pull down to refresh
0 new comment
208 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zk2u 9 Dec 2024
We should NOT be activating CSV.
Even for the features it wants to enable, it is not enough. If we want those features, we need something different.
Check https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support#Developers for people's opinions who understand (for the most part) what they're talking about
reply
0 new comment
141 sats \ 22 replies \ @melvincarvalho 1 Dec 2024
Bitcoin doesnt need a soft fork
reply
0 new comment
251 sats \ 20 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec 2024
Taproot brought a handful of unexpected consequences (ordinals, etc)....I wonder what unknown side-effects CTV will bring?
reply
0 new comment
374 sats \ 19 replies \ @kruw 1 Dec 2024
Taproot didn't bring ordinals.
reply
0 new comment
31 sats \ 18 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec 2024
Hmm...really?
why are the leading ordinal group named Taproot Wizards?
reply
0 new comment
426 sats \ 4 replies \ @kristapsk 1 Dec 2024
Ordinals has nothing to do with Taproot. I guess you mean Inscriptions. Taproot didn't make them possible, Taproot made them possible cheaper.
reply
0 new comment
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec 2024
My understanding is that it's the other way around.
Segwit made them cheaper... and taproot made them possible.
Taproot loosened the scripting language... to allow for arbitrary data.
And segwit allowed for larger amounts of data overall (to make Lightning possible at a later date) as well as making data cheaper to add to blocks (up to 4mb total).
Then crypto people came along later to sell jpegs to idiots. They did it on ethereum, then it got old. Now they've tried it on Bitcoin... and eventually people will figure out it's dumb and move on. Each inscription created, much less sold, is someone losing money. Eventually they run out of money. Rare sats, ordinal numbering schemes, memecoins... they're all the same.
They each cost the 'buyer' in opportunity cost by overpaying greatly for certain sats.. leaving them with fewer sats. Eventually they run out and the nfts are forgotten about.
view all 3 replies
102 sats \ 12 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 1 Dec 2024
It was witness data from Segwit fork “Ordinals were made possible by two updates to the Bitcoin Protocol: Segregated Witness (SegWit) in 2017 and Taproot in 2021. These updates expanded the amount of arbitrary data that could be stored on the blockchain, allowing for the inclusion of images, videos, and other media types. While these updates were not specifically intended for NFTs, they inadvertently provided the necessary infrastructure for ordinals and inscriptions to exist.”
reply
0 new comment
128 sats \ 11 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec 2024
Segwit was activated in 2017
Taproot was activated in 2021
I accept that Taproot used features of Segwit in order to use Ordinals....however trying to claim that "Segwit didn't enable Ordinals" seems pretty suspect.
view all 11 replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec 2024
100% agree
reply
0 new comment
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 1 Dec 2024
As some of the X comments noted, the fact that "not enough people are paying attention to this" would make a UASF soft fork very difficult
reply
0 new comment
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Dec 2024
reply
0 new comment
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 2 Dec 2024
Ha good luck. Don’t see this happening
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 1 Dec 2024 bot
https://xcancel.com/cobrabitcoin/status/1863006822048669961
reply
0 new comment