they can go fork themselves
reply
Here we go again Same old shit again Marching down the avenue Few more decades and we’ll be through I won’t have to look at you You wont have to look at me So, I’ll be glad and so will you
reply
deleted
edit: Oh, wanted to respond to the post haha
reply
Another kick at the blocksize can ordinals always was.
reply
Maybe this was more difficult during the blocksize wars (though not really, everyone including myself sold their bcrash as soon as they got it) because during that time, high transaction fees meant it was hard to use Bitcoin and that was meant to convince people to increase the blocksize.
This time, we can just ignore the high transaction fees with our lightning network channels and muse over shitcoiners paying for our network security.
This should be a clear signal to shitcoiners. Bitcoin is a social construct first, software second and that social construct is around money. Sure its possible to use it for other things, but protocol upgrades will only be considered by the wider community if the upgrade is in regards to security, ease of transactions, or easier storage of funds. Attempts to update the software for reasons outside of that scope will only be laughed at as not part of the purpose of the social construct.
reply
Not to mention, most bitcoiners are not using ordinals, whereas everyone was affected by high tx fees back then.
This is definitely a war they will never win and if they go through with it, it'll be another on the list of worthless forks.
reply
This time, we can just ignore the high transaction fees with our lightning network channels and muse over shitcoiners paying for our network security.
This so much
Also, actually, I am pretty hyped for a fork now. I barely missed the BCH fork. So I never experienced a hard fork in bitcoin. Maybe I will now haha
reply
Tell them they can just change their code. It's no problem.
But srsly. Are they for real? Is this not sarcasm?
more transactions per block = more fees per block
artificially capping the system to create higher demand for blockspace is not a path to sustainable growth
I am not sure. I thought ordinals were created by casa (not sure about the name) who actually is pretty knowledgeable regarding bitcoin etc.? Who is behind this twitter account? Is it known?
reply
Are they for real? Is this not sarcasm?
At first, I thought the same way, just a bunch of chads with inscriptions making sarca but following the thread, you see their reply and I quote:
artificially capping the system to create higher demand for blockspace is not a path to sustainable growth
reply
yeah I quoted the same tweet haha
Why are people even arguing with them? Just let them do it.
We should in fact even encourage them!
reply
Then, you can say well, it's sarcasm but no my fren, look the following tweet:
(...)Its pretty simple, if a miner can handle 20 more transactions per block, he earns 20 more fees.
You can't make this s**t up
reply
damn
reply
While they are at it, also make blocks come out every minute. Why wait 10 minutes for a block? So much wasted time ...
reply
I hope they realize that this isn't going to work. A change was far more likely during the blocksize wars when a lot of the community was sympathetic to the idea. BCH exists. If they want bigger blocks they can use it.
Plus, why aren't they working on expanding out to RGB? That protocol can handle more data than mainchain could at any blocksize. I want to assume that they just don't know much about it, but it is entirely possible they just want to lean into ordinals bc of hype.
reply
Lol just move your ordinals to BSV or BCH problem solved
reply
They are the same... is the same tactic from 2017.
reply
Also, who are these people asking for such 2016-blocksize-wars-request instead of look for better features for their inscriptions? One of them, the founder of Twecht, BSV supporters. Having introduced this, I'm OK with these guys come and develop thing but suggest something like that again. Man...
reply
If bitcoin ends up becoming ordinals only, sure, if thats what its all about, go 1000mb blocks
reply
hell, we don't even need to have the previous block hash, block hash, who cares! We want 5 billion blocks a second!
reply
I'm still confused who actually uses Ordinals.
reply
this garbage has always been an abusive act, and can at best be described as pollution.
all the 'they paid a fee' hurr durr around this is redolent of lolbertarian 'as long as it's private' dribble in the wider world, and just enables more abusive action.
i seem to recall someone posting on here a while back about a block size reduction incentivizing higher fees to combat this, as (apparently) the nature of these inscriptions is hard to technologically defeat - maybe they're right.
reply
Blocksize War...here we go again.
reply
makes sense. they are BSVers.
reply
This dude is totally clueless, he just doesn't get it
reply