Pages:
Author

Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 22. (Read 7771 times)

sr. member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 469
June 07, 2023, 08:45:18 AM
I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit?
i didn't realize cpu speed is an issue when running bitcoin core. i am sure that a simple dual core cpu from 2010 would be fine still in 10 years for running bitcoin core just like it probably is today. a core i5 would be better but i'm not sure it's really necessary. but bitcoin doesn't need high end cpus. it never will.

Quote
How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?
if someone doesn't have a 100Mbps download speed today they are in the stone ages, just being honest. If in 10 years they're still in that situation then they really have no business downloading a 1Terabyte blockchain. Just being honest. There's companies who just don't want to increase their customers speeds so they try and force them to stay at lower speeds too but that's a different story.

Quote
Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.
probably not practical but if it was done then that would certainly encourage people to consolidate their coins.  Shocked

Quote
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.
just don't try and use ssd for something like chiacoin. i heard it eats them for lunch. churning through and doing a bunch of wear and tear.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
June 07, 2023, 04:46:59 AM
If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).
Code:
0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)
but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?

Quote
With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.
wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... Shocked I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.

Quote
And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.
why not? nothing wrong with bare metal. Shocked

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?
Note bold question.

The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top  pools decide to do that.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 4711
**In BTC since 2013**
June 07, 2023, 12:52:22 AM
My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?
legendary
Activity: 4256
Merit: 8551
'The right to privacy matters'
June 06, 2023, 09:50:37 PM

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  Shocked

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.
far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:
0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting.  Shocked

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.
They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.


Note bold question.

I mine it is a business
I need fee income
Every ½ ing fee income is more critical and the Block reward lessons.

I will be the first to say while I like to see a 6.25 reward and 4.75 in fees = 11 btc per block but I know it hurts the business of btc if it continues for say 1 or 2 years in a row.

My fears for down the road of ½ ing rewards are getting fees to work well enough for

miners, pools and users of btc.

6.25 + 0.75 = 7 seems to work okay

6.25 + 5.7 = 12 seems to be an issue if it goes for a long time 6 months a year seem bad.

so in a year

3.125 + 0.875 = 4 seems okay

3.125 + 5.875 = 9 seems wrong a real problem

in 2028

1.5625 + 0.9375 = 2.5 still may work

1.5625 + 5.4375 = 7.0 seem wrong a real problem



on and on and on

I worry for this to get worse as time goes on.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.
sr. member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 469
June 06, 2023, 07:52:35 PM

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:
0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)
but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

Quote
With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.
wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... Shocked I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

Quote
And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.
why not? nothing wrong with bare metal. Shocked
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
June 06, 2023, 06:55:15 AM

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  Shocked

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.
far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:
0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting.  Shocked

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.
They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
June 06, 2023, 02:03:39 AM
If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

Though I don't expect low-fee tx's to get any priority from them as long as the Unisat hype continues.
sr. member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 469
June 05, 2023, 10:32:41 PM

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  Shocked


Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.
far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting.  Shocked
legendary
Activity: 4256
Merit: 8551
'The right to privacy matters'
June 05, 2023, 04:43:37 PM
Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?
That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.

As long as the top five pools do not blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte.

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools


Summary of Mined Blocks
Miner / Pool--------Percent

Foundry USA-------33.333%

AntPool-------------22.337%

F2Pool--------------13.574%

Binance Pool--------9.794%

ViaBTC--------------8.419%

total of ----------- over 87.2%

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.



sr. member
Activity: 1666
Merit: 310
June 05, 2023, 03:44:23 PM
Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?
That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.
legendary
Activity: 4256
Merit: 8551
'The right to privacy matters'
June 05, 2023, 12:37:36 PM

As a miner its cool 😎 to see the high fees.

 The key 🔑 is do the high fees break the back of the 25k support.

Crashing us to a nice dip buy. Or do the crazy ass degenerate players that think they can break btc price support bust out.

The worst possible thing is removing BRC20 which would be fully admitting that BTC is a loser and can be broken by a piece of shit thing like BRC20

If you believe in btc you should support it by doing a few btc moves and paying high fees over the next two weeks.

IE on or two 10 dollar fees paid won’t break you over the next two weeks.


Crying to developers to fix it and having the developers do something is terrible.

Think of the future when fees are too small to support miners will you be crying for developers to raise the fees? I think not. Guess what miners will do down the road they will move to scrypt algo or any algo that supports mining.

Btc traders and users want small tiny fees miners want bigass fees.

The play goes back and forth.

Lets see what happens by June 1.

My guess is fees drop down and things go back to normal.

At 144 blocks a day and paying 1 or 2 coins each block you are spending 4.2 to 8.4 million a day in extra fees.

The people doing this will run out of coin. May take all of May but they will shoot their load and be spent.

I quoted myself about a month later. Fees are down to under 1 btc a block vs 2+ btc a block

last 10 blocks on June 5th

792990 ----- 0.61
792989 ----- 0.73
792988 ----- 0.72 > 2.06
792987 ----- 0.48
792986 ----- 0.56
792985 ----- 0.54 > 3.64
792984 ----- 0.59
792983 ----- 0.63
792982 ----- 0.57
792981 ----- 0.73 > 6.16



far less than may 9th date of my quoted post.

789000-----2.19
788999-----3.93
788998-----5.69 ----- 11.81
788997-----1.78
788996-----3.35
788995-----1.76 -----18.7
788994-----1.73
788993-----1.85
788992-----1.73
788991-----1.84-----25.85



Developers did nothing and fees went down bigly. May 9th to June 5th.

give the developers a pat on the back for the "wait and see move".


6.16 is way down from 25.85
hero member
Activity: 1111
Merit: 588
June 05, 2023, 08:55:45 AM
You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Look at the definition of spam , you can't call spam a transaction that pays more fees than normal . Try to find another term .
 If you had a store and someone was willing to pay you more than your asked price would you deny him your services ? On the contrary , you would leave the other customers and try to please him the most you could . You asked for a fee market , you made it and now people want to pay more to have their transactions validated . Why you call something an attack when it doesn't fit your narratives ?

Quote
Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.
Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

Quote
That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.
Really ? History proves you wrong https://cirosantilli.com/cool-data-embedded-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain#illegal-content-of-block-229k
Not to mention that satoshi himself used blockchain as a "cloud storage" for his timestamp message .

legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
June 05, 2023, 07:11:38 AM
On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall ,
You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Quote
while LN "steal" fees from miners .
Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

Quote
Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .
That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
June 05, 2023, 04:33:36 AM
P.S. this is repost since my previous post was deleted by mistake.


Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment.
i can see how block sizes bumped up in february for sure but it's not like an exponential increase in block size they are just pushing the theoretical maximum limit of 4MB per block more i guess. the blockchain can't grow more than X amount of data per day. no matter how people are using it. before segwit that max limit was 1MB per block. so if someone has an issue about blockchain bloat then i guess they need to go back and complain about segwit then because it allowed the increase to 4MB...

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?
I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.

This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-the-reason-for-not-being-strict-about-taproot-witness-program-size-5340900. See above detailed response by @gmaxwell.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 7340
Farewell, Leo
June 05, 2023, 04:05:23 AM
Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.
Ordinals don't grant you the permission to use a nearly instant payment network with minimum transaction cost.

They are literally the same thing.
They are literally the opposite. Ordinals require abruptly large sized transactions, while lightning makes the best transaction compression to this date.

My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.
If this second layer solution didn't exist, I, as an average user, would have paid much more in on-chain fees in the last months.

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners .
And complete indolence does harm the network, and "steals" from the miners, because it sets limit on how usable Bitcoin is as currency. Without second layer, it's quite unusable for a 100 millions.
hero member
Activity: 1111
Merit: 588
June 05, 2023, 03:32:45 AM
I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.
I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners . Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
June 05, 2023, 01:22:24 AM
I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.
I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
June 04, 2023, 10:53:40 AM
That is the main principle that the Ordinals Attack is using too.

Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.  Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.  The only difference between the two seems to be how the users want to use the blockchain.  They both benefit from the same subsidies that should have never been created anyway.  My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.  I don't know, maybe the super simple merged mining system satoshi himself thought was genius and would give users choices without burdening Bitcoin's blockchain to push some patented solution by a single company.
staff
Activity: 4284
Merit: 8808
June 04, 2023, 10:29:53 AM
*facepalm* I accidentally deleted ETFbitcoin's post above my reply, it's content is preserved in my quote (I'm not sure that it's all of it, unfortunately)... the quote/edit/delete buttons are right next to each other, and I don't use BCT much of late.  I'll send him a PM to repost it, and I'll fix the thread order.  

Quote from: ETFbitcoin
This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-the-reason-for-not-being-strict-about-taproot-witness-program-size-5340900.
1 and 2 are correct, 3 is incorrect because it's talking about a different thing.

The post you've linked to is saying, effectively,  "The rules for witness type v0 further restrict the scriptpubkey to have exactly 20 or 32 bytes of payload, since that's the only sizes v0 can use.  With v1, instead, if the size isn't exactly 32 bytes (the only size that v1 can use) then the v1 rules aren't applied and those are treated the same as the other versions or v1 before the change: nothing is done, only the same validity rules apply as apply for all scriptpubkeys"  -- none of this has anything to do with data in the witnesses.

So for a scriptpubkey to get v1 treatment it must have v1 and exactly the right sized payload.  This leaves room e.g. to create a v1a that (for example) uses 33 bytes to add the sign back to the scriptpubkey or introduces 448 bit ECC without having to burn up an additional witness version number.

This consensus rule design doesn't improve people's ability to spam using large scriptpubkeys because the same large sizes are valid for non-segwit transactions and those couldn't be made consensus invalid without potentially destroying the bitcoins of someone who happened to have encumbered them with an nlocktime release that involves some large script.

Maybe the invalidity risk there is fringe enough that it could still be argued for, I think not, since the underlying attack that you'd be trying to stop doesn't really care *how* the data is encoded, closing off one will just cause them to use others-- but regardless, going around hobbling bitcoin's consensus rules to try to play wack a mole against some spam vector is a pretty *distinct* concern, and should be handled if at all separately and holistically.   Could you imagine if BIP 342 had an "oh yeah, and also all scriptpubkey's-- not just v1 but all unused witness types and non-segwit too are now limited to X bytes, hope you don't have any funds using long scripts that you can't move before BIP 342 gets activated!"? lol
sr. member
Activity: 1190
Merit: 469
June 03, 2023, 06:28:07 PM
I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.
numbering satoshis is not something casey came up with. that idea was born somewhere around 2012 because there's a thread on this forum about them. someone bumped that thread recently!

i'm sure he's a brilliant guy when it comes to technical aspects of bitcoin but he seems like he is in this bubble of people glorifying him and his "invention" whenever i heard him talking. these people just don't get it - the ones he's giving presentations to. they think is invention is great for bitcoin!  Shocked and apparently he does too so that's why i say he is dumb. for being a bit naive about how people really feel. i guess by now he knows though if he's had his ear to the ground at all.

Quote
Well, we first need to get everyone to agree that we need to fix this oversight that is being exploited then begin arguing about the fix. Right now there are still people who either say "it will go away on its own" or claim "there should not be any fix at all".
maybe you should reach out to casey. he was smart enough to design it. maybe he can help you mitigate it. but make sure you schmooze up to him. he seems to really shine when that's happening...
Pages:
Jump to: