Quote from: ABCbits on Today at 08:29:22 AM

...

Quote from: tvbcof on Today at 07:42:41 AM

Seems to me that people who wish to leverage the Bitcoin blockchain for various pet data projects would/could/should just peg out to a dedicated sidechain. Unlike in earlier days (back before the earth stopped cooling) such technologies have been developed, and are working pretty well as best I can see.

Seems to me that a dedicated sidechain would be a better choice than the Bitcoin blockchain since it wouldn't be being spammed by BTC transactions and there is a lot of unrelated cruft which could be left behind.

At first blush, somehow 'needing' to crud up the BTC blockchain seems more like an attack than a legitimate solution to a real problem. Where is my thinking wrong here?

Sidechain and other L2 already exist far before Ordinals created. But almost no one use it despite both Liquid network and Rootstock have smart contract capability and developer behind it promote it support NFT/token. I also have seen Ordinals supporters say they only want to use Ordinals since their arbitrary data guaranteed to be immutable.

They couldn't figure out how to make their sidechain(s) 'immutable'? Yeah, right.

It certainly seems that there is something rotten in Denmark.

It also looks like there is a compelling reason to get back to running some full nodes and building out some mining capacity. For most of the time over the last 14 years, I did not see a real need to do so.

If these 'core' people can convince me that Bitcoin has been, or will be, taken over by bankster creeps and it's time to take it out back and shoot it in the head (which would not be impossible), that's one thing. If, however, some contingent of 'core' were flipped by the powers that be and induced to introduce toxins into the codebase (or are doing it for their own gain), that's quite another.

Maybe there is an effort at another BCH-style fork to take some profits off one side?