Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

2014 called and has questions about this statement. Where were all your complaints then? Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too?

When I first read about people doing that, my reaction was "huh, that's kinda cool, I guess it's not just for money, it can do other stuff as well". But now, almost a decade later, people seem to have suddenly decided against that outlook. I'd argue, it's a bit late to be calling for it to stop now. That ship has long since sailed.

There is a clear distinction here that I'm surprised you still don't want to see.

When a transaction is complying with consensus rules, standard rules and is behaving the way it is expected it is different from a transaction that is complying with consensus rules but not standard rules or the expected behavior.

In this case using the OP_RETURN output that is the expected way of inserting a small arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain is a normal behavior.
On the other hand, using the oversight in witness verification to inject arbitrary size arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain is not normal and is an attack.

Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.

Possible? Not exactly. You see there is a difference between a valid transaction and a possible transaction (something that is easily relayed and mined).
It has always been "valid" to for example create an output that has a ~1 MB script containing arbitrary data but it was never possible to propagate that or get a miner to confirm it easily.

Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain.

And they are all extremely limited and controlled to prevent abuse and attacks such as Ordinals.

Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

And that's been the case since you first registered your account here.

Wrong. It has been like that since long before that Cheesy

Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that. Don't go off the deep-end like him, please.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Create a legacy transaction that injects a large arbitrary data inside one script by using the same script as the Ordinals Attack and get majority of full nodes to accept that tx in their mempool and all miners to include it in their candid block without you contacting them behind curtains and paying an extra fee through another channel to get it "manually" included.
Now do the same using witness version 1 and see for yourself whether it has always been possible or not!

Quote from: DooMAD on January 02, 2024, 06:52:18 PM

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput. What's your alternative? Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?

Now you're changing the topic of discussing entirely.

You seem to have talked to franky so much so that you see everything about SegWit as a whole. The problem is not the soft-fork(s), nor is it SegWit itself. We aren't even discussing SegWit version 0 and 1 here.
The problem is the oversight that left some rules "loose" and enabled this attack vector which Ordinals is exploiting to perform their attack.
The solution was simple too, all it took was including the same exact rules that existed in Bitcoin into the witness verification rules to continue preventing this type of abusive attacks.