Quote from: joker_josue on January 04, 2024, 01:47:02 PM

It really cannot be considered an attack, directly. But, this does not mean that it cannot be used as a tool for less-intentioned people to achieve their goals, which are less favorable for the network.

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm? Of course I'm just speculating, and I know that's not what happened. But, it could happen.

The only guarantee is to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the load . If these companies are selling a service and each click could be a potential client it would be idiotic to stand and look their website going down .

Quote

What I mean by this is that despite what is happening, it is not exactly an attack. It can be used to achieve certain purposes that are purely personal and not for the good of the network.

How do you define network ? That's what i'm arguing about .

5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the
chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

The network has to do with the infrastructure and it's defined in the whitepaper . It works fine . The users ( running a full node doesn't make you a part of the network , see the definition ) are the ones facing problems , and in real life they would never use something like what btc offers . No real world business would work with a model that limits the amount of users that can use it .

Quote

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time .
The whole point with ordinals and nft's was to have a market created . Since that market is created and the rewards are extremely high people will speculate . As always the first ones will be those that have maximum gains and will continue as long as it's profitable .

Quote from: pooya87 on January 04, 2024, 02:54:42 PM

It is you who is comparing apples and oranges. In your both examples you used legitimate use cases of the service (buying stuff, users of Facebook, etc.) but when it comes to Bitcoin you are counting the attackers as legitimate use case!

Every system is made for a purpose and when you use it for something else or break the rules of that system, your actions would be counted as abuse. For example if you use your Facebook account to post some random stuff every 10 seconds, your account will be banned and nuked in matter of minutes.
It's the same in Bitcoin, when you try to exploit the protocol and turn Bitcoin into cloud storage, that's an abuse and it should be banned. The only difference between Bitcoin and a centralized service is that Bitcoin is decentralized so such decision makings are extremely slow.

I'm glad that you took an example with the only company that your argument could stand but it is flawed . The problem is that in facebook you are the product they sell . It's easy , when you're not paying for a product you are the product .
How many clients of facebook ( advertisers ) have you heard getting banned for using their service ?
Try another argument with netflix or banks , or whatever network that users who pay for using a service getting excluded or targeted for using it . Dude , grow up .

Quote

As I've said a million times this is not about fees nor about what is being stored in chain. This is all about the fact that Bitcoin is being used as cloud storage whereas it is supposed to be a payment system. And it is ONLY possible through an EXPLOIT.

You fail to understand what electronic cash means , that's why you insist it's an attack . In fact you have to understand what cash is : https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cash.asp .
Cash can be anything that can be turned into physical cash . So , there has to be a market for it , and preferably it should be widely accepted . Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

Quote

That's just outright wrong.
Ignoring the fact that block size hasn't been 1MB for years, for some reason you said all these stuff in previous pages to get here (I wonder what reason Wink

) to say that "people using bitcoin as their cloud storage is OK and we should increase the block size so they can have access to a bigger "cloud space" for their arbitrary data!"

I'm saying all these things because i see people complaining about things bitcoin has face in the past ( periods of insane fees ) . And for that you blame ordinals etc . There are no spammers as long as they pay fees , especially higher than your "normal transactions" . Try to think and blame those that are really responsible for that , and that's a part of core . No one else .