Quote from: BlackBoss_ on Today at 01:35:19 AM

Quote from: Darker45 on Today at 01:27:02 AM

The example is probably not the best one. The user has paid too much in fees. It could have been lowered down through means which are all available right now.

However, the point generally remains: that Bitcoin transactions are expensive and slow. There's the SegWit, there's personalized fees, there's consolidation of UTXOs, there's even Lightning. The fees remain high nonetheless, on-chain transaction fees to be specific.

More than a decade has passed and this remains an issue. The rise of Ordinals has even aggravated the problem. Perhaps there's a point in centralized services. Perhaps there's a point in IOUs. Perhaps Hal was right.

The Taproot activation 3 years ago and the developments of BRC 20, Ordinals and adoption of Inscriptions began to show their impacts on Bitcoin demands and mempools. Unfortunately, it is not kind of impact normal Bitcoin users want to see because those Inscriptions are useless for many Bitcoiners but they still have to bear abnormal expensive transaction fee because of Ordinal Inscriptions.

If the community can vote to support Taproot, they can vote to do something against Taproot.

Inscriptions, Mempools and Miners.

I'm afraid removing Taproot doesn't address the issue. This problem has been here way before Taproot became a thing. Secondly, do we necessarily have "to do something against Taproot" when in fact it's not as if Taproot was an upgrade whose objective is to pave the way for Bitcoin NFTs? Taproot was meant for security, privacy, scalability, and other good things. It was meant for the Ordinals. Bitcoin NFTs seems to have come out merely as a sort of an unintended consequence of what's otherwise a great upgrade.