-tonne (they refuse because it then requires node readiness to then activate, meaning they cant slide new funky tx formats in themselves
but by having node readiness before activation means the network secures itself again. as it should do to prevent a dev from just sliding things in before nodes are ready
and no dont respond that core devs should be permissionless and should be able to do anything without consent.. because thats BAD security to allow them full control with no responsibility/consent of the majority of the network