pull down to refresh
Luckily, BIP 110 is such a bad idea, even a retard like me can tell.
The argument is not "Bitcoin is invincible or it deserves to die." The argument is that the things BIP 110 supporters are hyperventilating about are trivialities of no real consequence.
There is nothing that is "official" or "normalized" in Bitcoin, there is just what is possible. Pretending that you have some control over how Bitcoin is used is laughable.
maliciously crafted non-Segwit transactions that are very expensive to validate might be an even better example of a dangerous transaction...and yet you don't see the BIP 54 promoters running around like maniacs trying to strong-arm everyone into a rushed fork. Perhaps BIP 110 could learn something from their approach.
I don't believe ordinals are a real engineering problem for Bitcoin, nor do I believe a solution is warranted. i've been using bitcoin all this time perfectly fine.
i've been using bitcoin all this time perfectly fine.
This. For a couple years they've said spam's effects will get worse and it's only gotten better in my experience. They are bothered that people don't use the chain the way that they would and want you to believe that bitcoin is somehow turning into ethereum, with some hand-wavy explanation. The chain has a capped growth rate that's much slower than the affordability/availability of mass storage. One is linear, the other is curved upward. Then they go with their scary illegal/immoral content FUD, as if it's not already on chain and preventing more of that will magically flip fiat brains and lead to a strategic bitcoin reserve and hyperbitcoinization.
One of the main issues seems to be that for some reason a lot of people think microcomputers are the appropriate devices to run a Bitcoin node. They’ve always taken weeks to sync and were barely powerful enough. After a blocksize increase and always full blocks, it’s no wonder that they feel underpowered.
But we want a low base-line for decentralization purposes. Nodes need to be geographically dispersed, with a large percentage in areas where microcomputers are the only thing available/affordable. But NGU should outpace the cost to run a node efficiently, so that will become less of an issue.
You're preaching to the choir :)
You're correct to point out that a lot of the opposition might be oblivious to Moore's law in addiction to the chain size growing slower than rate of technological advancement in general, or they're just using it as a red herring.
For the record since you inadvertently pinged me by linking a post where I shared a link, BIP-110 is at best pointless. However, it targeting op_if is what changed my opinion from sleeping through this argument to being actively against it.
This person demonstrates how to find a transaction they made where they made a hex encoded tiff file and embedded it into their transaction without using any of the methods BIP-110 is targeting. I suspect a ready and easy to use tool capable of this will be launched on BIP-110 activation day out of spite.
Additionally, the constant use of "but you have to be technical to do that so I don't care about the concern" from being able to use op_if, to being able to embed a hex encoded tiff image in a transaction is very frustrating. We can make it easy, easily.
But I am absolutely for attacking NFTs on Bitcoin at the social level and given solutions that would actually work, the technical level.
For example, if your gripe is that we should have block size less than 4MB, reduce block size, if your idea is to make a present day tx size, be capable of benefitting 10 or more users (thereby reducing tx cost and thereby more easily outcompeting with spam on the fee market) look into solutions that enable coinpools. I personally like playing with ideas that help people "wait" on their transaction longer in a way where the user doesn't feel like they're waiting somehow. The actual "how to do this" is a bit up in the air right now, but its something of active interest to me.
Even a beginner like me can see it breaks more than it fixes
Reread the comment you replied to shit-for-brains. I am not advocating for BIP 110.
As a self-described beginner I can only assume that you have no frame of reference of what bitcoin was like before and how EASY the IBD was prior to this 2020. You may not understand this but ordinals and the like externalize their costs onto thousands of volunteers running the network.
Spammers would refer to you as a useful idiot. https://stacker.news/items/1443782?commentId=1443799
this data is bad, this data is good? Seriously?
Even your strawman is retarded. What are consensus rule and what do they prevent?
https://youtube.com/shorts/yogBTFNefuE
"hyperventilating about are trivialities" is exactly right. My god, have I never seen a more ridiculous collection of poor souls
I can see why you strongly agree with this, @Scoresby, you're retarded.
The argument presents a false dilemma: either Bitcoin is invincible or it deserves to die. But resilience isn't immunity. A system can survive something and still be degraded by it. The author even concedes this by admitting nodes must process the "garbage."
The "deserve to die" framing is a thought-terminator designed to make any engineering concern sound like existential panic. And the pivot to unspendable outputs is a red herring. The real concern isn't that one person kills Bitcoin; it's that normalizing the behavior creates a cumulative cost that this argument refuses to evaluate.