pull down to refresh
5 sats \ 6 replies \ @0xIlmari 6 Dec 2023 \ parent \ on: Luke Dashjr said that Ordinals & BRC20 will no longer exist on Bitcoin. bitcoin
No, Bitcoin does not care what you do with your money. An invalid transaction is not a transaction at all and is not "doing something with your money".
By freedom I mean, you can donate to Canadian Truckers, Ukraine, Hamas or North Korea. Or you can buy monkey JPEGs.
And on the point of SegWit, it is my (probably unpopular) opinion that it is Bitcoin's single biggest, and largely unspoken of, hipocrisy. After "winning" the block size wars unchanged, Bitcoin then effectively doubled its block size anyway. But bitcoiners still sit on their high horses and pretend to be "purists".
Bitcoin does not care what you do with your money. An invalid transaction is not a transaction at all and is not "doing something with your money".
I don't think I am understanding you properly because this seems self defeating. You could do X with your money until rule -X was added. At that point it no longer counted as "doing something with your money" (this is where I suspect I am misunderstanding you) so it doesn't count as censorship.
If you believed that (which I don't think you do, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to show why I suspect I am misunderstanding you) then I don't see how any rule is censorship. Not even Luke's proposed changes. They just make it so that something you want to do with your money "doesn't count" anymore due to the new rule. To me, that's the same thing as censorship. But it seems like to you it's not? I am probably just misunderstanding you though.
reply
Yea, something got lost in translation there. Anyway, per my understanding, that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway. You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.
But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant), he implies to intend to erase Ordinals from existence, which makes him a tyrant. So I took a punt at a comment trying to defend it.
reply
that's not how new rules get introduced into Bitcoin anyway
But it is
Take segwit as an example
A big reason it was introduced was to block coinbase transactions that used covert asic boost
They used to be perfectly valid, and moreover, such transactions were popular among miners. But segwit put a stop to them
Censorship, pure and simple
We censored before and we can censor again. If the things being censored make bitcoin worse money then I'm in favor of it, because such censorship makes bitcoin better money, which is what I want: better money
You cannot just proclaim all those ordinals invalid because you would then fork away from nodes that never upgraded to "Luke's fix" version.
Sounds like you can do it with consensus
But Luke's narrative is to treat it as an "exploit" in the first place (only because he doesn't like it, and his likes and dislikes are irrelevant)
But they are relevant
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
He wants rules that make inscriptions more difficult
That's a perfectly valid proposal and I support it too so that makes at least two of us
Consensus emerges with sufficient support, and that's when bitcoin's rules can change
reply
Bitcoin's rules are whatever its node operators, collectively, want them to be
People forget that this is the pointy end of what all this means. When people are crusading for sovereignty of nodes, and consensus, this is that. Whoever you happen to be, it will probably not fall out in the way that you like all the time.
reply
Who would've thought that my basic "FUCK THAT GUY" would spark so many discussions (and notifications ^^)
reply
It was a nice discussion so thank you for your three-word spark :)
reply