didn't somebody say that plants invented us, as a way to move themselves around?

I think you could be right, Swan.

The fedimint / ecash model is a great example of this in action.

Users of a mint interact with one-another, solely on layer 3. This accounts for a significant bulk of transactions, within a given jurisdiction.

When a user of that jurisdiction wants to interact with an outsider, the mint handles the logistics, behind the scenes, by falling back to layer 2 (LN) communication, with the outsiders mint.

In this way, the bulk of transactions are handled at the highest layer possible, falling back to the layer below only when strictly necessary, to provide seamless interoperability.

is there such a thing as a collaborative batch transaction?

ie multiple users who are priced out of making thier own distnct, on chain transaction, pool their utxo's together, ahead of time, and construct a single, unified, lower fee transaction, that in some way helps all participants achieve a beneficial outcome ?

i really am just thinking out loud here.. but an example use case might be to bootstrap a lightning channel(s), using almost unspend layer 1 utxos...

miners don't control the block size. consensus enforcing / validating nodes do.

building knowledge & health, while holding, leaves us ready to deal with most of the possible outcomes...

Mr Diversity & Inclusion must be making a fortune... the amount of modern films he's been cast in....

The use of the word fraud was not mine, however I suspect it relates to how the jpegs are being stored in blocks.

The OP_RETURN op code was created to give users of Bitcoin a way to store arbitrary data as part of transactions. Many did not want arbitrary data in the blockchain at all, but this was done as a compromise, to appease an additional subset of users.

This is not how the current attack is being executed. Rather, those behind the activity are exploiting a bug in the Taproot upgrade, through which an an arbitrary amount of data can be shoe-horned into transactions, after the OP_FALSE op code.

The means by which they are able to do this was never planned, and had it been clear at the time, there likely would have been steps taken to ensure the current behaviour was not possible.

Rather than 'leaving it to the free market', to 'solve', the better solution would simply be to fix the bug. The same way we fixed the inflationary bug, that allowed an attacker to create infinite Bitcoins, out of thin air.

miners are being paid out-of-band, with fiat, to fill blocks with jpegs.

if they were paying for their transactions with Bitcoin, it is the case that they would eventually run out of money to fund their activity.

as fiat can be printed infinetly, there are no limitations on how long they can sustain this attack.

what is the difference between a State actor attacking the network by paying mining pools to mine empty blocks, vs a State actor attacking the network by paying mining pools to fill blocks full of jpegs?

It would be helpful for node runners without hash-power to know what, if anything, they can do, to participate in this action.

My understanding is that switching to Knots or running the Ordisrespector patch will slow the propagation of 'Ordinals', at the P2P layer, but won't stop them eventually finding their way in to blocks.

Is this still a meaningful way to register ones opposition to Ordinals?

If the exploitation of witness data is patched, at a broad level, would those dumping jpegs into blocks pivot in some way, and would this be a more or less favourable situation vs where we currently stand?

tagging nostr:npub1lh273a4wpkup00stw8dzqjvvrqrfdrv2v3v4t8pynuezlfe5vjnsnaa9nk

they are paying miners out-of-band, with fiat, to fill blocks with jpegs, and ignore actual economic bitcoin transactions.

this is decidely harmful to anyone who wants to use bitcoin as an economic payments network.

if they were paying the miners with bitcoin, it's possible they would eventually run out of money, and the attack would stop, but they aren't. they're paying miners with fiat, which they can print, indefinitely, therefore they can sustain this attack as long as the fiat money printers continue to exist.

what is the difference between a State actor censoring the bitcoin network, by paying pools large amounts of fiat, to mine empty blocks.. vs a State actor paying pools large amounts of fiat, to fill blocks full of jpegs? ... the outcome is essentially the same.

I suspect that if the money was properly cleaned up, it would have a beneficial knock on effect, in terms of 'the science'.

(Self financing governments no longer able to subsidise certain areas of research, at the expense of others, or perpetuate junk science / outright lies, that fulfil their agenda of keeping people weak and easy to control).

If there was a return to sound money, and we moved on from a debt based monetary system (& it's subsequent inflation), the cost of *all* goods would trend toward zero, over time.

This would mean that equipment for carrying out research would become more available to the average person, and would no longer be something large centralised instutions had a monopoly on.

When you think about better equipment, in the hands of more individuals, who are able to compare notes via unfiltered communication channels, and share their findings at large....

It starts to sound like a return to what science used to be, before grifters figured out how to strip mine it, in a bid to line their own pockets.

Like most things, I think decentralised science starts at home. With personal responsbility, and a desire to seek the truth, in all things.

the mining node address for each template option is available here:

https://ocean.xyz/blocktemplate

An excellent discussion on the current Ordinals debate, with Ocean's Bitcoin Mechanic & nostr:npub1s5yq6wadwrxde4lhfs56gn64hwzuhnfa6r9mj476r5s4hkunzgzqrs6q7z.

https://m.primal.net/HUiK.mov

Full podcast episode available @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXccoOlmtMY

#bitcoin #ordinals #inscriptions

Give this one a pump, too, my man:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXccoOlmtMY

'Alby extension now supports Liquid' .... except it doesn't ?

Just updated the extension but don't see any options to deposit via Liquid. Does it need to be enabled somehow?

don't worry nostr:npub14a234n82fqsqp0wvkd9a83fp2k8p7dfhww3u4mvr59rey8pkn6sswh0dfz.... we've got you 😉

at least they had a good time, burning all that Venus coal...

Tuesday ? 🤨

i'm simply articulating why it's important to remain cognisant of ones ideals.

thanks for the lesson on bitcoin.