calle on nostr

Open in Damus

@calle 1683716043

I can't possibly understand how otherwise smart people can seriously believe that they can censor transactions they don't like (BRC-20/Inscriptions).

Wanna play cat & mouse? It takes 20 mins to circumvent any "fix". Should we now all soft fork whenever you propose a new "fix"?

It's not even a moral question at this point. It's most likely anger that makes people come up with stupid or even dangerous ideas like this.

Stop pretending you can do anything about it. Proposing forks based on your feelings is dangerous because it increases centralization.

2725❤️25🤙29

funny how clogging the mempool with silly transactions tends to also clog the mailing list with silly ideas

What are you referring to? The Luke Dashjr patch?

The Fockin’ Fury · 173w

I think the people that declare certain uses of bitcoin valid vs. invalid are the same people that say “you subscribe to X ideology, bitcoin isn’t *for* you.” Fundamentally they don’t seem to understand what it means to be an open protocol. We planted these seeds with segwit and now they...

Michael Matulef · 173w

Instead of asking why are there inscriptions, we should be asking why is this an issue for the network? We'd have similar congestion with a billion new users. Perhaps the angst right now in the community is more a function of Bitcoin's current limitations in terms of scalability. Bitcoin isn't i...

Isn't this what fees are for?!

Sound money requires very large transactions, it's just a fact.

BobThunder☀️ · 173w

Thank you for these wise words! Boosted and followed! 🧡

Bitopia · 173w

And also want to do something about it… let the free market figure it out 🙏

Grifters gonna grift

Pablo Xannybar · 173w

Since the inscriptions fans are asking for bigger blocks I think they'll be the ones forking. History tells us how that goes. nostr:nevent1qqsrue9l0jfsr45a8jehrqv5aaxgxn888dwkelfd8yc5k8kx7tm98wgpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezumr49e4k2q3q2rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sxpqqqqqqzqjh6wz

moneyball · 173w

There are examples of doing this though such as limiting the size of OP_RETURN, the introduction of standard transactions on Core as a forwarding policy, limiting the depth of child/parent transactions, limiting the size of a transaction, etc. Do you consider all of these a different category? (I'm...

Derek Ross · 173w

Well said. Not everyone has to like it. Those that don't like it can ignore it and and keep focusing on what they feel is best for Bitcoin. I hated it the first few weeks, but have since realized I just don't care all that much. I think it's dumb and that's fine. That's on me. Besides, what kind of ...

jack mallers · 173w

that philosophy in and of itself is a centralizing premise because it's regulatory. and it's linguistically murky to assume Bitcoin schematics for control purposes shouldn't be discussed in literal terms. the distribution of bit through wallets causes extreme exposure to emf irregularity. ignoring r...

oobiyou · 173w

A sound opinion. #[0]

graycat · 173w

#Bitcoin was invented to be a digital currency. The Ordinals/BRC-20 enthusiasts are usurping the network for a different purpose. In the process of doing that, they’ve made its intended use more expensive and therefore less attractive in comparison to alternatives. If Pepe coin or JPEG collectors ...

It not only increases centralization, but it dramatically lowers trust. There's a share of the population every week that might step into bitcoin -- not necessarily as an orange-piller, but open their first wallet at least. And I think it's the responsibility of those of us in the community to make ...