Quote from: Z-tight on Today at 08:12:36 PM

Quote from: alani123 on Today at 06:51:20 PM

Were bitcoin users consulted about rising fees by those that inscribe Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens? Of course not, so there's the downside of "going ahead and fucking doing it".

That's because they could do it without consensus, and they found a way to it do it through the Taproot upgrade, but you cannot just 'end' ordinals, doing so would amount to censorship because miners have to reject ordinals tx's for something like that to happen, and they would not even do it because they are making a lot of money from tx fees.

rejecting transactions for using the "isvalid" trick is not censorship. bitcoin is made with many rules. there is reasons why someone broadcasting a litecoin tx on the bitcoin network wont see it in the block. because there are rules to reject transaction it does not understand.

bitcoin WAS suppose to be a secure network with rules to keep it clean. the abuse of the opcodes treated as "isvalid" that have been activated but nodes have not been given rules to follow for those opcodes is the issue

we have moved away from developing efficiencies and counting bytes properly where each byte should serve a useful purpose. we need to re proposition the core devs(the reference client central point) to put some validation rules of certain opcodes that cause nodes to seek out actual valid information used in conjunction with the opcodes, such as meaningful bitcoin signatures and scripts to validate that the transaction is actually transacting meaningful bitcoin functionality

i know some trolls pretend there is no core reference client everyone relies on..but then different times idolises cores role.
i know some trolls pretend anyone can change things at consensus/protocol level. but then opens up REKT campaign again individuals that are not core gods

so yes CORE have to fix their mistake when they created new opcodes that nodes dont do checks on the contents