Quote from: LoyceV on April 23, 2024, 08:23:28 AM

Quote from: Synchronice on April 22, 2024, 06:17:00 PM

What it was years ago | What it is today:
- P2P Electronic Cash system | P2P JPEG ownership transfer service

That's the thing: there is no JPEG ownership, it's meaningless! It only "means" something on a made-up system, which only means something to the few people who are in on it. To the rest of the world, it doesn't mean anything. And on top of that, anyone can claim "ownership" of any image, with or without having the rights to do so. It's a scam.

I am kind of seeing a similar thing while at the same time starting to feel some kind of a tinge of an attack on the bitcoin network and transactability of regular folks, but I still am tentatively considering that they are not going to be able to keep it up, becuase there would have to be buyers on the other end, so sure maybe for a while the hype can keep going, and maybe even several months, but is it sustainable in any kind of way that it is really going to break transactability? or maybe this is just the beginning of variations of similar kinds of ways to remove lower paying transactions for these ones who are apparently willing to spend a lot of money on variations of their crap.. and then maybe it gives other actors (such as governments and financial institutions - even miners) more information about ways that they can drive bitcoin fees up and to discourage normies from getting involved in bitcoin, including that normies could become frustrated by not being able to engage in on chain transactions and normies are then tending to use third party providers and also realizing that they are not really directly using bitcoin, but they may well be able to get bitcoin price exposure.. ..

but then price dynamics that are partly motivated by a bunch of scams on top of bitcoin and contributing to confusion in terms of whether bitcoin is any different than any other shitcoin, which we should still realize that bitcoin is still different from various other shitcoins, just that the fees cost a lot to transact (rght now) and maybe we have to make sure that we are transacting in the thousands of dollars in order to justify the fees that we are paying.. although even if we might have to send $1k to $2k to some kind of a lightning network wallet, then maybe we would thereafter be able to have cheaper transactions on that wallet that we had initiated with $1k to $2k worth of bitcoin.

Quote from: LoyceV on April 23, 2024, 08:23:28 AM

If I'd tell you each of my satoshis is worth $1000, and if I'd create a wallet that actually shows that, and if I were to hype it enough, I could probably get some gullible victims into paying me that much. Just like the ICO scams did when Ethereum was facilitating all those scams. I really don't like the idea of Bitcoin faciliting this.

Is it worth it to try to stop it rather than just letting it run its course. I am having trouble considering that it breaks bitcoin, even though it is quite inconvenient, and it stacks a lot of cards in favor of rich people and against poor people and even normies wanting to get into bitcoin. .but there frequently is misinformation (information asymmetry) that normies newbies to bitcoin have to sort through in order to still recognize/appreciate bitcoin as a powerful investment that they should get rather than not getting, even though transaction fees happen to currently be high, and "we" seem to be going through a period of excitement in regards to how to propagate various scams on the bitcoin main chain.

Quote from: Pmalek on April 23, 2024, 03:39:54 PM

Btw, there have been multiple posts about these spammers soon losing their money and stopping their attacks. Possible. But the enemies of Bitcoin with access to money printers could also improve their approaches and clog the network in the same way. The current spammers have showed them the way.

Sure.. I am kind of thinking that too.. and so you are implying that rich people, governments, financial institutions, anti-bitcoin folks will just keep throwing their money at bitcoin to clog it up.. and suggesting that they have enough money to actually accomplish their mission..

I understand the idea, and I have similar fears, but I think that we cannot necessarily presume such a thing without possibly letting it play out for some additional time, so in that sense, I cannot see what kind of a "rush" change would be good enough to NOT damage more than it solves, and I am kind of thinking that these high fees might be inspiring various kinds of developments that might be able to inspire some kinds of solutions that had not previously been considered.. How long these solutions take? Who knows, but there are variations of them that already exist, even though they seem to have more centralization characteristics.

Many of us who hold bitcoin privately are likely made aware of these matters, and there may well be some folks who hold bitcoin privately who have not yet become aware of these current high fee issues, and surely some of them could become inspired to sell their coins because of such matters or maybe fail/refuse to buy more bitcoin because of such matters, and yeah, they will become low coiners or no coiners, and maybe they will regret their decision later.. so yeah, we each make decisions about our own bitcoin holdings if we believe some of our use cases are being interfered with. and/or that we might have transaction sizes (UTXOs) that have become uneconomical to spend.. or marginally economical to spend, and some folks might panic based on these kinds of issues and misread them as more sustainable than they actually are.. and I am not going to proclaim that I know the solution, but I am not much of a fan of emergency measures based on even what seems to be currently going on.