0 sats \ 1 reply \ @softglitter2d OP 23 Apr \ parent \ on: Runes are not going to stay because the market will not allow it bitcoin
Spend billions to attack a network? And then convince your allies to join the attack while spending more and issuing more bonds? Keep in mind that you're attacking, therefore putting shits you can't even profit.
You're not even attacking a country, just a network.
Meawhile, you look to coordinate other nation states, those same countries who can't even put themselves into consensus in certain more simple topics such as property rights or migration law?
Good luck selling that fren :)
And there are plenty parties and nations in the world that can raise enough money to do something like this.
Fair point but unstable in time. In 18 blocks, Rune degens spent almost 20.000.000 USD and say it's an attack vector...we're talking about 1.000.000.000 USD each week1 to sustain these projects. Now, I may be optimistic but if you show me how they can raise 1.000.000.000 USD weekly to keep doing just stupid shit without any incentives2, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it's FUD.
every cycle having VC funded scam spamming the network would be very disastrous
Attack bitcoin is not wise, we're all know. They know also. Now, if you say something like they found a cheaper way to edit blocks...now that's real shit you're talking. Otherwise...again, FUD.
It's weird to me why so many are being passive about it
Well...I'm not passive tbh, I'm enjoying the revenues3. First, you can't do shit to prevent it. Use Ordirespect is a waste of time, Ocean is not profitable at the time I'm writing4.
What? What do you want to do? Two options here: you either cry (I don't recommend) or just give time to show these people how stupid is their movements. In the meantime, miners can make profits and most important: we're having fun with stupid stories about people losing sats just because they want some stupid jpegs.
Footnotes
-
Check Jimmy's post ↩
-
Remember fren, they're attacking and not earning shit, even shorting bitcoin, they won't win anything. So essentialy, they're burning money for nothing. ↩
-
Do some house mining fren, it's fun. ↩
-
I've checked. Ocean is the only offering Bitcoin Knots and they have 0.2% of total hashrates. ↩
Exactly. You pay to get a place in the blockchain and following all the protocols suggested in the node. You do that and it's yours. Don't like it? Well, cry or yell. Besides these almost free transactions happening in other chains can't support hard money. It's shitcoin because it works like the USD: big blocks, few nodes supported by organizations and shareholders who keep running everything. It's free but the final cost is...you.
Indeed. By the way, I heard Casey in a Bankless podcast when the host asked: why bitcoin? and the answer was, paraphrasing like why not use the money other people spend in ETH, SOL et al. when you can put that money in bitcoin?
At first makes sense, but in the long run, no. Because shitcoins makes only sense when you can act freely and without too much restrictions. In bitcoin, you pay the price.
I run one of the largest groups about bitcoin in my country, where Facebook is king. I can't (sadly) just shut down and abandon people like that. But for personal use, since 2020 I stopped using it.
Well, your filtering is also considering coinjoin, omni and BIP47 transactions. And moreover, the client provider is saying that is the creator's fault without any logical argument.
But, coming back your example, you made already the assumption ordinals are spam, they're not1. They're using bitcoin in ways you and other people disagree.
Don't like it? Two options:
- Consider Dr. Calle's solution: shaming people for owning jpeg. Long time preference on this one (?)
- Put your hashrates in Ocean and start mining while show people that joining Mining is ethically2 but also profitable business. Show miners that, without ordinals, bitcoin can concentrate in other projects such as Lightning Network and make more money.
There's a third option also: cry like Kaiser 🤡 but since we're all here for decentralization I can't recommend hard enough this one. But hey! feel free to join.
Footnotes
-
Made my research and I don't consider it. ↩
-
Also consider Luke's past where he spammed the network with biblical verses. ↩
That's right. Altough I use this resource because the bus is the block and the bus stop is your mempool. Easy to explain and play with timestamps
I encourage all people in the class to read Mastering Bitcoin and Grooking Bitcoin.
Exactly sir. Put your hashrates where your speech is (?) and put the seabelt, this is going to be fun.
On one hand, that seems stupid to me (hashrater) but since bitcoin doesn't care about my views, Ocean is putting hashrates where their speech are; all Ocean's known members are anti-ordinals, so it seems logical this point of view. Since Ocean is working following the protocol and doing some filtering1 and they're not attacking the network, go ahead and keep doing the work sir.
Now, are they going to survive filtering ordinals? Let's see what the market and us, hashraters say about it. It's going to be fun :)
Footnotes
-
to me, it's censorship but that's me again ↩
self-custody is the best path for any user who really wants to know how bitcoin works. And yes, self-custody is for everyone. Let me explain why is for everyone. The first reason is the most powerful.
1- Exchanges tell you they'll lose and seize your bitcoins if they have to
Look what Kraken CEO Jesse Powell told you:
(...) If you're worried about it, don't keep your funds with any centralized/regulated custodian. We cannot protect you.
Look what Bitfinex's non-financial advice:
Our advice is simple: Bitcoin and crypto should never be left on an exchange or custodial platform for longer than necessary (...)
It's clear, right? No need to explain what they say IMO
2- Non-custodial is a fancy way to say you don't have shit
Please, please understand that the relationship between you and your interactions with the blockchain is through your private keys. If you don't have your private keys, someone else is borrowing you the entrance to your transactions.
3- You don't have your PKs, you're not safe
The OP said:
I increasingly understand that there are people who would feel more secure if they didn't have to manage their Bitcoin themselves
Yes, I get that point. Many people feel safe in the hands of others...until they don't. How many centralized projects need to fuck up in the way to understand that altough you have your own access, you're just using someone else's access, the real user, not you. You're at best an observer, not an user.
And I get the point also here:
there is a concept of deposit insurance for banks, providing a safety net in case financial institutions face issues.
With bitcoin, we don't have these things and we don't need to because...we...have..to...control..our...own..keys.
You don't like to watch your own money? It's ok, then bitcoin is not for you. That's not a bad thing.