well, There are those who say that this problem will be solved in version 27.0 of bitcoin core:
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2023/12/btc-developer-luke-dashjr-2024-bitcoin-core-update-will-disrupt-ordinals-and-brc-20-tokens/
the only thing that is certain is that they are putting games in the Bitcoin blockchain:
https://decrypt.co/216677/bits-bitcoin-ordinals-game-deadfellaz-dfz-labs
https://ordinals.com/content/521f8eccffa4c41a3a7728dd012ea5a4a02feed81f41159231251ecf1e5c79dai0
what if some idiot puts malicious code into the blockchain and a bigger idiot in the government tries to outlaw the blockchain for some "national security" reasons or crap like that?
Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 12. (Read 7771 times)
A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.
If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
Just because ETH is centralized (even more so with PoS), it doesn't mean that every altcoin is centralized. That's a bit dismissive, don't you think?
Are Litecoin, Monero centralized? Just to name a few...
Regarding Lightning, necessity is the mother of invention.
When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2:
https://litecoinspace.org/
Bitcoin was like that 15 years ago...
If Litecoin became really popular, then it would face the exact same scaling issues.
There will always be a reason to use an off-chain layer on top of Bitcoin that utilizes actual Bitcoin transactions. I believe for those altcoins users that want Bitcoin HODLers to use their chains, prepare to be disappointed if your network won't incentivize HODLers with earning more units denominated in Bitcoin. Your network needs the liquidity more than Bitcoin needs your smaller liquidity. Plus if there isn't a bridge that doesn't rely on third parties to convert Bitcoin and use your chains, then let the "necessity is the mother of invention" build one.
A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.
If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
Just because ETH is centralized (even more so with PoS), it doesn't mean that every altcoin is centralized. That's a bit dismissive, don't you think?If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
Are Litecoin, Monero centralized? Just to name a few...
Regarding Lightning, necessity is the mother of invention.
When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2:
https://litecoinspace.org/
Bitcoin was like that 15 years ago...
If Litecoin became really popular, then it would face the exact same scaling issues.
Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?
It is fully built and functional on other chains, like Litecoin and Vertcoin. It just doesn't see anywhere near the same level of usage. 170 public channels in LTC versus over 50000 BTC channels. And no one can even be bothered to keep count of the ones on Vertcoin anymore because it's completely insignificant.
[...]
Theoretically, lightning can work without Bitcoin, but practically, it has little to no purpose. I presume that's what pooya meant. You'd use lightning mostly to avoid paying an outrageous amount of money for a low-value Bitcoin transaction, but beyond that it isn't useful. Litecoin's mempool is mostly empty, micro-transactions can take place there cheaply and get confirmed soon enough. Needless to mention that most lightning software is written to work on Bitcoin and isn't tested anywhere else.
What does that mean, ser? Practically those channels in the Lightning Network are actual Bitcoin transactions that haven't been settled on-chain yet. What Lightning could be is a sort of organized mempool where users could send and receive Bitcoin pre-confirmation.
Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
pretty much no one takes bitcoin as payment.
That's a bold guess. You are basically claiming that the payment processor companies like Bitpay, Coinbase, etc. are dead and over 3 million users they have are fake, the thousands of "payments" they process per day is fake and so on!
And that's just centralized payment processors that only a small fraction of the Bitcoin world uses. The rest of the "payments" are direct and without middle men like Bitpay...
It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked".
i don't think bitcoin was designed to help people who were having difficulty because they were unable to get a traditional bank account. it will never replace that. pretty much no one takes bitcoin as payment...so for someone to think that bitcoin is the solution to them not having a bank account, all they are going to have is a private key on a piece of paper or some trezor but if they can't verify their ID and things like then no one is going to touch them with a 10 foot pole. including p2p exhcangers. because most p2p is not done face to face. unless they can find someone like that then they are stuck with bitcoin without a way to use it. and then what's even worse, begging people to take their bitcoin. "i have this bitcoin here...i'll give it to you at a discount..."The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account.
It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked".
The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account. They can have their own banks with Bitcoin with very simple condition nowadays.Have Internet connection, and a device to download a Bitcoin wallet, create to use.
It's worthwhile to note to be their own banks with Bitcoin, they must.
- Use a non custodial wallet, open source.
- Verify it, to avoid phishing, fake wallets.
- Backup their wallets.
- Test backups for recovery.
- Fund that wallet with Bitcoin and use it to store their bitcoins, to broadcast bitcoin transaction for their trades.
Quote
The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!
A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.
Interesting analysis:
https://www.theheldreport.com/p/bitcoin-runes-explainer
https://www.theheldreport.com/p/bitcoin-runes-explainer
Quote
Casey launches his Runes token standard on the halving in April – at blockheight 840,000. It could be a giant boost in fees to Bitcoin miners at the very moment they need it the most!
[...]
Theoretically, lightning can work without Bitcoin, but practically, it has little to no purpose. I presume that's what pooya meant. You'd use lightning mostly to avoid paying an outrageous amount of money for a low-value Bitcoin transaction, but beyond that it isn't useful. Litecoin's mempool is mostly empty, micro-transactions can take place there cheaply and get confirmed soon enough. Needless to mention that most lightning software is written to work on Bitcoin and isn't tested anywhere else. 
In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!
This is incorrect. LN operates independently of Bitcoin and is not contingent upon its existence. LN possesses the capability to facilitate transactions across various blockchain platforms, not limited solely to Bitcoin. LN is not reliant on Bitcoin; were Bitcoin to cease to exist, the Lightning Network would continue to function autonomously.
Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?
i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.
It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked". The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!
But can dog poop in a pretty bag make one Bitcoin grow to two Bitcoin? Sometimes when an opportunity comes to earn using dormant capital merely stored in a wallet, we should probably take some risk, no? Bitcoin "DeFi" from Asia might be the largest narrative for Bitcoin this cycle. If the price surges to $100,000, what's the next prediction? $500,000? I will merely wash my hands after picking up then selling the dog poop.
Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?
Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?
and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.
Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"? I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits. But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation. Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?
It will be the same reason why humans gamble. Whether "Bitcoin DeFi" will have real utility or not, it will be the next Bitcoin narrative. "Bitcoin DeFi" developers will make giant "casinos" on top of Bitcoin to unlock dormant capital. Jihan Wu might be a big player in this.
it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.
Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h
Although debatable if the volume on recent Ordinals activity were truly from "dormant capital, but ser I'm also literally talking about the Bitcoins HODLed in those wallets that have never moved for years. I believe at some point, they will be used. But when? When Bitcoin is at $2 trillion total market value, $5 trillion? Human society and prospecting have always gone side by side in modern human history.
it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.
Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.
Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"? I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits. But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation. Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?
If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!
Although it's true that they're using Bitcoin "for NFTs" because it's "something new", what it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen. The Ordinals token ORDI had so much trading volume that made it surge more than ten times from October, 2023 to January, 2024. If you ask me, that's capital from holders who were waiting for something to do with their Bitcoins. You could call it spam and/or scam, but that truly doesn't matter because they paid for the fees and they're following the consensus rules.
Ordinals will not go away, and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.
[...]
The best selling point of Ordinals is that they are embedded in the most secure and decentralized blockchain, Bitcoin's. They could be implemented much cheaper in a sidechain, or an altcoin, but this would result in just another useless token concept which would be forgotten after a couple of months. Think of an altcoin that can survive in the long term, allows you to embed trash and is equally censorship resistant such that its community would be highly discouraged from excluding that trash specifically. I don't think there is.
If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!
Jump to: