Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on May 05, 2023, 01:39:17 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on May 05, 2023, 11:16:34 AM

Any transaction that is not made with the sole purpose of transferring bitcoin (and nothing else) is spam and should be prevented.

Are colored coins spam, in that case? Such transactions don't just transfer bitcoin solely. Is OP_RETURN spam since it creates another purpose for the transaction? What about transactions that create an output to the same destination as the input? In practice they don't move bitcoins at all, but the protocol understands this as transaction. Unless we count mining fees as part of the transaction, which in that case would make every Ordinal transaction a "real" one.

For the millionth time, every transaction byte should be seen as equal with any other given that it follows the protocol rules.

I explicitly mentioned that anything that falls within the accepted methods of performing things can be considered not-spam. Colored coins and anything using OP_RETURN (regardless of my personal feelings) is not a spam.
You can't really compare that with the Ordinals Attack which is based on an exploit of the protocol though!

Quote from: NotATether on May 05, 2023, 01:46:54 PM

Somebody on Twitter just broke Ordinals:
~
If this is to be believed, then that should make the dispute obsolete.

That would be true for an actual protocol that is also decentralized. When it comes to a centralized platform that is using an exploit to attack bitcoin, "breaking" is not even defined for it.

Quote from: dragonvslinux on May 06, 2023, 08:44:33 PM

Looks good to me. Hopefully will encourage more adoption of Lightning network or other layer 2 solutions with increasing cost of mainnet transactions.

You can't use second layer if the primary layer isn't functioning well. In other words this will have the exact opposite effect since the cost of moving in and out of LN channel is also high.