A letter to Bitcoin Maxis \ stacker news ~bitcoin

1509 sats \ 14 comments \ @muteness11 30 Dec 2023 bitcoin

What do you guys think of this? (Im personally neutral as I have not looked at it deeply so I dont care & I know its within Bitcoin rules "consensus")

https://rodarmor.com/blog/inscriptions-a-guide-for-the-ideological-maxi/

view all related items

109 sats \ 1 reply \ @Eobard 30 Dec 2023

deleted by author

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @PlebeiusG 30 Dec 2023

Same. I ignore them so much I won't even read that article. Don't care. Pay for block space like everyone else and we will get along

62 sats \ 11 replies \ @nerd2ninja 30 Dec 2023

I like the way @SimpleStacker put it:

#371209

Because all machines are designed for a purpose. Bitcoin was designed to be a financial transactions network, not a data storage system. If you design a system for a specific purpose, you should make it so that it can't be used for other purposes---especially if said use disrupts the original purpose. Which is happening.

20 sats \ 10 replies \ @Eobard 30 Dec 2023

deleted by author

166 sats \ 0 replies \ @badabing 30 Dec 2023

You are solely focused on price here it seems. You actually think it's a net positive that people stop transacting on Bitcoin. Its intended use is decreasing, but you applaud this all in the name of price.

If 100% of Bitcoin tx would be shitcoin minting or jpegs, would you consider this a great success for (the mission & adoption of) the Bitcoin network? Do you think that network would have the same value, if no one used it for monetary tx?

Very questionable arguments, especially the fact that you applaud scams and shitcoins coming to Bitcoin.

72 sats \ 8 replies \ @nerd2ninja 30 Dec 2023

No no no no. If its not Bitcoin its not Bitcoin. Just because you made a scam on Bitcoin's block space doesn't make it Bitcoin.

I do see the only way forward is social shunning (business as usual), warning people against it, and developing hyper efficient txs that can out price these fee rates

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Eobard 30 Dec 2023

deleted by author

345 sats \ 1 reply \ @badabing 30 Dec 2023

I highly recommend you to go back and study Bitcoin.

It's not censorship.
Ordinals are not Bitcoin. They are a separate protocol, external to Bitcoin, to interpret certain bytes in Bitcoin tx.
Bitcoin is not designed for arbitrary data storage and disincentives it through fees and spam filters. People that want arbitrary data storage should move to a sidechain or smth, iso spamming the monetary base layer. Else, why not store all the data in the world on Bitcoin ? This will surely make it the most valuable network ever! Said no bitcoiner ever.
Bitcoin already has many spam filters in place but they have not been updated since taproot. If these are censorship, then Bitcoin is already censoring tx now. There is no freedom to do whatever you want on Bitcoin.
Paying the fee doesn't make smth not spam. If fees are not enough, even Satoshi said there could be other means to discourage spam.
Community consensus actually decides on the protocol (changes).

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Eobard 30 Dec 2023

deleted by author

72 sats \ 4 replies \ @nerd2ninja 30 Dec 2023

if the protocol allows it, its Bitcoin. its not to you, or to me, or luke to decide.

It is literally up to us to decide what the protocol allows first of all.

Second of all if its not Bitcoin its not Bitcoin can't be more simple. You made a color coin, a brc-20, an NFT and are storing its state on Bitcoins time chain...but its not Bitcoin. An NFT is not sats. Sats are Bitcoin

Now on a technical level its like I said I think we need to work to out price and push out these things. Reducing on removing the segwit discount is out there on the table.

On a social level however, as a matter of social convention, warning people about scams is always a good thing and no strange rationalization can hold up against that truth

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Eobard 30 Dec 2023

deleted by author

265 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 30 Dec 2023