Topic: Stop adding features to Bitcoin that don't facilitate its use as electronic cash - page 3. (Read 764 times)

The thing is, we as users decide to use technology in a certain way, even if it was not originally designed for that purpose.

Take the telephone for instance.. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone for people to talk to each other.. then Telemarketers saw an opportunity to use this technology to spam people with telephone calls to market their products and services.

People think of ways to spoil technology for other people, just because they can profit from it.

This I can totally agree, these feature shouldn't be a thing in the first place but we've got a lot of those fuckers that want to do stupid and useless stuff in bitcoin and so we end up with this, the transaction fees are just not that tolerable for some in my opinion, some people that I know personally that have bitcoins, would risk putting their bitcoins in a centralized exchange just so they don't have to worry too much about transaction fees in the case that bitcoin goes up in price and they want to take profit.

There's already a solution to ordinals and inscriptions if I recall but the devs aren't putting it yet because with higher transaction fees, miners are making more money.

Scrypt is better as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. For any transaction under 100 usd in value

12x the blocks per hour for doge+ltc merged mining as compared to btc.

So now that you have been told the truth about peer to peer .

Demonstrate to me why btc is better than Ltc or Doge to buy coffee or to do any small transaction.

what blackhat +doomad like.. and admit too.. is where bitcoiners no longer form majority consent for a new feature to activate(core softened that requirement), where previously things only upgraded based on if a feature will benefit bitcoin.. but now instead the paradigm is allow core to throw in any feature they want without consent(softened consensus trick not needing majority network readiness(not needing secure node readiness to understand new stuff)), where people can just follow cores direction, or let their junk pass unvalidated.. and the only option for users is to move to a different network if they dont like cores direction(cores roadmap or make altcoin is the cults narrative)

sounds like tyranny to me..
when idiots dont believe in consensus(consent of the masses) or blockchains solution to the byzantine generals issue of avoiding central points of failure, where they instead prefer the central CORE point of failure to have administrative and moderation control.. it reveals who wants to stagnate bitcoins scaling via bad code that only benefits other networks.. just to promote that people should move to other networks
..it reveals who are the true sociopaths that dont care about bitcoiners and only care about their underground cult agendas of recruiting people into their fluffy cloud utopia of the next life.. (its not a fluffy cloud over there, its worms in the ground feeding on you)

read doomads and his cults post history, every time there is a discussion about features that benefit BITCOINERS vs subnetworkers*
he hates features that will scale bitcoin to allow more transactions and ease of use of bitcoin as it hurts his recruitment campaign of other networks

if a subnetwork is dependant of a mainnet.. its UNDER (sub-servant/child/slave) to the master
(*and many do call them subnetworks(google shows many results), doomad just hates it being called a subnetwork and not a higher level)

their narrative is to want bitcoin to stagnate, become less used day-to-day. be only used by elitists, calling other networks the solution.. basically hates bitcoin and wants people to love other networks

Bitcoin's mission, which is very clearly stated in the title and first sentence of the white paper is to provide "peer-to-peer electronic cash."

Providing a decentralized, peer-to-peer, electronic cash system with a limited supply is revolutionary.  Stuffing that system with fungible and non-fungible tokens is a waste of the most revolutionary tech to be developed in our time.

When it costs $5 to send $10 worth of Bitcoin it is not functional as a currency. Increasing the congestion on the network with ordinals and runes is only increasing the cost per transaction making it less viable as a form of cash.
By adding additional payload onto the transaction you are making it slower and making the network less efficient when what we should be doing is making the network more efficient in order to make Bitcoin more usable as electronic cash.

If you want to exchange files or fungible tokens create a network outside of bitcoin that is designed and has the purpose of providing fungible and non-fungible tokens and data.  Of course, those already exist on centralized networks.

I clearly don't understand or see the features.Like what are really the features you're deliberating over;what features of bitcoin do you speak of?Are you saying that the decentralized nature of bitcoin doesn't make it valuable or it's ability or feature of not been

In case you need a reminder.
Bitcoin is a digital currency that can be traded for goods or services with vendors that accept Bitcoin as payment.

Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital or virtual currency created in 2009 that uses peer-to-peer technology to facilitate instant payments.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital asset and It is a new type of asset that joins the ranks of traditional assets such as cash, gold, and real estate.If bitcoin is an electronic money or cash,what are the characteristics of money/cash in particular.It serves as a means of exchange,and store of value.That means digital money like bitcoin would initially possess the characteristics of cash.These features are what makes cash and electronic cash valuable,these currencies will be a total disaster and total waste of time if they lack these features that'll help it useful.

Let's leave ideologies asides for a moment. Why would a miner want to mine in a pool that deliberately ignores thousands of transactions?

Even better. You can choose any network you want, without majority approval. That's the game changer. We don't need Bitcoin elections. Simply spin up a Bitcoin client with X rules. See who follows. Done.

It ended up a disaster in the eyes of the majority, perhaps. But, I'd argue that for the proponents of big blocks, Bitcoin Cash is the ideal Bitcoin (or as they'd call it, "OG Bitcoin"). Majority might have selected Bitcoin, and that's why it has been a hell of a better investment, but for a proponent of big blocks who simply wants a peer-to-peer cash system, Bitcoin Cash serves a better purpose. Done, we are all happy. That's the beauty.

Technically, that isn't always the case.  Certain things can be done without majority support.  Features that are considered 'opt-in' could be implemented with as few as two cooperating users, provided they can find a way to implement it within the current consensus rules.

I like to use the analogy that if 20 people decide to go and get ice cream, some of them might decide to add sprinkles, or sauce, or other toppings, but they haven't breached the overall majority notion of going to get ice cream.  Minor things don't need approval from others and fall under the category of personal preference.  It would appear that certain control freaks (like franky1) can't handle that concept.



If you hadn't noticed yet, franky1 is always completely irrational about this sort of thing.  Whenever someone discusses other layers, he accuses them of being "fangirls" and "ass lickers".  That's why he's on my ignore list.  I got tired of reading his sociopathic drivel.  It's a waste of time and effort trying to understand his bizarre neuroses.  I'm convinced he sees himself as the "saviour" of Bitcoin.  But really he's just a deluded little narcissist who can't accept reality (or the fact that no one is going to implement his stupid ideas).  

Thankfully, his influence on the outcome is non-existent.  He's seemingly alienated every single dev he's ever contacted and he's still banned from the 'Development & Technical' subforum for being a crazed fruitloop.  I get the impression he might also be banned from Core's GitHub.  So no one of any importance is listening to him.

All he has are these sad and desperate attempts to twist the narrative.  No one other than him is using the word 'subnetworks' to describe higher layers, so it's not like his ongoing disinformation campaign is even working.  Development continues on those other layers by numerous coders around the world, under multiple dev teams.  There's absolutely nothing he can do to stop it.  So he whines.  Incessantly.  It's all just a bit pathetic, really.  

1
2
3
oh look 2 is under 1

however
3
2
1
looks weird, out of order
and yes doomad does love to idolise subnetworks as being better than bitcoin options ("solution", solution", "better", "faster", "cheaper", "the future of")

and yes doomad is cultish, as is his followers(blackhatcoiner/windfury and the other ilk of subnetwork adoration committee AKA echo chamber recital party of doomads choir/hymn sheets)
he doesnt want the current life of bitcoin to grow and prosper(he hates talks of scaling bitcoin), he is inviting people to abandon this life(bitcoin network) and prosper in the next life(subnetworks)
he sees the next life as the fluffy clouds above.. a brighter utopia/heaven
i however see his next life as 6 foot in the ground where the worms play

..
bitcoin USED TO BE more open.. until CORE(as the name suggests) became the central point of failure where CORE devs own the moderation of technical discussion and the sole reference client people should follow and need to kiss the monarchy ring of hierarchy just to get code accepted and used

..
if you think these word games that are used are not as deep as you think. then you are brushing aside that there are actually well paid sponsors pushing agenda's and they can be noticed by seeing a certain group echoing this same narrative and wording

Unfortunately AND fortunately, Bitcoin is Open Source.  Whether you like it or not, we can do what ever we want with it long as there is a majority consent for it.  This is why some Altcoins pop up every now and then trying to convince every body they are the 'better' version of Bitcoin.  They saw something they did not like into Bitcoin, but the majority did not have a problem with it.  So they took Bitcoin, modified it, launched a new Chain and tried to show case why their 'Bitcoin' is better.

Problem is.  Almost every single such attempt ended up a huge disaster.  Even Bitcoin Cash which is the strongest as of now among the Bitcoin copies does not stand strong enough to convince every body into believing it is better than the O G Bitcoin.

It is alright to think Bitcoin is not the way you like.  It is also alright to try to make others believe that way.  I think we are all in the same situation and over 90 percent of us hate what happens with the Mempool since Ordinals came alive.  I suppose developers are working on that.  I would happily support a Bitcoin that does not let Ordinal spam the Network again.  But we shall see what happens because maybe we are just a minority and the majority does not care yet.

Bitcoin is Layer 1.  Lightning is Layer 2.  How is Layer 2 lower than Layer 1 in your eyes?

You are making us look like a weird cult always extrapolating the words we are using.  DooMAD was obviously referring simply to Layer 2, Layer 3 et cetera.  What are you going to exaggerate next about?  DooMAD calls Layer 2 'higher' than Layer 1 to subliminally wash your brain into thinking Layer 2 is some sort of higher power?

It is not as deep as you make it seem.

the exploit/bug was a known thing and warned of consequences in 2016 before the activation/opening of the bug(softening of the rules) occurred in 2017**
the result only shown itself in later years when idiots used the exploit to cause headaches


bitcoin does have a hierarchy.. its called CORE.. all proposals have to go through cores vetting, else get REKT

use of an exploit added 2017

wrong. core changed code to miscount bytes and multiply other bytes to change the natural sat/byte space count of space
the fee bumps of fee estimation is also a new things that caused unnatural fee climbs

rules/code are actually there to keep the network clean(or atleast used to)
but even now not everything should be on the network and even core devs knows some tx are not fit for the network
they even use terms like
'dropped', 'un-relayed', 'purged', 'dust-swept', 'orphaned', 'ignored, 'abandoned', 'pruned', 'stripped', 'evicted'
yep even mining pools are not forced to include all transactions (empty blocks)
so stop pretending junk needs to be included because you think its censorship otherwise..
preventing certain junk is actually about having rules to run a clean network
having bad code that doesnt even validate junk and let it pass is insecure and makes the network worse

---

** (the junk was pre-warned in 2016...)

"higher"?? pfft.. laughable!

you mean LOWER LEVELS
stop trying to promote your crappy subnetwork as being "higher" (subliminally: better)

your stupid subtle wording is not going un noticed.. the subnetworks you adore and want everyone to abandon bitcoin for just doesnt do as promised.. and no patience will fix those problems of the subnetwork

yes YET TO BE BUILT subnetworks will have NICHES for certain use-cases, but bitcoin network still needs to scale.. stop trying to assume bitcoin needs to stagnate and be patient whilst you and your clowns promote everyone should shift to other networks and abandon using bitcoin for in your inferior minds opinion of abandoning usage on the bitcoin network being a benefit to bitcoiners .. cos its not a benefit to bitcoiners

making bitcoin more of a headache/expense just to transact, more congested, bloated with meaningless junk. is not a benefit to bitcoiners
bitcoins never leave the bitcoin network.. using another network with IOU unsettled units(tokens pegged) is not the same thing
using another network doesnt make you a bitcoiner, it makes you a subnetworker
using a CEX custodian doesnt make you a bitcoiner

#not-your-keys-not-your-coin


him trying to say junk is ok to be allowed to continue, but genuine bitcoin transactions should not happen.. is not a benefit to bitcoiners

..
"resilient and secure"?? pfft.. laughable!
doomad loves that bitcoins rules got softened.. its another headache added to bitcoin to promote his favoured subnetworks that everyone (in his mind) should move over to use
he says people should not buy coffee/pizza/groceries on bitcoin ($2-$200) (0.00003000-0.00300000)
but junk meme of monkey/json junk should be allowed on bitcoin  ($0.20) (0.00000300)
doomad doesnt want the rules to be hardened again(secured) as a secure resilient network harms his subnetwork promotion games

But that's only because people don't look at the big picture.  All of the stuff that will make Bitcoin scalable, efficient and more conducive to use as a daily currency will likely happen on higher layers that haven't been built yet.  The primary function of the base protocol is to be resilient and secure.  And it is.

These days most people rather consider Bitcoin as a safe asset for investment purpose rather than a electronic cash. There are many other crypto-currencies that can be used better for the purpose of payments than Bitcoin due to its high fees. You can't convince everyone to consider it as an electronic cash anymore.

Even if you read wall observer thread of this forum then you'll find that most of the OG's consider Bitcoin as an asset rather than a payment system. They believe in holding it for the long-term to earn profits with each bull run. So, considering Bitcoin as P2P payment gateway alone would not be a wise choice these days.

That sounds a little dramatic, heh.  The network is far from requiring "saving".  Ordinals is just some inconsiderate shitehawks looking to make money by selling worthless crap to idiots while utilising resources in an incredibly inefficient way.  In no way is it a threat to the network.  It's mainly a threat to gullible suckers who buy the crap and get ripped off.  Fortunately, fools are finite in supply, so the scam won't last forever.  Eventually, people will start to wise up and see it for the trash it is.

I would argue that a bigger threat to the network is people misguidedly asking for devs to be the arbiters of what transactions are allowed or not.  No one should have that role in a decentralised network.

It's not a feature though! But I do agree with you! Ordinals are absolute nonsense. It is clogging the network and pushing the transaction fees to an unreasonable extent.

Couple of months back I heard that Bitcoin developers are planning to ban ordinals to function within Bitcoin blockchain. But didn't hear much after that. This is really needed in order to save Bitcoin network.

I also don't like Ordinals, and I think that Bitcoin should be optimized as a currency (for example, SegWit was a good change because it optimized transactions). But Bitcoin was built is something open, decentralized, something that gives freedom. And building up other things is arguably a part of that freedom. As for the point that Bitcoin was made as electronic cash and should thus stay this way, some can correctly point out that most people probably don't use Bitcoin as electronic cash. People are interested in Bitcoin as a safe haven, as an investment opportunity or as something similar. So with new uses come new transformations.

Indeed Ordinals and Runes are very antithetical to Bitcoin's purpose. Adding trash data to the Blockchain makes no sense especially provided that there's no monetary value attached to these transactions, instead they act as a pointer to an artificial "token" or image file, which is a gross abuse of a distributed ledger. Some things like image storage make much more sense with more centralized infrastructure.

On the one hand Core developers have been very slow to quell this abuse of bugs and overlooked features that are prone to abuse. Because not only is adding trash data on the Blockchain with OPcode abuse a bug,  but the Taproot update also gives them a discount...

For now, if you are a miner, you can transfer your hash on ocean.xyz and support a pool that doesn't mine ordinal and such transactions. Hopefully the core devs also listen to the community's needs sooner or later.

"Added features" is a bit of an improper way to put it. There are no features added, apart from softforks like Segwit and Taproot of course. Ordinals is a concept that makes use of the already existent features.

You don't like paying high fees. None of us does. However, it is the nature of the system such that the demand and supply of the block space defines the transaction fees. Censoring a transaction you don't like is a thing that happens in fiat. Not in here.

Short of switching to closed-source code (which I hope will never happen), I don't see how such things are meant to be controlled.  Anyone can build what they want and there isn't a way to stop them.  Bitcoin doesn't have a hierarchy where you ask for permission to do stuff.  If someone writes code and then other people run that code, things can happen.  Even if other people disagree.

If you want more features that facilitate usage as a currency, either get coding, or pay some developers to write some code you do want to see.  That's the only way things get done.