Ordinals Wallet asking to increase blocksize...here we go again \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Ordinals Wallet asking to increase blocksize...here we go again twitter.com/ordinalswallet/status/1646354408744054785

2717 sats \ 25 comments \ @softglitter2d 13 Apr 2023 bitcoin

506 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 13 Apr 2023

they can go fork themselves

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @nerd2ninja 13 Apr 2023

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

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

deleted

edit: Oh, wanted to respond to the post haha

296 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 13 Apr 2023

234 sats \ 3 replies \ @grayruby 13 Apr 2023

Another kick at the blocksize can ordinals always was.

401 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 Apr 2023

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.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @xanny 14 Apr 2023

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.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

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

105 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

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?

50 sats \ 3 replies \ @softglitter2d OP 13 Apr 2023

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

Ordinals Wallet's tweet

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

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!

8 sats \ 1 reply \ @softglitter2d OP 13 Apr 2023

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

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

damn

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13 Apr 2023

While they are at it, also make blocks come out every minute. Why wait 10 minutes for a block? So much wasted time ...

26 sats \ 0 replies \ @scottathan 13 Apr 2023

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.

14 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual 13 Apr 2023

Lol just move your ordinals to BSV or BCH problem solved

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 13 Apr 2023

They are the same... is the same tactic from 2017.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @softglitter2d OP 13 Apr 2023

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...

29 sats \ 1 reply \ @faithandcredit 13 Apr 2023

If bitcoin ends up becoming ordinals only, sure, if thats what its all about, go 1000mb blocks

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 13 Apr 2023

hell, we don't even need to have the previous block hash, block hash, who cares! We want 5 billion blocks a second!

24 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 13 Apr 2023

I'm still confused who actually uses Ordinals.

14 sats \ 0 replies \ @02d769cb73 13 Apr 2023

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.