The first note was a little messed up
Tetris for Linux
View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (49)
Quadrapassel also:
quadrapassel - Debian Package Tracker
I knew that one but what I found interesting about Bastet is the fact that it runs on the command line. 🤙
Every Bitcoin full node also has a Tetris game, among others, via inscriptions
Wow I must tried it. But lately LN is a funnier game. Lol
🤣🤣 to play only with the special wallet, right?
You can extract files out of blocks without a special wallet
Maybe I'll try this.
With Nodeyez you can run the inscriptionparser on block 774107
That looks interesting, thanks. I will explore the blocks.
Can we do Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings now? It was my favorite game.
Why not an inscription which melts outs the uP and circuits; so the drama and the fairytale is over? Could you do that @vicariousdrama?
🤣🤣
Age of Empires II was one of the games I played the mostra.
How do you turn this on??? 🤷♂️
LMAO. Probably not a good idea.
But worth noting that there is some inscriptions that if extracted and run are malevolent. Dont run things blindly either as os level executables of scripts through interpreters without adequate protections
Since when is inscription a good idea at all? 😂
Tools are neutral.
The way they are used is what is judged ethically and morally.
This sentence is burned diferently in my brain 😬 Back when I learned it I didn't speak English and didn't even know what it meant.
And why then are some (including you) trying to create an alternative monetary (and data storage) system/network?
There are already systems, networks and tools doing that. All they are neutral.
Why are we losing life time on this?
Furthermore, inscriptions and in general arbitrary data storage (not accepted in social consensus) is an aggression of private property, and it is in legit right to self-defense against it.
Aggression of my property and my integrity is not a neutral issue.
I prefer and support the usage and advancement of Bitcoin for monetary uses. Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?
When it comes to arbitrary data, there are currently no other tools that provide for censorship resistant permissionless distribution and long term storage at a cost like Bitcoin. I wish there were as it would obviously be more ideal, but hell, we cant even get larger data in op_return to help facilitate referencing even IPFS or other resources
Your analogy to an aggression of private property appears weak as the same can extend to all forms of data copying and transfer where you are not the party sending or receiving or otherwise have no immediate interest.
Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used. I think most would agree that inefficient embedded json for messaging, or storage of the same images over and over, or JPEG screencaps of pages of PDF files is a poor use of space. Likewise, those using it to create several thousand outputs per day that will never move effectively burn those sats and bloat the UTXO set. As a node operator, its the latter issue that is a challenge in the long term and this was problematic before Inscriptions.
“Can you provide clarity to your belief that im creating an alternative monetary network?”
It is not a belief, it is obvious, you are creating an alternative monetary system different than Wire and SWIFT since you state you were a Bitcoin node operator.
FEDWIRE and SWIFT are not monetary networks. They are centralized social credit score systems of punishment
“When it comes to arbitrary data, there are currently no other tools that provide for censorship resistant permissionless distribution and long term storage at a cost like Bitcoin”
Because at the moment, Bitcoin allows exploiting the loose flexibility of script, which permits storage without compensation payment for storage resource. Furthermore, due to historical reasons the payment for that storage exploits a discount which has not being balanced with any mechanism.
“Your analogy to an aggression of private property appears weak as the same can extend to all forms of data copying and transfer where you are not the party sending or receiving or otherwise have no immediate interest.”
Can you give an example for at least a form of data storage? You refer to copying and transfer; it comes to my mind Nostr and the relays, and that’s not what I’m referring. Don’t tweak the argument.
“Just because I support peoples freedom to use inscriptions doesnt mean I like the ways its being used.”
I don’t know, if you support “people’s freedom” or network taking control via centralization through prohibitive cost increment.
The freedom of anybody ends when the freedom of somebody is being cut (and that without consensus or in free will).
Even if that were true, those are neutral tools.
Transactions competitively pay for the space they take up in a block. This is true of all transaction types dating back to the Genesis block.
Your argument seems to suggest Transactions should pay for the storage of that block in all nodes, and somehow pay node operators for that storage. Bitcoin users are already inventivized to perform actions to receive Bitcoin for goods and services just as they'd spend. Furthermore, theres no way to identify all node operators that doesnt step into the realm of a central vetted registration.
The virtual byte transition and effective 4:1 discount for signatures of segwit transactions was balanced (albiet poorly) to incentivize use of segwit over p2pkh. As Peter Wuille informs "There is a reason why this discount is justified: in legacy transactions, creating a transaction output is significantly cheaper than spending one. This encourages unspendable dust: outputs that were created at a time when fees were low may become uneconomical to spend (= cost more to spend than they're worth) when fees are high. This is a burden on the entire ecosystem, as full nodes (for now, at least) need to maintain fast access to the set of all unspent outputs."
Yes. You are free to use them if you or the other party in the transaction are not censored from them.
All bytes that are not temporary in ram and intended for recall later are either stored to disk or not before the memory is reclaimed.
While nostr and any other system shares these kinds of attributes, the discussion here is about Bitcoin which has far more permanence than nostr relays
The resource cost increment on the size of the UTXO set is something we needed to solve before inscriptions (and stamps, and muun wallet, etc) and continues to be a key technical challenge.
I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.
Nobodies freedom is being cut by the existence of inscriptions or any other form of data storage within Bitcoin that embeds within
- coinbase
- op_return in general
- multisig outpouts
- tx output amounts
- tx id
- op code ordering
“Transactions competitively pay for the space they take up in a block.”
Transactions do not pay for “block space”, Transaction Bidders pay to miner-entities for compensation of the marginal lost competitiveness at block propagation due to that marginal transaction.
“Your argument seems to suggest Transactions should pay for the storage of that block in all nodes, and somehow pay node operators for that storage.”
The original Bitcoin design had an original Bitcoin node; which performed the storage and mining activity in one. Due to historical reason the mining activity got separated from the original Bitcoin node and now the Bitcoin system has an unstable and not sustainable status quo in which the nowadays mining operators (probably in proxy with popular big mining pools) will reunite the storage activity on their nodes, making the network centralized and thus taking the control of it.
“Bitcoin users are already inventivized to perform actions to receive Bitcoin for goods and services just as they'd spend. Furthermore, theres no way to identify all node operators that doesnt step into the realm of a central vetted registration.”
Nothing relevant for the argumentation identified.
“As Peter Wuille informs "There is a reason why this discount is justified: in legacy transactions, creating a transaction output is significantly cheaper than spending one. This encourages unspendable dust: outputs that were created at a time when fees were low may become uneconomical to spend (= cost more to spend than they're worth) when fees are high. This is a burden on the entire ecosystem, as full nodes (for now, at least) need to maintain fast access to the set of all unspent outputs."”
That could be incentivated with the already working pay for transaction byte size, which can be evidenced observing entities consolidating their UXTOs.
That does not change the neutrality of those tools.
“Nobodies freedom is being cut by the existence of inscriptions or any other form of data storage within Bitcoin that embeds within
- coinbase
- op_return in general
- multisig outpouts
- tx output amounts
- tx id
- op code ordering”
Not by their existence, but due to their consequences.
“The resource cost increment on the size of the UTXO set is something we needed to solve before inscriptions (and stamps, and muun wallet, etc) and continues to be a key technical challenge.”
And what would be your proposal?
“I prefer decentralization. Which is also why I dont see knee jerk reactions as the solution as they often come with unintended consequences. Changes to standardness rules for relaying but not consensus rules to match makes the network more centralizing to miners.”
Why make it more centralizing to miners?
At its worst, those do not change anything in the dynamic behavior of the existing Bitcoin system.
(“knee jerk reaction”: how should I understand that phrase?)
"I shouldnt have to pay as much because I dont like how others are using Bitcoin" - stomps feet
Fud
What do you want people to pay for
They are neutral if entities arent controlling and setting rules for who can and cannot use them.
Your attempts to subvert the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is not neutral
Exactly.
I DONT want to centralize more to miners. Hence, I dont want to incentivize that by making people have to work with miners directly for their transactions. If we cant relay, then we lose censorship resistance.
“Your attempts to subvert the permissionless nature of Bitcoin is not neutral”
The old trick of the “censorship” argument was used many times before in the Bitcoin history.
As I said, it is not a neutral issue to self-defend against aggression to property and thus integrity.
You can’t lose what you already lost and that is decentralization of mining activity (via proxy popular big mining pools).
If you would want to keep mining entities decentralized, then you should incentivize regular Bitcoin node decentralization and adoption. But of course, that is not your view for Bitcoin.
Sir. You lost me to take my time and attention to argue with you in this medium.
Bitcoin IS! very low #Bitcoin transaction fees.
Bitcoin IS! light, tight, robust #fullnodes that almost anyone can run and manage if they want to.
If it's not, it's not Bitcoin. It's some wannabe Bitcoin piece of shit..🧡👑🗽
I could argue that Inscriptions aided decentralization as more people had to learn how to run nodes.. indeed I helped set some people up and provided some early guides on the process which are available in my github repo.
It also solidified taproot which was floundering since activation.