Bitcoin Forum

Currently as we speak, bitcoin's blockchain is clogged by transactions because ORDI a shitcoin related to so called "inscriptions" creating NFT like things on-chain for bitcoin.

Are we to forget how the blocksize wars took place circa 2015 because some developers thought everything above 1MB for blocks was too much decentralization? Bitcoin lost many developers and fans due to this debacle and was set back quite a bit. We now have 4MB blocks with SegWit and a literal shitcoin riding on-chain and clogging our blocks.

This trash being inscribed on chain is going to be worthless tokens in just a few months. I can't fathom that we're standing idly by watching this all unfold. Please let's all agree that it's time to end ordinals.

Edit: PLEASE READ I need to clarify this. By roll-back ordinals I didn't mean to actually roll back the bitcoin blockchain. Just to prevent the ability for them to be created from now on.

You can not roll back the Bitcoin blockchain and if Bitcoin community do this, Bitcoin blockchain will no longer be considered as better than Ethereum blockchain or many shit coin blockchains.

Each mining pools, nodes can have their settings to exclude transactions from Ordinals but if they want to do it. Miners get benefit from more expensive transaction fee, higher fee rate because they confirm transactions and get transaction fees.

Reason to roll back the Bitcoin blockchain?
It does not make sense because a Bitcoin block includes many transactions and transactions for Ordinals, BRC20 tokens are one of many in a block.

I thought this stood true:
If not, someone would have to correct the bitcoin wiki itself here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Misconceptions

It's happening all over again.

What can developers do to actually prevent that from happening in the future?
I mean really, I have no idea, that's why I ask.

These ups and downs in transaction fee are so annoying. I mean we all have had transaction stuck in the past I suppose. For signature campaign payment this might also become a problem if this goes on.

A manager will think twice to push a transaction to 30+ recipients if it takes too long to confirm because of sudden fee rise, this might become costly at some point.

In this case, is the Ordinals being the main problem here or there's just an increase in the numbers of transaction at the cause of increasing adoption rate, if what am thinking isn't it than the ordinals then i think it's high time the developers community finds a lasting solution to it, bitcoin is known to be as cheap as 2 sat/vbyte and which is very offordable by everyone performing transactions.


I don't know how we all came about this from the first place in renting out the blockspace when we know that bitcoin space could later be utilized for its same purpose when the network get congested, now it has to be a contension between the normal bitcoin users and the stranger ordinals for the highest bidders to get their transactions confirmed first, miners are on it again, their time to leak the milk to their mouth.


It also sounds ridiculous to me hearing about NFT on bitcoin network, this is one of the ways some new developments could be of advantage or disadvantage when newly introduced.

The upgrades that made Ordinals possible brought many benefits to Bitcoin. In the past we had on-chain gambling which many considered a waste of blockspace. At some point the people creating these spammy transactions will decide that paying $30 in fees, sometimes much more, and waiting a long time for confirmation is not worth it anymore and will move on to whatever L1 or L2 network is trendy at the moment.

firstly its not even an NFT its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
secondly its not even a shitcoin its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
thirdly its not even a token its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element

anyways
we need to go back to the development mindset that transactions should be lean, where every byte counts. and where each byte has a purpose and is validated to have meaningful use inside a transaction. non of this crap "isvalid" check bypass that allows any junk in without reason
new opcodes should only activate when the network is ready to scrutinise the content put after a opcode. as thats how secure networks operate.

if an old node doesnt understand the data, then it become stalled at the last block it did understand. requiring upgrade to be a full node. again where new version nodes only activate/accept it when there is a network majority tolerance of validating new things.

these bypass trick crap is just trojan horse crap.

i still laugh when they promised "taproot will only be 1 signature length" yet its used to have 3.99mb of non signature junk instead

The fees are high but they aren’t as high as during 2017 or during 2021-2022 for Ethereum. Back then you would expect to pay $50 for a single transaction. Today the high cost was $4-5, with fees being around 100 sats byte.

If you can try and do transactions on the weekend, usually there is less activity. Fees were decent until the start of November when they started to go up due to these ordinals on the blockchain.

lean tx 226bytes *100sat per byte = 22600sat
leanest Tx=$8

$8 is the low cost, most transactions are not lean

It is time to end Ordinals.  But it is a high risk task to roll back.  It sets a precedent and this has always been avoided by the Bitcoin community.  Rather spend time trying to find ways to stop Ordinals instead of rolling back.

Do not get me wrong.  Bitcoin is so impressive.  But it has negative bullets too.  This is a scenario that will only be avoided until the day comes where we HAVE to roll back or censor I believe.  Which is extreme danger.  You censor Ordinals.  Then why not censor other things too.  Like I do not know, texts embedded into the Blockchain that should not be embedded.  Then why not censor hackers and scammers too.  Then why not roll back every time there is a massive Exchange hack.

This is why changes take so long for the Bitcoin Network to accept.  Read what franky1 says.  Taproot should have been much smaller than an almost 4 MB junk.  Taproot has been discussed and coded for a LONG time.  Still.  It brings unexpected issues.

I hope one day we can have quick fixes and solve any Bitcoin Network issue within minutes.  But this is almost never the case.  Patience is key.  Always has been.

rolling back is not an option.. but enforcing validation rules is. close the loopholes that allow data unchecked to be relayed. if your node doesnt understand data then its either the data is bad or your node is out of date. one of the other.

by having rules, whereby changes require consensus majority is network security. the solution to the byzantine generals problem was a feature not a hindrance

we need to be getting back to a point/mindset about caring about leanness, byte utility and ensuring junk just doesnt happen. the open gate policy of letting anything in unchecked needs to be changed. where new stuff only begins when the network is ready.. and where the network is ready when the network participants have reviewed and scrutinised the code to ensure the new feature wont have consequences

there are many many ways to implement changes. we just have to get the core authority to temper down their centralist mindset and actually care about the decentralised network more than their sponsors needs

You can't "roll back ordinals" because ordinals is simply a system for numbering individual satoshis. In theory, they have been around since the genesis block. You can only ask for miners not to include transactions with taproot-assisted inscription data in the witness field. But they will because they want the fees.

Despite this latest resurgence, I'm still of the opinion that Ordinals NFTs and BRC-20 are waning in activity and will not be popular for too long. Their infrastructure is fragile and could disappear when the money dries up.


They are, because you don't dictate definitions. Popular consensus of the user base does. A perfect example of this is when  the word "literally" was redefined (https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/misuse-of-literally) to also mean "not literally."

when you look at how fast ordinals start spamming and then stop spamming.. you notice its not a mass populous of random people. because the spamming would not stop and start so suddenly. however by stop and starting so suddenly shows its only a small club of idiots.. idiots who dont know better. and they get bored and lose faith quickly until the next idiot joins their club to be victimised. then it ends when the victim moves on

saying ordinals is NFT is the same as idiots saying MLM isnt a pyramid
yes scammers dont like their crap being called crap.. still makes it crap even if they are upset about it

and no pronouns are not a thing. you can scream your non-binary label all you like. but once you are gone, your voice is no more, science will prevail and prove your gender

cryptography, data security and science and math prove ordinals are not part of any immutable transfer proof.. even the most basic thing of "counting sats" to their methodology is proven wrong in basic economics and structure

if idiots want to form an idiot consensus that in their idiot club the world is flat.. does not make the world flat. it makes the real mass population come to a consensus that they are idiots

Much like "flat earthers," you are in the extreme minority here. Nobody cares about your opinion on whether or not ordinals are NFTs. Besides, we are not discussing the validity of science-based theories, we are talking about what words mean to the people who use them.

Let's look at the words themselves:

✔️ Non-fungible: yes, ordinals are non-fungible as they are individual units of account.
✔️ Token: as applied to cryptocurrency, yes, they are distinguishable, named units or subsets that reside inside of a blockchain and can be transferred from one owner to another.

I think the main problem is your understanding of NFTs is limited. Even in the face of a decade of mounting evidence that you often have little knowledge of what you're talking about, you remain overly self-assured with what little knowledge you actually possess, which is why nobody takes you seriously.

Fungible tokens are even referred to as NFTs, as are Namecoin names, which are non-fungible but not really tokens. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't an NFT.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/31/rare-pepe-steeped-in-bitcoin-history-fetches-500k-on-nft-market-opensea/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypj37/rare-pepe-nft-is-not-rare-enough-dollar500k-lawsuit-alleges

You can have the last word as I'm sure you will only further derail this thread with your usual uninformed, argumentative nonsense. I'm out.

But, losing many developers doesn't mean Bitcoin isn't improving after that, the improvement is still happen as the latest BIP is 389 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips).

Correct, for additional explanation [WARNING] Stay away from BRC-20 tokens - they are doomed in the long term (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5451905.msg62211946#msg62211946).

Many people still confused between NFT and BRC 20 tokens, the simple understanding is like ERC 20 tokens where Tether run in Ethereum Network, is every Tether has it's own uniqueness? nope.

without changing the blockchain. the method of "counting sats" is already in error and if corrected would change the suggested path of presumed ownership. yep thats right (ordinals suggested) ownership can change with a few lines of code.. meaning its not immutable

the meme junk sits outside of inputs and outputs(appended to end of tx data) and has no in-data linkage to any output. again without changing the blockchain data the suggested path the junk data follows can also be changed with a few lines of code.

there is no rule that prevents/limits the supply of junk data. no control. no cryptographic proof within the meme or the json crap to secure it. no way for different people uploading the same image/json junk multiple times (no uniqueness)

..
ill give you a hint.. the missing pieces of the puzzle

imagine you want to create a meme token
get the hash of the file. and use the hash as one part of a 1-of-2 multisig. where the second part is a bitcoin key for receiving and spending
that way you are linking the hash to an output/address (yep then it shows actual linkage to an output rather then unlinked data appended to the end of a tx)

create a transaction that includes the data and where sats go to the specific output multisig(containing hash of data)
knowing the multisig includes the hash of junk in its script. means when you want to transfer it. the recipient tells you his bitcoin address and you create THEIR 1-of-2 multisig using the hash and their key. that way it shows the hash moving with an output

of course it does not stop the creator just making another transaction for someone else cloning the junk to give different owners. but thats where the next step of the missing piece of ordinals fails

its not non fungible because one person can create {brc:crap} and another person can also make {brc:crap}  exact same wording exact same digits/characters
these crap things are not "unique" so they are not non-fungible

it fails to stop duplication of junk/hashes appearing. it fails to recognise existing junk. it fails to understand its own data. it has to have rules or laws to secure the data from duplication.. and thats a biggy ordinals fails at.. solving the fungibility.. yep i said it json/meme junk can be duplicated and ordinals has no way to provide uniqueness


the last part is fixing the way in which ordinals miscounts sats.. and thats a biggy too. its basic economics that ordinals fails at

Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol to be "rolled back", it is garbage that people are injecting into the blockchain by exploiting the protocol which means the only way to "roll it back" is to reverse the blockchain which is not possible because it would effectively eliminate one of the basic principles of bitcoin: immutable blockchain.

The only way to battle the Ordinals Attack is for the nodes to start rejecting these spam/abusive transactions but unfortunately nodes need to be patched to give the node users this choice and that is not happening since the developers aren't really interested in doing that much to prevent this attack!

I fully support any actions taken against this attack though, even if the mempool were empty. Because it is still abusing the protocol.

Most likely the miners will not like what you say, these Ordinals that you call garbage bring happiness to them because it causes higher fees and higher profits for them, the more congestion the more the miners' pockets will be filled.

I sent a transaction a few days ago and the fee was about $2. Two days ago I sent another transaction and the fee was about $3. Today, as far as I can see, the fee is 6.85 USD/tx or more. This has become unbearable.

However, I do not expect that there will be an agreement in the Bitcoin community to end the arrangements because there are parties that benefit from the current situation.

Currently, things are even "OK" we have seen worse when the Ordinals hype had just set in and there were something like 300 - 400K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool. The transaction fee rate was insane for weeks
Suggestions were made but the developers just decided not to do anything about it. The idea is that the hype will die down with time and the Bitcoin network will be back to normal.

The Ordinals madness is more like an eye opener. I mean, if bitcoin network gets huge adoption worldwide where there is an inflow of hundreds of thousands of transaction per hour and we have a mempool with lets say over 1 million unconfirmed transactions, what next for the Bitcoin dveelopers and community?
Do they just let it be?

What are you going to do about it?  Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".


Nothing, Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant.


It seems you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You don't need Taproot for inscriptions, they are doing inscriptions on Litecoin (which has not upgraded to Taproot) too.


You can't "end" ordinals even if you did a rollback.


Your censorship solution has already been circumvented by inscribers: Transactions over 100kvB are already rejected by nodes' mempools, yet, miners are putting them in blocks anyway.  


What suggestions were made that the developers didn't decide to do anything with?...

Personally, leave it alone and let them store data in a data structure that can be pruned, OR ELSE, they might start storing data inside the actual blocks that it would be impossible for them to be pruned.

Plus we may not like it, but they're NOT actually breaking the rules of the network, and they're paying for the fees. Network congestion can always happen with or without Ordinals because block space is limited and demand increases sometimes. It's not sustainable, they will either run out of money first, or they will also need to wait for fees to go down.

It's a garbage that will get some numbers of people rich when Bitcoin makes a new all time high, I refuse to hate on this project right now because I've accept the fact about crypto space, this is a sign that ordinals will do very well when Bitcoin made it to 100k, if you are smart you would have gotten some at $3 months back, there was enough time, but some are so bound by what they believe in and that makes them miss out.

I don't like Ordinals running on Bitcoin, but it has happened, there is nothing I can do to undo this, so I've accept things the way they are, instead of hating, yes it's a shit utility injected into Bitcoin, I choose to make a lot of money from the shitty things in the space and take profit when the time is right and throw that back into more Bitcoin.

Be prepared to spend up to $20 or more on Bitcoin transaction in the next bull market, there is no way we can evade this, its why I knew this was a bad move when the news about Ordinals running on Bitcoin broke out.

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain.. where did your hard drive space preservation mindset go, oh wait you are just copying your forum families mindset even if its contradictory to your previous stories

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain and wait for them to run out of funds.
if they can scam one moron out of $1k for one meme that cost them $2 to make, they can then spam another 500x and scam more.. have you ever heard of exponential growth.. yep they wont run out of money as long as they keep scamming. its a self perpetuating scam

Hard drive space is preserved by the block weight limit, it's a consensus rule.

litecoins ordinals of junks meme data was not always available. it used a fork which enabled a opcode that bypassed checks to allow any junk in.
stop thinking that ordinals is something that always existed since btc2009 ltc 2011.. the development that enabled these things happened more recently then that. and when you see which upgrades enabled it you soon see..
btc taproot.. ltc mimblewimble

enjoy



windfury was blind echoing how more transactions per block was bad for hard drive space.. he flip flops the script depending on his forum daddy.
he doesnt care about lean utility of that blockspace. he doesnt care about how many users get to use that blockspace. he doesnt care about how much it costs genuine bitcoiners to use that space. he just spouts out the nonsense scripts his forum daddy says that are all aimed into making people hate bitcoin so that they move over to the subnetwork services his forum daddy promotes

Yes, you are right there. I remember 3 days ago, the transaction fee in Bitcoin increased again, reaching around 40–50 sats if you want a fast transaction, as long as the priority is the fee amount I mentioned.

Because before I knew it, the fee I made at first was only around 25 sats, and then I noticed two days later that it was still not at the destination address I put. Then I found out that the network is congested again because of the ordinals, so I canceled my transaction and then re-entered the transaction with a high fee.

Mimblewimble has nothing to do with ordinals either.  Stop making shit up.

The thing about adoption and correct usage of Bitcoin (as a payment system) is that it happens naturally and the growth is slow and predictable. For example if we see 300k transactions handled per day, it is not going to suddenly jump to a million demanded tx/day overnight.

However, the thing with spam attacks like the Ordinals Attack is that they suddenly and artificially create a fake demand for the blockspace hence creating this type of huge backlog. In other words that is not natural.

For the natural growth, we have time to plan for better solutions and scaling the chain to handle larger number of transactions. We are not in any kind of urgency.

Bitcoin is also designed to be a payment system and not a cloud storage. You can't just pick one definition of it and ignore the rest whenever it doesn't suite your view.

This is exactly what sets this attack apart from the previous spam attacks that Bitcoin has experienced in the past.

In that case, Bitcoin has even more features than it was originally designed to have.

This is not exactly true and many people have no idea. Early versions of the bitcoin client included an IRC client as well as some code relics of a would be poker game. Satoshi's early vision of bitcoin was probably that it could do multiple things from within the very client the payments are also launched. But nowhere do we get any idea that satoshi would have wanted the blockchain to be used as storage...

Satoshi specifically opposed the blockchain being used for data storage.  But its apparent Bitcoin's users do not oppose using the blockchain for data storage, which is why they pay fees to Bitcoin miners to do it.

How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals? First of all, when Taproot was introduced and finally implemented, "Ordinals" and "BRC-20" weren't realized yet and probably not one of the Core developers were considering that people would be burning images on-chain when they were building these features. For instance core developer Luke Jr. Is known for calling on-chain "inscriptions" garbage and speaking against them.

But now that transactions are so expensive I'm pretty sure that if someone was to poll the Bitcoin community on if they would like "inscriptions" to stop being supported in order to help with mempool bloat and transaction fees, most would be very supportive.

You can be certain that there are Bitcoin users not opposed to Ordinals because they are paying for them.  Money talks.


Ordinals/Inscriptions are not a feature of Taproot.


It's a very good thing that Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this sort of censorship by vote.  It proves Bitcoin can withstand attack even from within.

So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility?

It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack...

Where did I say you should create special opcodes?...

By supporting Ordinals and BRC-20 shit-tokens you're essentially saying that they're a valid use of the blockchain. And since you seem to not know this already,

BRC-20 and Ordinals only work on Taproot enabled new standard addresses and utilize the Taproot opcodes of OP_FALSE, OP_IF, OP_ENDIF and OP_PUSH. So if bitcoin was patched to invalidate these opcodes we would have no more "inscriptions" clogging the ledger. There very ability to create these wastes of space could be removed from bitcoin's functionality with a single patch. No hard-fork needed.

BRC-20 and Ordinals do not only work on Taproot.

Litecoin HAS in fact integrated Taproot as of release v0.21.1rc1 since early 2022. That's only a few months after it was put in bitcoin.
Source:
https://www.litecoin.net/news/taproot-is-now-available-on-litecoin-via-v0-21-1rc1-release-candidate

Sorry bitcoin transactions, people are paying more to spam the blockchain, and a pool with dubious practices is so happy to push them, of course, their altcoin / nft interests are well above Bitcoin, in fact they don't like Bitcoin to be so good, so they are happy to do this.

https://www.criptonoticias.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/bitcoin-Machine-Ordiverse-Ordinals-1140x570.jpg

Gets priority over people sending money home from abroad, or paying for bills, food, and stuff. Who knows, maybe banks ripple etc are behind this...

Yeah there is no rolling back, what was proposed back in February when the publicly demonstrated exploit occurred, was to take measures to make it more difficult to spam the blockchain. But no, devs looked the other way like nothing happened. And here we are, the "nothing" returned. Even if it fades again later, than even later will return, and the cycle never ends.

How long will the spam storm last? How long until people denounce those involved? etc. If you are pro Bitcoin, boycott those people.

Ah, thanks for the correction, I was not aware of that.  Regardless of Litecoin, Taproot is not a requirement for inscriptions.

Any form of NFT is a nuisance! Ordinals are no exception. I personally feel NFTs should be banned from any mainstream cryptocurrency as it only clogs the network and pushes up the transaction fees. Miners won't do anything about it because it gives them extra income. But honestly I am not sure if it can be done technically.

If you are a normal bitcoin user, it's high time to completely move to LN. It's also hilarious to see some bitcoin puritans still think that Bitcoin will become "one world one currency".

The general tone of the thread, to my understanding, could be summarised as "Everyone else needs to take action because I'm personally not happy with something".

If that's what you're going with, I can tell you right now you're in for some disappointment.  You're up against people who went right ahead and just did what they wanted to do.  They didn't make requests for others to act.  They didn't ask permission.  They just did it.  That's how you get shit done in this environment. 

This isn't the customer service department for Bitcoin.  You don't get to come here and moan at everyone until your problem is fixed for you.  Find your own solution.

Bunch o' fuckin' Karens.

Banned by whom? Who's wielding the ban hammer of bitcoin, please enlighten us, so that we can address this person and ask them to ban Craig Wright from using bitcoin. That would be something.
You're making fun of these bitcoin purists, but at the same time want bitcoin to remain pure, with no ordinals. So which one is it, because usually it's purists that want clean bitcoin and all the shitcoiners that want ordinals, NFTs, block size change and all the rest of it. 

I guess I missed the memo that said discussion is bad now. ;D

Honestly though, any meaningful change that's meant to last keeps the needs of the people in mind.
Were bitcoin users consulted about rising fees by those that inscribe Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens? Of course not, so there's the downside of "going ahead and fucking doing it".

However, there's still a slight chance that even though "inscriptions" do harm on bitcoin's basic functionality, maybe most bitcoin users aren't against them.
How else are we supposed to find out if not through discussion in the community?

Ah the dynamic duo of trolls is back, the only solution is add both to the ignore list. DooMAD and darkangel11 won't say anything useful or meaningful regarding this matter and just deny everything. They have to be paid (by you know who) to troll like this all this year...

That's because they could do it without consensus, and they found a way to it do it through the Taproot upgrade, but you cannot just 'end' ordinals, doing so would amount to censorship because miners have to reject ordinals tx's for something like that to happen, and they would not even do it because they are making a lot of money from tx fees.
Miners are surely in the group of those who aren't against this 'attack'. These inscriptions are clearly attacking BTC as a payment option because of the hike in tx fees it is causing, personally i don't like it and i want it to stop; but i would also not support any means of stopping it that would make the BTC network become pro censorship, like centralized institutions and their services.

No, there wasn't any consultation required because Bitcoin is permissionless.  You don't need all the other Bitcoiners' permission before you can spend your coins, you can spend them single-handedly by yourself.

rejecting transactions for using the "isvalid" validity bypass trick is not censorship. bitcoin is made with many rules. there is reasons why someone broadcasting a [insert shitcoin] tx on the bitcoin network wont see it in the block. because there are rules to reject transaction it does not understand.(well there used to be)

bitcoin WAS suppose to be a secure network with rules to keep it clean. the abuse of the opcodes treated as "isvalid" validity bypass, that have been activated but nodes have not been given subsequent rules to follow for those opcodes is the issue

the opcodes that allow the 4mb memejunk has not been available since 2009. so look at when it became available and which team created those opcodes which dont come with a byte or content rule

we have moved away from developing efficiencies and counting bytes properly where each byte should serve a useful purpose. we need to re proposition the core devs(the reference client central point) to put some validation rules of certain opcodes that cause nodes to seek out actual valid information used in conjunction with the opcodes, such as meaningful bitcoin signatures and scripts to validate that the transaction is actually transacting meaningful bitcoin functionality, with byte limit requirement too

opcodes left open with no rules should be disabled and only enabled when the network consensus of node majority is ready to validate a new opcode, where said opcode includes new rules..
there are ways to enforce it without breaking bitcoin. but certain trolls dont even want people discussing it as it destroys their promotions of certain services, scams, schemes and groups they affiliate with

i know some trolls pretend there is no core reference client everyone relies on..but then different times idolises cores role.
i know some trolls pretend anyone can change things at consensus/protocol level. but then opens up REKT campaign against individuals that are not their core gods

so yes CORE have to fix their mistake when they created new opcodes that nodes dont do checks on the contents

And who is going to do it? One pool rejects it and another confirms it.
If you run a node, or you mine, you can reject what you want, but if someone else wants it to go through, he can.
You don't like LN, so you don't use it and don't run LN node. Someone else wants to use it, he runs LN node.

Freedom?



I bet people who pay money to send additional stuff through the blockchain think it's a good use of their resources.
Miners who are getting paid more by people who do these things don't complain either.

You're preaching to the choir here. I don't use ordinals, I don't need it, but get here a guy who does and a miner who benefits and persuade them both to stop, because you want it gone.

learn consensus. (where nodes upgrade to mass consent (literal meaning of consensus) on a rule, causing the network to comply to that rule). then realise bitcoin is code and codes create rules. learn if core(node majority reference client of devs coding the bitcoin protocol) decides to code a rule that is enforced via consensus, everyone then follows.. especially when those sponsoring core then do a NYA mandatory upgrade to force compliance by economic nodes and pools to speed up the consensus activation(as they have done before)

yes it can be done. but requires CORE to fix their mistakes, individuals editing their node get treated as opposition/threat to the core roadmap.

---

some will say the "isvalid" utility is necessary.. however it doesnt need to be open to abuse

take this idea(simplified*)

op0 - isvalid(no checks) IF block version >0 else reject
op1 - requires X data format and limited to # bytes
op2 - requires y data format and limited to # bytes

(below enabled when block version changes to 1)
op0-0 - isvalid IF block version >1 else reject
op0-1 - requires X data format and limited to # bytes
op0-2 - requires y data format and limited to # bytes

(below enabled when block version changes to 1)
op0-0-0 - isvalid IF block version >2 else reject
op0-0-1 - requires X data format and limited to # bytes
op0-0-2 - requires y data format and limited to # bytes

this way the "isvalid" trick only activates for old nodes if the entire network has upgraded. where the new upgraded nodes cant use the next gen "isvalid" trick but can use a new set of opcodes that have structure, format and data requirements in their rules

*no i am not saying go back in time to change old node treatment of opcodes, its a simplified visualisation.. practically when core decide they want to upgrade to offer a new subdivison of new opcodes they can add in a IF statement on the next gen opcodes that only get activated if block version is 3 where the 'isvalid" unchecked bypass of the next gen opcode only activates if block version is 4+

Great idea. Let's fork bitcoin again so that we may have a network with people who don't like the last upgrade and another with those who like it and then every time we don't like the way the network works we'll play Roger Ver and divide the community.  
You do realize that for consensus to work there has to be said consensus, right? By the looks of this thread there's none.

thats why CORE need to code something thats worthy of the network to get around.. (im ashamed core have reached this authority level, but they have so we have to play their game now)
individual X would get destroyed and treated as roger.ver2.0 if they tried.

but if CORE fixed their error and shown it to be of benefit to the community the trolls would ally behind it and support it* and the community will see the benefit and support it

independent brand releasing upgrade proposal will just be treated as the enemy (as history has shown)

*much like trolls were against more then 1mb blocks until core decided 4mb was ok(trolls follow core like cats in heat)

so to get the trolls that dont want to stop ordinals onboard, is via core(their gods) doing the fix

I don't think such a move is possible in my opinion. Rolling back updates, especially for something as massive as bitcoin would just be even more detrimental to its growth compared to keeping the updates that we're so angry about anyway. Don't get me wrong, I hate ordinals as much as the next guy but at the end of the day, it was a testament that proves whatever other chains could do, bitcoin could probably do as well with enough dedication and manpower. Granted it wasn't the best representation of bitcoin NFTs as we wanted, it's the first and would probably be the last since the hype surrounding NFTs is pretty much dead at this point. Regardless, just keep it for keeping's sake, the blockchain's pretty much recovered at this point anyway, so everything should be good to go.

There is no need to roll-back ordinals, what is needed is to prevent odinals from spamming the Bitcoin network.  I also think that the developer should act about this matter.  It is not funny  to see the transaction fee get higher without a valid reason.  Ordinals is not a part of Bitcoin so it should not meddle with Bitcoin system.  If this kind of tx fee increase exploit keeps on happening, no matter how happy the miner is, users will start looking for alternative because it is not fun to pay a huge amount of fee to transfer a small amount.

As a small time Bitcoin user and is using BTC to pay purchases online, it is not funny to wait for hours before the transaction is confirmed, it may give users a trauma of using Bitcoin since some Bitcoin payment processor only have 30 min. window for transaction confirmation.  It will be a problem for user if they paid the amount but the sudden spam of Ordinals on the Bitcoin network delays its confirmation and made the transaction be rejected while the payment is still waiting to be confirmed.

This case scenario might make users to look for alternative, with ordinals spamming the network, miners maybe happy while the Bitcoin influence is slowly dying because users are looking for alternatives just to avoid the problem done by these Ordinals.

All I'm saying is, if you're asking someone, or a group of someones, to step in and wave a magic wand to make the bad things go away, that's not a particularly fruitful avenue of discussion.


Aside from that hurdle, if I were given the choice between:

a) a blockchain where it's cheaper to transact, but all the users on that network believed themselves to be in a position where they could tell me what I could or couldn't do,   

or

b) a blockchain where it's a little more expensive, but all the users on that network had total respect for permissionless freedom,

Then sign me up for b)

I'm personally never going to see it any other way.  If people did theoretically fork off to some totalitarian chain where they did somehow miraculously manage to prevent any form of non-transactional data being stored in a block, I'd want no part of it.  When you start looking for ways to prevent others from transacting in the way they want to, it's only a matter of time before someone does the same to you.  Those aren't the kind of ideals I came here for.  I feel sorry for anyone who did.



Shoot the messenger if you like, doesn't change the reality of the situation. 

Anyone who has looked at this issue in detail can usually spot the inevitable game of cat and mouse that would surely commence if you look to start closing off certain methods of appending non-transactional data to the blockchain.  Not to mention the can of worms it opens when someone wants to propose a new scaling solution later down the line, but immediately runs into a brick wall when there's no way to implement it because you've shut off any possible extensibility in the protocol by trying to lock out the stuff you don't approve of.

So, the problem ultimately boils down to the fact that these people are determined and they're willing to pay above average fees to embed their crap in the chain.  I don't see how you're meant to prevent those traits in others whilst simultaneously not crippling the protocol and annihilating censorship resistance in the process.  And, if you're being honest with yourself, you don't have any answers to that either. 

But sure, I'm the bad guy here.  Cool.

There are a couple of options, but none of them would be effective:

1) Hard-coded blocking of Ordinal-style Taproot scripts. That's what some (Luke-Jr et al.) have already "implemented" with a "patch (https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831)", but it is absolutely uneffective, because the Ordinal guys simply could change the protocol in a way it's not detected by the patch. There should be lots of options to do that. So there would be a permanent "arms race" between the pro-Ordinals and anti-Ordinals fraction, the Bitcoin code would become complex, and less maintainable. Maybe the "Ordinals dynamic" could be slowed down a bit but not stopped if there is enough FOMO potential.

2) Limit the size of some Taproot scripts. That's what a small altcoin, Peercoin, did with a RFC implemented in version 0.12.3 (https://github.com/peercoin/rfcs/blob/master/text/0027-max-witness-size-policy/0027-max-witness-size-policy.md). I have favoured that method in some earlier posts when big NFTs were the main problem. But this would only stop big NFTs to be created (depending on the kB limit). And the current problem is caused by BRC-20 transactions, which are very small in size, and thus would not be blocked by such a patch. The problem is not the size of the BRC-20 transactions, the problem is their number. You can see in this graph that the small inscriptions (in green), like BRC-20, are causing almost the whole congestion:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/11/09/t75iZ.png

Source (https://dune.com/d5k/ordqueries)

There is also a general problem: Even if the developers managed in some way to block Ordinals completely, the BRC-20 crowd could simply swap their memecoins to another competing token standard like Counterparty or Omni. It would actually be a little bit better, because BRC-20 tokens are extremely ineffective regarding data usage (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5451905.msg62211946#msg62211946), which was even admitted by Casey Rodarmor himself (who did not create BRC-20 nor does endorse that standard). But it would not solve the problem completely.

So what can be done? I think the approach has to go into another direction: support sidechains, LN and other off-chain and partly-offchain techniques like rollups.

certain troll now talks about "permission-less"

sorry but bitcoin works via permission
it needs my permission to move my funds if someone want my funds they have to ask for my permission. i have to sign my funds over.. they cant just take my funds permissionlessly

it needs someones permission to move their funds if i want their funds, i have to ask for their permission. they have to sign their funds over.. i cant just take their funds permissionlessly

consensus is mass consent.. consent is permission

rules permit function.. permit is a permission

what the troll does not want is core devs needing users permission to upgrade. core devs want to upgrade unhindered unscrutinised. uncriticised(apart from within themselves and their sponsor group and cult followers)

where as we should be reviewing scrutinising and securitising them, and if their promises are empty or theres a bug in the code, we jsut dont mass consent.. (well that was an option pre 2017)
funnily enough the troll loves to tell other brands/dev teams to fork off to an altcoin instead of upgrade the network(hypocrite)

bitcoin is made secure via rules.. relaxing the rules has caused problems as this topic and many like it have revealed. now its time those that made the problem to fix their error.. yes he knows and its now established that core are the reference to all new upgrades so yes its them that should and could fix their problems

him pretending they should not, but others should is his silly game of not having the issues fixed because he knows if others try.. he will be first inline to push them off the network to protect his overlords rule

Why can't the devs just figure out how to make the transactions smaller so that they don't clog the chain up?

there are many ways,
they know how. but it involves closing the trojan horse open door that allows them to upgrade unhindered. meaning they have to relinquish power to fix their error.. yes it should be done but they dont want to

Depends who you mean with "the devs".

BRC-20 indeed has a lot of optimization potential. It's so ineffective that its data footprint could be basically halved. But the problem is that there are practically no BRC-20 devs interested in optimizing it, they seem to simply squeeze out all money they can from uneducated buyers.

If you mean the "Bitcoin devs", it's not so easy. Segwit already provided some optimizations. Rollups, what I mentioned in my previous post, are a way to optimize their footprint even more, but as far as I know there is no way to implement them without code changes which are controversial in the Bitcoin developer community (covenants like in BIP 118/119, as far as I'm aware).

So you think this would simply be solved rolling back or restricting Taproot. That's naive, we've already discussed that. See my post above - that would simply mean they would swap their tokens to other mechanisms like Counterparty or Omni. Nothing solved. Or they use Dogecoin's Doginals (https://docs.doginals.academy/en/introduction/drc-20-introduction), which don't even need Segwit and could be ported to Bitcoin without issue.

Actually the only way I know which is already available to restrict data storage on BTC is to completely change the protocol using a very restrictive privacy coin mechanisms like Grin does. But that would also cancel Lightning, atomic swaps and a lot of other useful stuff, and need a hard fork.

There is a long-term possibility mentioned by Gregory Maxwell in another thread: the storage of blockchain data could be done in a way that the "raw" transaction data isn't needed anymore for old transactions, but replaced by other kind of proofs (often with Zero-Knowledge proof tech). This would mean that full nodes would not have to store all inscriptions anymore, and would really be an interesting solution because it would prevent also attacks based on illegal data (military information, illegal pornography/violence and abuse imagery, etc.) stored in ordinals. I think the devs are open for this possibility but currently these techniques are in its infancy.

I've started a thread about those concepts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5461529.0) some time ago and will update it as soon as I have news about new developments in this area. One of the most advanced projects seems to be ZeroSync (https://zerosync.org/) at this moment.

@d5000 have you considered why Tether users abandoned minting USDt on-chain on bitcoin via the Omni layer? Or perhaps why Counterparty failed?

The answer is simple. The costs didn't justify it. Even in Ethereum's full congestion, Omni layer token minting and transfer transactions were so expensive in comparison that nobody wanted to mint and transact tokens on bitcoin's blockchain with it. So riddle me this, if developers limited taproot functionality to a reasonable extent so as to prevent abuses like BRC-20 and Ordinals inscriptions, what would happen then?

Are we to assume that the demand for these types of transactions would remain the same if the cost to complete them went from a few dollars to a few hundred dollars? Because economically speaking, when prices go up, demands go down. This is ECON101.

Taproot was never meant to be a gateway to make bitcoin's ledger a dumping ground for trash like NFTs. Bitcoin runs on a different philosophy from day one. If things were different we could have been having 20 TB full nodes and hosting them all on AWS with transaction filtering to comply OFAC regulations. But that's ethereum, not bitcoin. The shit can stay there. Bitcoin should simply strive to keep on-chain transactions as immutable as possible, even if that means that on-chain tokenization must die.

I don't get fully what you want to say - do you think that BRC-20 txes are cheaper to transact than Omni/Counterparty? AFAIK that's incorrect. While OP_RETURN outputs don't benefit from a witness discount, the OP_RETURN footprint of these token mechanisms is generally small. To transfer a BRC-20 token, you need two transactions, and the inscription done using OP_PUSH is inefficient as it uses JSON text and not a more efficient scheme (like protobuf, for example).

The reason why Omni and Counterparty are rarely used is that they never were able to generate such a buzz like BRC-20 generated now, not because the protocols are technologically inferior.

How exactly would you restrict Taproot?

In this post I have detailed the two possibilities I know (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473275.msg63127697#msg63127697) - some hard-coded "exception" (Luke-Jr's patch and similar methods - "everything that looks like an Ordinal inscription becomes non-standard/forbidden") or a kB restriction like in Peercoin. Please read this post first before we continue to discuss. If you know a method which doesn't have the disadvantages of both of these strategies, then I'm eager to hear about it and may even change my opinion :)

I don't know what's the reason for your assumption of such a large difference. Do you think Taproot makes Ordinals 10-100 times smaller (in weight) and thus cheaper than earlier methods, like the Doginals method I linked to, or those old 2015 methods mentioned by Peter Todd (https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1619692068519149568) in the early discussion, where the data is encoded in pubkeys and amounts?

As far as I know, the difference in cost is of only about 15%, depending how large the data item is. And while Taproot provides a method to circumvent the hard-coded kB limit by script, large NFTs currently aren't the problem - BRC-20 would not violate that limit (if I'm not wrong that limit is MAX_SCRIPT_SIZE, which is 10 kB).

What I want to say with all these posts is simply that there is no easy way to "roll back" Ordinals. All possible strategies have tradeoffs. As I wrote in the last post, the most promising one is for me the approach to enable full nodes to download and store ZK proofs and not the transaction data itself - such things like Ordinals would then only be stored by archival nodes, and due to the costs and risks, they would probably charge money for that, making Ordinals completely inviable.

Let me show three transactions side by side:

https://blockstream.info/tx/00ebbd7afaa97e09b3aa345ea423221b949f883100c60a51d49d9948cac35e5e
CounterParty token issuance transaction
https://blockstream.info/tx/4765bfc3baa08b5a4c5e69324fb1316879941f8eb68355d1d8e99bfd45abbe00
Omni layer token transfer transaction (sorry but Omni seems so dead I could not find a recent issuance transaction)
https://blockstream.info/tx/c438e8167cfc350ad8874f15cb6464aa0c60f8efb98edd619996000e8dad8a93
BRC-20 inscription transaction

The difference I see is that BRC-20 tokens are able to get away with paying cheaper fees for the space they take due to Taproot. So the issue isn't that Omni and counterparty are technologically inferior (because they are). In theory they could upgrade to Taproot and SegWit to utilize discounts to their fuller extent too... But the issue here is that Taproot is indeed making it easier and cheaper to inject garbage on the Blockchain.

Please let me know if I'm getting this wrong.

Developers of Ordinals wisely exploit the Bitcoin blockchain to make their shit tokens look to be more valuable. Because it's harder to scam with altcoin blockchains  as many scam tokens on Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain and other chains. Since 2020 and GameFi, NFT trend last three years, many people learned hard lessons with Non-Fungible tokens. They are more careful with NFTs and Ordinals team used Bitcoin blockchain to make noise and make people greed.

The Glassnode report (https://insights.glassnode.com/the-week-onchain-week-39-2023/) shows big effects of Inscriptions on Bitcoin mempools since February 2023. Issues from Ordinals might become bigger in 2024 and 2025 bull run when people greed will be bigger in bull run. They will not care to waste $10 or $20 for transaction fee like they care about it in bear market.

Lucky for us there are more choices than your two. Like a third option:
c) A blockchain where we allow monetary transfers to be recorded on and reject malicious transactions trying to abuse it as cloud storage. Like when we reject any transaction containing more than 1 OP_RETURN output (for many years).

And up until the malicious Ordinals Attack everyone had signed up for option c and I don't see any indication of people having changed their minds.

The thing is.... if you stop ORDI or any other Shitcoin ...then within a few days the developers just create another and it is the same story again. We should find some kind of side-chain solution for these ordinals to use or find a way to solve the block size limitations that are not based on some side-chain.

The Lightning Network was suppose to alleviate most of the congestion for smaller transactions, but now these Ordinals are spamming the network with worthless traffic.  ::)

We can't do anything with that, only the miners can do such with that but this gives them more profit AFAIK. Like what the other members said on this thread, time will come that the demand from these ordinals or brc20 shits will eventually decrease and gone.

It was like 2-3 months ago when we've experienced the same thing IIRC? But it didn't came to this point that the highest priority would charge us $8+ per transaction. Ain't cool.

But that's what we can for now, let the storm be calm on its own and take the dust after wards. Honestly, I am just confusing my mind that this increase in fees is likely the sign that we're heading on the bull run just as circa 2017.

For BRC-20 inscriptions, you need to sum the weight units of the "commit transaction" and the "reveal transaction", because you create first a transaction with a hash of the Taproot script, and then you spend this script revealing it (with the data). Thus, for each BRC-20 mint, you need two transactions.

See the Ordinals handbook (https://docs.ordinals.com/guides/inscriptions.html):


Even to transfer them to another address, you have to create another inscription before you can transfer them (https://help.magiceden.io/en/articles/8056488-how-to-transfer-your-brc-20-tokens-to-another-wallet), this means that you need 2 tx also to transfer the tokens (I always want to cry when I read that :'( ) And if you want to save space making several transfers to different addresses in one transaction: you can't, you need a single inscription for each of the addresses ...

That's actually why I consider the BRC-20 protocol such a mess. Do you still think this is technologically superior to Counterparty/Omni? (Of course, Taproot Assets/RGB are better than all three.)

You're actually right in that the inscription of larger content/NFTs can be cheaper with the Ordinals technique, but even in this case, the "two transactions per inscription" takes away some of the advantage. I don't know where I exactly read that the difference was about 15%, but I believe it was in the discussion with Peter Todd too.

Edit: I found a Counterparty issuance transaction (https://blockstream.info/tx/efe0a9fea97c09239edfa993b68134c9cbed3be14eef073e93dde49951efde9f) with Segwit enabled and it has also only 512 vByte, i.e. it's close to the BRC-20 tx - with the difference that it doesn't need a second transaction. I've honestly no idea why so few Counterparty users seem to use Segwit - maybe they use old software/wallets.

I can give you a guarantee that miners are not going to do that. They are not making much when there is no congestion. This is an opportunity for them to make some profits; I doubt they will miss that. I can already imagine the smile on phillipma1957's face. The developers are no interested in fixing these things. So the only way for Bitcoiners is to pay high fees if you want to do a transaction or wait until these stupids stop doing shit. Another way is to switch to the lightning network. But the problem is it's not widely used yet.

Well, I have already suggested that a few months ago, and actually the answers I got were that it's not really possible to do that because it is a feature embedded in Taproot and it is even possible to make ordinal-like tokens without Taproot (e.g. using OP_RETURN). However, you can patch your node's source code with the Ordisrespector (https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831) patch to reject all Ordinals transactions.

There is a another option , activate UASF , it worked in the past . These evil greedy miners should learn that their behavior to expect profit from their investment is hurting stacking sats mentality :D . Really , why no one mentions UASF ? Or it is too early yet ?  That way , core and miners would be forced to change their minds . Win win situation ?

And how much size do those blocks actually get with Ordinals? As big as the block sizes of what your Roger Ver and BCash big blockers propose?


The point is they're not breaking the rules of the network, but what do you propose to fix it? Start being a drama queen again? Gaslight? Misinform the public? Why don't you bring back Jonald_Fyookball too and you be in tandem in spreading disinformation and lies.

Everyone only needs to check your negative trust-ratings, and actually look who gave them to you.

Watch frankandbeans try to move the blame to the Core Developers for "not trying to fix the problem".

 ::)


He's merely a troll, a liar, and a drama queen. Look at his trust-rating.


OH MY GOD. Hahahaha. I believe trust-ratings should be visible ANYWHERE in the forum.

UASF is very disruptive and could split the bitcoin network in half if the community is not in clear consensus to patch out this functionality (and it isn't, as you can see on [X]Twitter).

---

Currently the monetary gains the miners on PPS (and variants) pools get from this is marginal, almost equivalent to a boom where there are even more real transactions processed. But it's the pools themselves who gain the most out of these fees.

Yup, like what's not included on that snipper is that I've said that they're making more money from this congestion.

Hehehe, he said that he's making more this time unlike the typical days without congestion. They're just enjoying it while it's there because it's not going to last for a long time. Maybe after a few days or a week, these high fees will drop down for sure..

As for me, I can't take that much to pay for such fee with small amount of transaction.

i am talking about bitcoin issues caused by bugs opened up by core devs (bitcoin is not self writing AI, devs write it) certain and economically invested corporation(sponsors) and social drama groups have aligned to make core the official reference authority within the last decade, causing many changes since that have not benefited the mass community of bitcoiners, but a small niche group

however its you that want to avoid problem solving discussion and instead just have personality drama queen discussions to hope the topic dies and no one talks about wanting code changes to fix the bug
...
it is your troll forum mommy and daddy drama queening whilst ass kissing core devs(who are forum moderators (no coincidence)).. thus troll family caused rating comments.. then your troll family pretend people need to read it pretending its independent of their actions.. ..
troll circling its own trolling does not mean the troll is correct, it just means he circles his own misery thinking its his success story

if you want to have an actual discussion about bitcoin issues.. LEARN bitcoin, learn to read code and learn what the community are complaining about. learn when the bug got abused, learn how and who coded in the trojan back door that allows 4mb of junk memes and other nonsense crap
learn how bitcoin has changed over the years

learn that it can be fixed and learn who has to fix it. then learn(well you do know this part) why they dont want to

again bitcoin is not self coding AI.. devs are and were involved in all code..
non core devs could fix it IF it wasnt for the central point of failure authority core gained in the last decade. and their REKT games and NYA mandates

---

roling back ordinals doesnt just mean rolling back the blockchain to pre ordinals inception
it means rolling back the additions of opcodes which ordinals abuse.. to instead create a new structured utility of opcodes that allow bitcoin functionality without the trojan backdoor of letting any junkdata be treated as valid, whilst unchecked..

and again the particular opcodes that allow 4mb of junk to be valid is not a opcode that existed in bitcoin since 2009. its a not so well thought out opcode added much later.. meaning its a flaw, a bug

and no not all bugs are features.. bugs can be bugs that need fixing

Small detail but it's an important distinction to make that there's a lot at stake for miners.
Current block reward is 6.25 and even set to halve in a few months.
That means that there's currently ONLY around 900 BTC mined every 24 hours (1440 minutes / block time of 10* block reward of 6.25.

So let's compare miner revenue to fees.

Miners based on current prices earned 37.14M USD worth of BTC on the 8th of November 2023:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_miners_revenue_per_day

Miners also earned 4.180M USD worth of BTC from fees on that same day:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_total_transaction_fees_per_day
https://i.ibb.co/R0GMB4W/image.png (https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_total_transaction_fees_per_day)
Also look at the above chart and observe that the ongoing BRC-20 boom caused total fees to skyrocket 10x!

So with BRC-20 only currently being supported by SOME of the exchanges, and a single wallet, already ~10% of miner revenue comes from the fees it has created.
This is bound to get worse unless somehow addressed.

You're correct that most approaches are still in beta or testing stages. However, there have been some interesting developments relatively recently.

The most advanced project seems to be Nomic (https://www.nomic.io/) (see design document (https://gist.github.com/mappum/da11e37f4e90891642a52621594d03f6)), a 2-way-peg with a kind of dynamic federation, but it has still centralized elements. It uses Tendermint as consensus mechanism (Cosmos platform) and their own token is premined. AFAIK this is already better than RSK (which has improved recently), it has to be further decentralized to really become an alternative for Bitcoiners (and not only "yet another Bitcoin bridge"). I believe with the current premined Nomic platform this wouldn't be possible, but what about a Nomic fork without premine (of course, this would probably need a PoW phase or similar "fair launch")?

Drivechain seems to depend on Bitcoin Script changes. The same is true for all rollup-style mechanisms which need covenants.

So my message to the developers would be: put these changes on the roadmap please! I understand that there may be risks and some devs may have other priorities, but I feel that there could be more research on these topics, and they are probably very important for Bitcoin's further adoption.

The fucking side about this is that those scraping their profits thru this token are on a deaf ears about the complaints flying around. ;D

It doesn't seem like any body can put a stop on the Ordinals issue on Blockchain as there are sets of investors that are taking succor from it not just the developers and talking about stopping is like stopping their benefits. There's a fast profits with Ordinals that's why people are buying and sending rapidly on the blockchain more than bitcoin not minding he congestion that it will cause leading to transaction fee hike as their quick profit from the token will cover for the fee hike My hunch tells me  LN didn't see this one coming fast.

LN doesnt see many things coming

channels LOCK value into a tx.. the value does not move to new channels. its a case of arranging that A borrows B value if B borrows C value if C borrows D value to pay E.. the coin in A stays in A but E gets paid by its channel with D where by they finally settle up month later where the coin locked to A finally goes to B. so you cant actually move sats or move memes on the LN network practically. and all this routing and borrowing and issues with bad states and broadcasting wrong states is why LN wont solve many things.

in short NFT dont work on LN. moving junk dont work on LN. they lack many things like network auditing to protect uniqueness and so many other things

devs need to forget their corporate contracts of sponsorship and get back to caring about bitcoin and/or making new subnetworks that actually meet the promises dev made to the community

That was mainly just an example to explain my stance and the way in which I'm approaching this issue.  Obviously the situation is more nuanced than that in practice.  

I submit that the best way to deter this inscription/ordinal stuff is to call it out for what it is.  Unscrupulous hucksters selling crap to unwitting fools.  The fewer people buy this junk, the faster the sellers run out of money.  Make their business economically non-viable and they'll soon stop.

---

I'm doing my absolute best to disregard the absolute drivel franky1 is spouting in this topic, but his latest offering is too egregiously dishonest to tolerate any further:


Except that issuance of assets and tokens is the primary focus of 'Taproot Assets (https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/taproot-assets-could-offer-cheaper-more-efficient-version-of-brc-20-tokens)', which utilises LN.  So you're clearly lying.  Again. 

Are you even capable of telling the truth? 

And what's the border to that? Alright, softfork says that more than 1 OP_RETURN is invalid. Great. Now, people don't use OP_RETURN at all. They store their data in chunks of 160-bit addresses, and send 0 coins to multiple of these addresses. What next? Invalidate transactions which spend 0 coins? Alright, they then spend 1 sat for each. You've probably guessed how this goes. At some point, they become indistinguishable from regular transactions.

I'm going to argue the Ordinal transactions aren't monetary. They all pay miners, don't they? Transaction is information. The only way to distinguish transactions is based on what they pay the miner. If you introduce stuff like "Ordinal-like txs are excluded from the network", you're just digging your own hole.

I'm impressed Bitcoin experts from this board are yet to realize that the real attack is the attempt to invalidating transactions which they don't think "they are worth it".  

issuance of crap things does not mean what you promote it to mean

when a issuer creates tokens and idiots then create their own channels. they are locking up things..
the token does not leave the channel until the channel is closed and settled

take a route
a<>b<>c<>d

the tokens in AB never leave AB (unless channel closed)
the tokens in BC never leave BC (unless channel closed)
the tokens in CD never leave CD (unless channel closed)

A token in AB issued at 9:00am is different token to Bs token in BC created at 9:01
B token in BC issued at 9:01am is different token to Bs token in AB created at 9:00
C token in BC issued at 9:01am is different token to Cs token in CD created at 9:02

if A's 9:00 created token is special(or rare sat).. C does not get that specific unique token(or raresat). he gets B's borrows token(sat) from B in the BC channel(locked sats) where B created its BC token at 9:02

C sees his number of tokens increase in agreement with the number of tokens A wanted to pay C. and A now has less and B has amounts higher in AB and lower in BC to equal out.. but C does not then own A's unique special token locked in AB

(if a "rare sat" with appended meme is locked in channel AB.. C does not get it in LN because its locked in AB.. C gets B's sat from B's BC lock.. C never gets to touch or own AB sats)

i do find it funny how you call out the ordinals as junk(pretending to agree/pander to the truth).. but then promote it on your preferred network you want everyone to use
its obvious how you dont want the junk to stop on bitcoin because you want people to hate using bitcoin by the continuation of the junk. but then promote they can buy it on your preferred network (you hinting you think this junk is actual real asset, but only on your preferred network you profit from)

sorry to keep talking about your preferred subnetwork negatively.  but in truth it is a crap network. not a network everyone should move to, no matter how much you want them to.

Lightning network has so many CVEs to work on, I don't think the devs will have time building more features given how large the backlog of critical things to fix is.
Regardless, saying lightning will solve everything isn't a solution. We're dealing with a fundamental issue on the L1 level. Attack vectors have to be addressed before more features are built.

I saw somewhere that Franky1 said these are the group of stupid people doing these things. They know it won't last for more than a couple of weeks. These pump and dump leverage tokens. Some will profit greatly from this craze, and most people who enter the market late will lose their capital. So, yeah it will go down soon.


I had to move a couple of hundred dollars to a CEX, and unfortunately, I had to pay high fees. I paid 45 sat/vB while the fee was like 160 sat/vB. I have waited two days, and now it's around 50 sat/vB again.

I don't believe the Ordinal fans will ever want to switch to L2, because the subjective value of Ordinals come from the fact that they are stamped into a ledger that cannot be counterfeit. That's probably why they haven't moved onto sidechains (which would be much easier than lightning).

Do you really believe that the miners will care about standardness when it comes to $50 million? Additional Ordinal software can be developed that sends transaction directly to mining pools, and by the way, that's worse because now we have less accurate estimation of the current transaction fees.

You are forgetting that history has already debunked your speculation. When the limit was placed on OP_RETURN it didn't cause any issues nor did it push people into using workarounds. Basically the limit (ie. the standard rule) greatly and successfully reduced the amount of abuse.

That's exactly what we've needed from day one and I even said it from day one too: Ordinals transactions need to become non-standard. That may not stop the attack entirely but it would reduce the spam by something like 90%.

You know why I keep using OP_RETURN example? Because it surprises me that nobody ever complained about that limit and a ton of other similar limits that existed in Bitcoin for many years as standard rules rejecting many types of "spam" transactions all this time. Nobody has been calling them "digging your own hole" all these years when we were rejecting them either.

So why is Ordinals Attack different all of a sudden?!!
The details of the attack is different but the nature of it is the same. It is injecting arbitrary data into the chain or in other words it is [ab]using bitcoin blockchain as a cloud storage.

This is why I warned at the start of this attack that it should be prevented soon. As the scam market grows it attracts more people and more incentive to find workarounds for any kind of "soft" preventive measures.
In early days when this was a scam that nobody had even heard of, nobody would have bothered using an alternative risky software to buy a garbage that has no value.

In any case I still don't think it is too late. If the majority of nodes start rejecting this type of spam attack (like some of us do) they won't reach a mining pool to be mined.

Placing a limit in terms of standardness does not grant that the Ordinals will stop. If there is enough demand for it, there will be workarounds sooner or later under some other name if not Ordinals.

That is utter speculation.

Despite that, when you said "reject", I understood it as "invalidate" which happens via softfork. If there indeed happens to be great demand nonetheless, your next suggestion is that I presume. Isn't it?

I don't know with certainty what happened in the past. I know that currently you want to censor transactions which don't fit your ideals. In a censorship resistant network, attempting to censor someone is like digging your own hole.

Welp, here we go...

Over half of bitcoin transactions are Ordinals:
https://geniidata.com/user/orddata/ordinals-transaction-share

This takes into account data from Yesterday. And to those saying that this will pass... Think again! Okcoin exchange literally integrated an embeded dashboard that users can utilize to create and mint ordinals as well as sell them all within their platform. They literally made ordinal inscriptions easier than they make it to withdraw BTC off their platform... Exchanges and "NFT Artists" don't care for the well being of the ecosystem.

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off because not only is this not the first time this happens, but this time also it seems bound to continue getting worse.

I'm curious as to how you propose doing that, exactly?  Not that I agree, but just for the sake of understanding what it is you're suggesting.

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now.  Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

No miner should be banned. But since they're avoiding to engage in any discussion there could be some meaningful pressure towards them too.
We know from bitcoin's past that it's possible for users of the network to signal their support for certain changes to it without having to fork the network.

This in today's situation would mean that users can run a modified bitcoin full node client that doesn't store or propagate ordinal transactions. Of course, if a miner includes ordinals in their transactions, the nodes would have to accept it unless they actually want a network fork to happen.

And for example, given that Taproot was implemented without a hard fork being required, a patch could be pushed to disable certain OP codes until they can be re-implemented later with proper spam filtering. Still all that without a network fork. If these changes are popular and are let's say pushed into bitcoin Core, miners and pools would have to make a conscious choice of supporting the most popular client and including transactions according to its rules, or running their own version of a client to profit off of expensive ordinal transactions by including them in their mined blocks.

I think that least for now, having fewer miners push these spammy transactions could alleviate some of the pressure on the network.

Since Bitcoin is Decentralized if we want to make a big change like this first the community must agree to that move, because if the community doesn't agree then it is like swimming against the current.

A good solution for this would be to fork the bicoin blockchain to create a new blockchain just for the ordinals a leave the original blockchain clean . But again, i don't think the community would support an idea like this.

The biggest problem about the ordinals is how some people really like them and support them, and to change it first you need to change people's minds and prove to them how bad the ordinals are for the blockchain.

says the guy that was happy the NYA opted to ban mining pools, nodes and services that didnt flag for segwit
yep. why so happy to let a certain tactic be used to grandfather in a bug, but not want the same tactic used to end it


its not a case of getting usernode(UASF) involved as they are powerless now.. its a core devs and economic node pressuring pool scenario these days
these days it doesnt require the full community. its just the core devs and NYA(economic node main services) doing something they done before. but in reverse (still blackmailing the pools to comply, but this time to fix a bug, not create one)

but essentially it means pandering, kissing ass, pleading and praising core to even want it. (maybe bribe them as before) else any other brand offering a proposal will just get REKT by the trolls

No less than three factual errors in a single sentence.  That's impressive, even for you. 

---

Okay, I'm glad you made that clarification.  I was starting to think you were losing the plot for a second there, heh. 

My remaining concern with that line of thinking would be that miners need to maintain a degree of impartiality.  If non-mining users can gain some form of leverage over miners to only include transactions that we approve of, then it's only a matter of time before governments find a method of doing the same.  This little experiment of ours ends rather abruptly if that were to ever occur.  I suggest you carefully consider if this is truly a path you want to tread. 

It did, actually. But the workarounds were trivial to accomplish (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5877870#msg5877870), and the limit was reverted in 2015.


Because its not an attack, just like Counterparty wasn't an attack. You are mired in confusion because you continue to mislabel it as an attack. Once you accept its not an attack, then the situation may begin to make more sense.


Due to the nature of economic incentives and capitalism, this will never happen.

Ordinals or any other types of NFTs, and whatnot etc, are not really a big concern in long term, of course in a short period you get angry people when the fees go up, but in a long term, they will eventually die off like any other ponzi schemes, you just have to give it time. They will in time run out of new investors and once people realize they are not earning any profit as before, they in turn start abandoning this hype and everyone will just forget they ever existed.

Satoshi's, Bitcoin's problem from the beginning was believing that we should create one solution for many problems, that can't happen, Bitcoin should focus on decentralization of money, and then we could think about decentralization of monkey images etc.😉

:

Do you honestly not understand the difference between 80 byte per tx limit and no limit at all (except 4 MB block weight) or are you intentionally ignoring this fundamental difference?

Then you are saying that Bitcoin, the "peer-to-peer digital cash" as Satoshi put it, has already failed.

It looks like somebody has made a bot to stifle BRC-20 transactions:


Should solve a lot of the fee problems we're having right now.

paying $1.70-$2 a tx it only stopped about 275 tickers.. the spammers still spam and the spam has gone rampant when the bot ran out of funds to pay fees ($500 total for campaign)
to do this now ends up needing to pay alot more then $2 a shot

funnier part is although the bot got "first seen" status in ordinals software to be recognised as 'the true ticker'.. the first transactors transaction still also got added to the blockchain. so it didnt stop the tx from being added. it just ended up with 2 transactions with the same ticker junk data where only the ordinals software recognised the bots version and ignored the first transactor

the first transactor can still spam using his taint. and get the ordinals software to just ignore bot ticker snipers (creating 1 unit). thus voiding the bots ordinal software claim of the ticker.. and re introducing the original transactors spam as the official ticker owner within ordinals.. thus not a fix because its still spam on the blockchain that ordinals can easily change its "first seen" policy

and yes those scammers that want brc junk to persist will change ordinal policy to void recognition of bot sniping "first seen", because scammers will wan to keep their scams running

No.  It doesn't stop being peer-to-peer digital cash just because people are using it for other things as well.  Have you never seen a defaced banknote where someone has doodled on it?  Do you run out into the street proclaiming 'the sky is falling' whenever that happens?  Of course not.  There's no need to get so dramatic about this.

People do dumb shit sometimes.  Their behaviour can be inconsiderate, even disruptive.  Welcome to life.

Bitcoin works just fine.  It's not broken.  The only action I feel any compulsion to take is to simply point out that if anyone wastes their money buying this trash, they're a victim and a fool.  Anyone who tries to sell it is amoral and indecent.

the solution to make the ordinal be on a different network is the best solution as is done by bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. ordinal must do what these coins do because their existence and popularity has disrupted the scalability of the bitcoin network and made fees unreasonable (again).

if bitcoin developers care about the future of bitcoin, they should consider this, because higher bitcoin fees will certainly reduce people's interest in using bitcoin in their transactions. bitcoin will not be able to last forever if it still relies on its innovative features and market speculation, scalability is important for long-term adoption.

Drawing a doodle on a banknote doesn't make it unusable or even harder to use, spam attacking bitcoin does.
What you say is like saying that this forum is still a forum for discussion even if someone performs a constant DDoS attack on it 24/7 making it extremely difficult for actual users to visit the site or post anything. Or better yet it is like if they also got paid to perform the DDoS attack!

Are you implying sig spammers are the same as DDOS attackers? 😅

---

I remember back in 2017, while people were fighting over block size, there were some "promises" or "suggestions" to increase the block size every few years, do you guys know what happened to that? And when would be the "natural" time to increase the block size by 1MB? Wasn't there a debate or analysis that we'd need to increase block size 1MB every 4 years or so?

but they swapped it with a "be patient, we promise" to make subnetworks that will solve the congestion. and then when the subnetworks failed in that mission. there was a 'be patient we promise to fix the bugs'. then a promise ontop of a promise that IF and only IF the subnetworks get popular where its the subnetwork open/close sessions congesting the network then they promise to then think about scaling the bitcoin network

so every few months when the community is getting annoyed by congestion all we see in response is repeats of promises, with the only promoted solution to problems is "but first we need to abandon using bitcoin to use another network to populate that scammer network". before they do anything promised to the bitcoin network

i still laugh that from 2018-9 they were promising to work on a new set of opcodes that would only require "one signature" length of bytes used... and yet here we are

in short 6 years later of all them promises.., but still waiting for empty promises

Both are not good, but an attack is an attack because it's deliberate, DDOS is an attack which is direct, but spamming might be an indirect attack too though not deliberate, that is the difference. This Ordinals/BRC-20 has never been good news for the blockchain with the way it's sniffling the fee out of people due to the loophole created.

For the increase of the block size, have you ever thought of the consequences and higher techs required? This would take Bitcoin closer to the altcoins when it comes to its preserved decentralization.

the cries of consequence of 2015 of more then 1mb is bad.. has been debunked by core devs themselves saying 4mb is good 2 years later..
yep they debunked themselves..
however the 4mb technical allowance is not utilised for 4x more tx count. so more needs to be done to make transactions efficient where every byte counts. every byte has a purpose, which would get lean transaction efficiency goals to allow more transactions per block

satoshi in 2010 spoke of the expectation of 4200tx per block even in the 1mb limit days, we should be trying to get to 16800tx a block goals now, but we have not even had a whole year/six month/3 month EVER of even a 4200 average even with all the promised upgrades of "scaling" and efficiency

you dont have to choose between fully open unlimited byte opcodes. vs disabled opcode. you can have conditional opcodes too

there are many methods
EG if old nodes only understand the ruleset of opcode conditions from blockversion 3 then treat opcodes that have no conditions as
 "if block version>3 treat as 'isvalid'. else reject"
thus they are treated as disabled when blockversion was 3 but allowed to pass now the blockversion is higher

whereby when upgrading new functionality/tx formats requiring a blockversion 5. the opcodes have a byte limit in the code for specific functionality checks and validation of a new feature where if new open opcodes are added they too have the condition
 "if block version>4 treat as 'isvalid'. else reject"
thus they are treated as disabled while blockversion is still 4 but allowed to pass if the blockversion is higher

(i know version utility is not as said. its a demo of how opcodes can actually be coded to have conditions)

even now we can make code(because bitcoin relies on code) that from blockheight 840k opcode pushdata4 now has X byte limit

Scaling 101. Other people using Bitcoin means more competition, which means more expensive for you to use. Unless you want to fundamentally change how Bitcoin works, you'll have to accept there are people out there who make a better offer for their transactions.

"Spamming" is not really spamming if someone's paying for it. The only manner to discourage this spam is the transaction fee. And as I have already said like a thousand times, Ordinal transactions can be indistinguishable if there is enough demand; what you are suggesting is to censor this type of tx, assuming that will be enough, which seems to me like a terrible mistake.

Totally flawed comparison. In this case, the forum is just having more online users than usually, and it takes more time to process the request of each.

The network is totally usable by the way. You just need to pay a couple of bucks more.

thats why bitcoin did.. and could again imply rules and conditions. where expected data is expected when an opcode is used

EG. multisig conditions expect a count of how many keys are total (N), the keys.. and how many sigs are required(M) and the signatures..
 thus knowing the byte count total expected and the format of each element.. rather then just having a anything under 4mb is fine

where any opcodes that have "anything under 4mb is  fine"(isvalid) would also have conditions to only activate and not reject if the block version is superier to the ruleset version of the node. thus old nodes wont reject if the network upgrades

knowing the blockversion only changes if there was a super majority consensus to show the network is ready to upgrade with proper conditions on the opcodes to reduce from being just "anything under 4mb is fine"

code is great. code can also condition anyone using certain opcodes causes their fee estimate to multiply or a severe min relay fee and block accepted fee amount for those specific 'nonstandard' abuses of opcodes.. thus only causes the junk spammers to pay a premium

even now. without breaking bitcoin. core can in alignment with pools. change code for the opcodes abused to specifically have a min relay fee and contained in block fee of 200sat/byte
(they already love legacy * 4)

It is, isn't it? That's because they wanted to use the network in the way that we don't approve of, dick picks and fart sounds. You can complain, but they did pay for the fees/willing to pay high fees and it is a permissionless system. From their viewpoint, they also have the right to use Bitcoin, no?


The miners are incentivized to always find the highest profit opportunities, whether there's an attack or not. Why "cut them off" for merely doing their jobs? That would be unfair, no?

its not permissionless..  seriously stop using braindead buzzwords of your forum daddy.. he has no clue

consensus is CONSENT of the masses
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.

if it was permissionless blockdata would have no rules, no conditions, whereby litecoin, dogecoin and ethereum transactions would be on bitcoins blockchain and no one can stop it.. reality they are not because there are rules.. bitcoin does not give permission to create/settle altcoins

bitcoin is code. code creates rules.. conditions and policies.

LEARN BITCOIN not forum-daddy buzzwords .. he is gaslighting you and making you sound stupid

Nah. That's how bitcoin works. Is ordinals a bunch of worthless spam transactions that are bloating the mempool? Yes, of course but that is a VERY important part of scaling bitcoin. When on-chain fees bloat, that provides the much needed incentive to invest and build alternative scaling infrastructure. High on-chain fees drives more development to other scaling methods like lightning. That's just how the game theory of on-chain payments works.

For example: When fees pump high like this, platforms now have a much greater incentive to integrate lightning or batch transactions or invest in new scaling tech that is not yet fully developed. I believe that Binance integrated lightning last time on-chain fees bloated like this.

Ordinals doesn't need to be stopped. We just need to wait for fees to clear and use alternative payment methods (primarily lightning) until things cool down. Another important thing to understand is that the game theory of the lightning network works differently than on chain. To send a payment on chain, we all have to bid against other senders to be included in a block but on lightning, the routing nodes have to compete against each other with connectivity and lower fees than other routing nodes. Lightning nodes literally compete to offer lower fees than other routing nodes so fees trend toward zero while on-chain fees trend upward as demand increases. You can learn more about the game theory of the on-chain fees vs. lightning fees here: https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/lightning-network/game-theory-lightning-network

Bitcoin is working exactly as it's supposed to. It's an open network that is being attacked by ordinals spammers but since bitcoin is anti-fragile, it just keeps on working and bitcoin miners are making a lot of money right now while the network is being attacked. Just because using the blockchain is expensive right now, doesn't mean that it needs to be "fixed".

lightning is a failed network that cant meet its promises. yes i understand core devs got sponsored hundreds of millions to change bitcoin to allow stupid stuff.. but it does not mean the stupid stuff are features or solutions

i understand those sponsors want ROI on their investment so want everyone to abandon bitcoin and use their stupid stuff but again that does not mean their stupid stuff is a feature or solution

imagine it this way. they create a toll road offramp of a one way street that ends with a dead end
trying to say do nothing and let the main highway congest and not do highway repairs.. and suggest people should take the offramp one way street however this does not solve the problem. it just diverts people down into a new problem some people cant back out of or move forward from once they are locked into that path

delaying/avoiding highway maintenance (to make the highway more efficient) is not a solution
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own

again i understand certain groups are financially affiliated to push people off the bitcoin network. but bitcoin devs should not pander to that greed. they should care about making rules for bitcoin that benefit bitcoin, not benefit other networks

if a highway was designed for  light weight vehicles but is being abused by military tank transporters.. its time the highway code gets back to efficient use for the light weight cars again, allowing more cars to travel. and not be clogged by useless tank weight ruining the road

I disagree that lightning is the answer, but your take that Bitcoin is working the way it should is absolutely correct. Paying for block space is not an issue. The fact that so many people are bidding for block space that it is causing a clog shows that people see value in it. This is a good thing. I would be more worried if blocks started getting mined empty.

Don't use rollback if you don't know what it means ha.

Look, not a fan of Ordinals but the whole thing demonstrates the thing about Bitcoin. That freedom to use it as you please (and the dealing with the consequences of that). I would wager I'm far more affected by it than you, and that many more users feel the bite, but aren't arbitrarily asking to kill it like you are.

Time will prove utility and when people get bored of contributing to ponzis, ordinal bloat will die a natural death. Or waste away to practical meaningless existence anyway.

bitcoin 2009-2017 was never "use it as you please", no one was able to just broadcast a litecoin transaction and have it accepted in a block
things like the 4mb junk WAS not even possible
heck even a tx being more then 20% of the 1mb blockspace was not even a thing before 2017

dont pretend this junk is part of bitcoin. its an abuse of a buggy feature added in recent years. its a abuse not a feature
bitcoin was trusted due to rules.. relaxing them to allow junk is not a feature bitcoin was intended for

Alright, then what is the plan regarding any increase of block size? Because all I read is about side/second layers and seems there is no plan for block size change at all, as if they have abandoned that notion altogether and only focused on LN, which by the way it has come to a stale state of development without any progress.

---

Who thought it would be a good idea to have the infrastructure in place for things like ordinals, NFTs in the first place? I mean why is there the ability to make such uses of Bitcoin's blockchain in such a wrong way, and what is the right way of using Bitcoin for anything other than transacting satoshis?

You see, when you are building a rocket to send satellites into orbit, there is no need to add unnecessary attachments just in case if in the future you'd need to send humans to the orbit, because people could attach their boats, cars etc to this rocket and enjoy a free ride.  Though we all know that we could send humans into space using rockets, WHY provide the ability now?

---

Is there any possible way for miners to identify ordinals and other types of garbage before adding them to their blocks? If there is then why won't they demand a much higher fee rate than ordinary transactions? That way not everyone will be able to clog the mempool like they are doing right now.

There should at least be different types of transactions, 1- ordinary tx, 2- garbage tx(ord, NFT, tokens), 3- VID(very important data, whatever that is we want to have in the future).  If that can't happen, then stop developing Bitcoin, we want competent developers.😉

What a demanding bitch I have become.😅

See BIP 100 - 109.


I get your point. Roughly after 2017, there's few discussion about increasing maximum block size.


Yes, you just need to look for certain pattern on witness data. For example, Ordinals documentation mention string "ord" always used.

I feel like unfortunately the community gets caught up into so much nonsense (ETF, FTX, COVID, volatility, ...) that they forget certain things such as scaling. But at the same time we are in no immediate rush to increase the capacity because statistics tell us that the current block space is enough to handle the current existing use case. That is if we ignore the malicious spam attack.
In any case no fixed or preplanned increase (like 1 MB every 4 years) can work because we can not predict how the adoption is going to increase to create that need.

Ordinals (and any other similar) attack is easily distinguished since they contain "dead weight" or data that is not used in the verification process. The arbitrary data they are injecting into the chain. They can easily be rejected and it is never and has never been censorship to prevent protocol exploits.

It is easier than that, you just have to look for a branch that can never execute. That is the OP_FALSE OP_IF usage.

 :D :D
Are you sure franky?
That's how I get mentioned everywhere. I should request theymos to change my username. This is not the only thread from where I got mentioned, but there are a couple of threads in the Bitcoin discussion section where people mention learn Bitcoin every day. LOL. Sorry for being off-topic here.

Miners seem to enjoy the time while the mempool is still congested with a massive 140K unconfirmed transactions. It's still too high, but I believe the stupids will calm down very soon.

By design, the system allows storage of information. It is helpful for stuff like sidechains and softforks. The side effect of this is storage of any kind of information, including NFTs.

I literally gave an example of an Ordinal-like transaction funding 160-bit addresses, and treating these as chunks of information instead. You will have no way to telling if that is an Ordinal or a regular transaction. And at that point, it's even worse, because full nodes now need to keep worthless UTXO.

Speaking in smart contract terms, this just seems like a front-running bot. It's very common in smart contract enabled chains, anything ERC-based.
Basicaly whenever someone would execute a token swap through an automated market maker's smart contract, if it was a valuable transaction, someone could execute what's called a sandwich attack, essentially sandwiching a transaction between theirs and raising the price before they buy, only to sell again at a higher price after they do, all in the same block.

This being done with BRC-20 tokens doesn't stifle their volume on chain, only increases it. It raises required sats/vByte to get in each block and also incentivizes token creators to get more competitive with how they deploy tokens. This bot might take out a few tickers here and there before there's any trading on them, but eventually the BRC creators will find ways around it, and that would create a fee war. If the BRC craze continues we might see sats/vByte requirements like never before.

If they choose that route and willingly limit the size of the junk they are injecting into the chain to 160 bit (20 bytes) chunks, we've successfully prevented spam. Because that is nowhere near enough for them to create the parallel market to scam people with ergo killing the incentive and halting the spam.
You see, this type of scam only works when they can show the idiots something like the monkey picture on their website or something complicated that the newbies unfamiliar with technical stuff think is actually an "NFT token". That is why they buy into the scam. Otherwise they can not fool them with 20 bytes.

Not to mention OP_RETURN is 4 times bigger and can hold 640 bits (80 bytes)!

BTW right now their junk is also creating dust outputs bloating the UTXO database.
https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&from=now-2y&to=now

An OP_RETURN output can definitely contain more non-OP information than a standard segwit native transaction, but the problem remains. People can still inject images as chunks of addresses.

Nowhere near it? Lol. We're talking about people who waste thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin for transaction fees, and you think the same cannot repeat if there appears to be enough demand?

This is another level of speculation. If you can fool people into buying "digital images", I'm pretty sure there will be some dumb asses who will buy the same concept under the "chunks of addresses". It's the same piece of information in the end.

They could also split it in 256-bit chunks, as with multi-sig segwit.

So let me get this straight, there was some blank space in Bitcoin TX field from day one, correct? Can we all agree that Bitcoin is barely holding on to be just a simple decentralized crypto currency? If you agree then we can move to the second part, why do we need such blank space where people can inject anything other than TX data if we are not using it the right way? Wait I know the answer, NFT/ordinal is using that space the right way in the eyes of such ponzi participants, right?
So the problem is with the way it was designed, because I haven't seen anything useful occupying that empty space other than garbage!

I believe in 2016-2017 the same arguments were made, and they will be made regardless, at the end the world at large doesn't really care about these things, and whatever we say won't change the politics. I mean look at franky1, single handedly trying to change everything, without any success to even change one thing.😉

im not changing anything. thats the thing the trolls dont understand. my posts are opinions i make from my own mind. on a DISCUSSION forum
opinions that core decided they dont want to hear about. opinions the core idolising trolls dont want even talked about

i dont release code because any code i do release will be hit with REKT campaigns by trolls idolising the core roadmap of road congestion adoration

i simply highlight the issues and debunk the troll narrative. this after all is a DISCUSSION forum

once you realise why everyone else ends up shutting up due to troll attacks by core cult clan worshipers*
once you realise why there is no other dev group offering a brand that offers protocol level upgrade proposals
once you realise why the forum moderators are also core devs
once you realise that same core dev group now only want self-review from within their team and argue if any outsider scrutinises them

you will start to see the bigger problem of the bigger issue of why these bugs are not fixed

by the way, the trolls do ask me to write code. not because they want an option the community can use to prove bitcoin is open.. but to REKT it and have more drama for them to entertain themselves with to prove their loyalty to a central point of failure


*topics like this one prove that many people are not content with how things are. there are more topics about wanting onchain scaling more topics about wanting the ordinals crap to stop.. then there are topics idolising subnetworks as the solution, or topics praising that ordinals should stay

Obviously, when I say "use it as you please", within the rules allowed. I didn't say it can be "used for anything you want". I fear now if I host you I should never say "make yourself feel at home" ;) and resort to pedantic communication...

I don't like some things allowable in Bitcoin. I agree with you, there are things I believe constitute abuse. Ordinals right up there with dust spam, if not entirely in intent but in result. But are you saying, let's pretend these things aren't a part of Bitcoin? Pretend abuse isn't a part of any system with rules?

I still think, being a pure normie, these things sort themselves out. If I find it becomes too big a problem, I ditch it. Like I did PayPal for Bitcoin. I'm far, far from there.

funny think is im the one with the opinion rules are needed.. your the one opening your house up to wrecklessness

if you opened your house up as a airBnB host, i would love to see the before and after pictures.. and then see you not repair your home. but just walk away leaving it dilapidated

your mindset to thinking ordinals will sort itself out and that ordinals is part of the "make yourself at home" mindset you have.. is just a mindset of dont fix your home dont maintain your home, just let your home sort itself out when you start hearing cracking and wind between the cracks.. imagine what happens to your home with that mindset.

bitcoin WAS a great innovation because code created rules to actually check and validate stuff.. the relaxing of the rules is not a feature

much like having a bolted lock on your house front door. securing you for years. then one year removing the lock so anyone can comein and make themselves at home.. is not a secure system

and no bitcoin is not self encoding network of AI. it actually requires dev involvement. so again "let it sort itself out" is suggesting dont ask for a repairman, dont fix the plumbing, dont replace the broken door locks just let things fix themselves.. see how far that gets you, and i would not want to be a guest inside that home(you woul d never get repeat customers if you advertised your home on airBnB)

i do laugh at some of the other trolls that have the same "make yourself at home" mindset, where they say analogy wise, 'there is no point replacing the door locks for better locks. trespassers can still break in via the 80mm bathroom window making 200trips to get what they want.. so lets just leave the front door open to make their lives super easy'

We have to think that this is the reason many people are keeping their BTC in exchanges though. When you are a "normie" and don't have a lot of money, if you ever want to move BTC and the transaction is 20$ in TX fees, you'll just sell your BTC and transfer it in some other currency. So having BTC in a wallet you control can end up costlier which dissuades many people from using BTC properly with self custody.

If we're just of the "stacking sats" mentality and never use BTC for transactional purposes it's hard for us to notice this. But for the many people that want to do small investing for wealth keeping for practical purposes such as defending from inflation in developing countries, fees like the current ones make bitcoin use, especially in self-custody wallets, prohibitive.

What are we to do exactly? You only talked about a need to do something, but did not suggest what we should do, so I personally will be glad if you can suggest things to be done as i myself lack ideas.

But then, based on my personal understanding, the bitcoin blockchain is completely decentralized as we know it, which simply means that there is absolutely no way for use to wipe off or out a project built on the blockchain, we all will have to bear the effect of their presence on the bitcoin network.

And besides, the current high fees is only affecting us, not the miners, in fact, for the bitcoin miners, this is an opportunity for them to make some really good money for themselves. So, for with very little amount of bitcoin, the best advice is to avoid on-chain transactions at the moment, at least, until the fees comes back down again, or better still, use the lightening network or alternative chains for emergency transactions.

1MB block size increase every 4 years is the least they can offer the community IMO, but that never happened, I mean 256KB per year won't pressure anyone, but even if you want to move to side chains LN etc, who is going to manage all that extra data? Obviously those who profit by maintaining LN  channels, and if this stalemate of not increasing the block size is to buy time to push other agendas, well it's not working. I'm not saying ohhh scam ohhhh, NO, I'm saying it's not working.

And who says ord/whatever they call them, are going to be with us no matter what?  They just built a huge toilet when they were founding the infrastructure, now it seems pedestrians see that as an invitation and come to dump their garbage from time to time, since this house has no doors, apparantly janitors are either asleep or incompetent.

---

Some might argue that if you want to see what would happen to BTC if we had bigger blocks, take a look at BCH etc, of course none of us wants to become an abomination like them, but we don't want to stay retarded either, however if there are no plans to increase the block size, GIVE us working and safe alternatives.

......... in search of such alternatives............ WELL, don't look I couldn't find any.

the ledger is decentralised
the ability to self custody your value is somewhat decentralised (yet many prefer custodians centralised exchanges)
however the devs(yes bitcoin is code and code is wrote by devs) is centrally (at its CORE) controlled by its namesake CORE

they didnt choose CORE randomly. they didnt slogan "bitcoins reference client" meaninglessly. there was alot of bribery and sponsorship and campaigning to get that control where other brands get REKT if they dare propose protocol changes CORE dislike

so its CORE that need to fix THEIR bug

thats the other sponsored motivations.. you can see it with "greenlight"  and other paid for "software as a service" offerings the devs have promoted. they want bitcoin to be clunky and headachy so they can offer paid services to manage..
yep core devs motivated to offer centralised services people need to pay middle men for.. who'd have thought!

even many core devs mention how offering just blockchain data "should" become a paid for service.. rather then thinking about how to make transactions lean again.. to allow more utility scaling per block

We know that ordinals cannot be modified once they have been erased from the blockchain. Furthermore, destroying the transaction in bitcoin is too expensive.

Now, what you claim about us being unable to roll back the bitcoin blockchain is based on my knowledge, or technically, it is still feasible to do so; it's just too complicated and disruptive. This demands a great deal of collaboration from independent miners and nodes.

*Historical Rollback of Bitcoin (https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/73335/historical-rollbacks-of-bitcoin-and-etheruem-blockchain)

Yes, I agree that shite should be stopped ASAP. Just a small example: several days ago I was trying to send a small amount from one of my wallets to another. I started with ~30sat/byte fee suggested by my wallet. As the tx didn't move I bumped the fee to ~60sat/b, ~120sat/b and eventually to 200+sat/b which was roughly half of the amount I sent. All due to some retarded token fans sending d*ck pics to the blockchain. Is that ok?  >:( 

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible. If they try splitting the data into 20-byte chunks (or any other method) that already introduces a lot of complications and they will soon face old limits, for example in this case there is the standard transaction size which limits the number of outputs that tx can have or it won't be relayed...

Maybe you are right but I don't think it can gain the same level of hype.

 ::)

Stop making shit up, ser. You're changing the context, and changing what it means when someone says "Bitcoin is a permissionles system".

No one needs permission to download Bitcoin Core, post his/her public address to accept Bitcoins, then spend them in the Dark Markets to buy Fentanyl.

Stop Gaslighting, frankandbeans.

Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions (https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/recursive-inscriptions-bitcoin-supercomputer-defi-aws-possible/). These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content

That's a good suggestion. An anonymous user called shoalinfry did it before, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Why not one of the more technical people in the forum? That's how some changes are heard, with enough support from the community.


I believe they would be the same as us in BitcoinTalk - mixed reactions from both sides of the debate.


But the debate might also be whether it truly is, or is it truly not an issue.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


 ::)

Which is why BTC maxers are pissed.  Basically scrypt is helped out bigly by this and there is a ton of pow gear involved with scrypt.  So there are people with serious money that benefit by clogging the BTC blockchain.

I see this high fee pattern repeating over and over and over and over again.

As it forces people to look at other POW coins. such as LTC/Doge.

there is 680th of doge miners or 75,000 L7 machines worth about 314.16 million usd

that is about 7% of btc machines value as there are about 4,670,000 100th machines on sha256 worth 1200 each

5.604 billion.

Ignoring this dynamic is not working as those guys will also have a vested interest in jacking up BTC fees via clogging the btc blockchain.

LTC+ Doge pre power daily mining earnings are 1.215 million

BTC pre power daily  mining earnings are 33.3 million

BTC is soon to hit its ½ ing this means earnings for miners drop in the short term.

SO this dynamic never goes away.

BTW if you think 6.25 reward coins earned with 2.75 in added fees is fucked up (not for miners) but for others

wait till

3.125 reward coins and 2.85 in added fees starts happening.   It will the economics of mining are going to make it happen.  And other mined coins will fee the spam on the BTC chain as they earn more money by doing it.

This again?  Really?  

No one needs your permission to opt in to new rules via softfork
No one needs your permission to develop off-chain features
No one needs your permission to disconnect another node from their node
And (as made evident by this topic) no one needs your permission inject non-transactional data into the chain.

Seems pretty permissionless to me.

Also, someone could steal your keys.  Clearly that act wouldn't require your permission either.  Show me in the code where it says that's not allowed.  

Please stop living in a work of make-believe where you imagine everyone on this network requires your personal approval to do things.  Sociopath.

You've spent years telling people what they supposedly "can't do", but they keep going right ahead and doing it anyway.  You are demonstrably wrong and continue to be wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.  Attempting to redefine consensus every time people do something you disagree with is not only futile, but also decidedly petty.  



You're free to write your own highway code if you don't like our one.  You could have whatever asinine rules you like.  No one is stopping you.  Build a testnet to prove it works.  Maybe someone will take you seriously (although I doubt it).  

Or whine some more.  That's proven super effective all these years.  Devs are just lining up to code your ideas.   ::)    

says the troll above that wants to tell people to move over to his screwed up buggy subnetwork. telling people not to buy their coffee/pizza using bitcoin because he doesnt want bitcoiners using bitcoin for daily use stuff. but instead he wants to also tell people to shut up and not stop spam junk thats annoying bitcoiners

he also doesnt want the network consensus to be decentralised and REKTS all attempts to offer other options. he loves core having the authority of who gets permission to add code

his mindset is the permissionless of people giving up on bitcoin and moving over to an altcoin, create an altcoin or join a crappy subnetwork.. he does not want to speak of the controls of core of the bitcoin network. because it debunks his permissionless mantra.. though he adores core control the decisions of bitcoin and only permit certain things to be committed to bitcoin protocol

@Franky1, is there any simulation program that could for example simulate the current network conditions but with your suggested changes implemented? To see if what you are suggesting could actually work.
To be honest there are good suggestions out in the open, we just don't have the tools to fast forward the time on a simulator to quickly see the results.

---

@DooMAD, really karenprime1? Lol.

I want people to have the choice.  Both options are there and people are free to decide for themselves what's best for them.  They can pay a bit more to benefit from the security of on-chain.  Or they can sacrifice a bit of security, pay less and transact off-chain.  

You've made it abundantly clear that you believe no one should have that choice.  You and your ginormous ego think you get to make the decisions for everyone else.  Get REKT.



How is you deciding everything for everyone decentralised, you absolute flailing loon?  You can't be as overwhelmingly authoritarian as you are and then pretend as though you actually give a shit about what anyone else thinks.  If Bitcoin worked the way you wanted it to, no one would be allowed to use SegWit, Taproot, LN, etc.  None of it would even exist.  Because you like to pretend that's the Bitcoin "everyone" wants.  But it clearly isn't what everyone wants, because that's not what we have.

The very fact that you still haven't managed to stop us from having SegWit, Taproot, LN, etc proves beyond all doubt that Bitcoin is strong enough to resist totalitarian threats (like you).  That means decentralisation is working just fine.  So keep dreaming, wingnut.  All your ideas are repugnant and you couldn't say something sane if your reputation depended on it (which it does, BTW).

---

He's been waiting to speak to a manager for 7 years now to give them a piece of his (fractured) mind.  Maybe one day he'll figure out we don't have any of those here and he's wasting his breath.   :D

I think that once people realize that ordinals do not provide any value, people will just stop minting them

The Genie is out of the bottle, but for many of us it won't matter that much, we will see a drop in them after people realize that the number of funds used to create them don't pay back...

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  That creates an environment where the unscrupulous people who sell this trash are free to hype it up and tell gullible victims how great it supposedly is and how they'll be able to sell silly pictures for a profit.  The more suckers who buy it, the more crap they'll upload. 

It dies faster if we get the message out that buying this junk is a waste of money.  Once people are aware that the whole idea is to sell the digital equivalent of snake oil to unwitting saps, they'll hopefully stop buying into it.  This, in turn, will stop the financial incentive for people to create more of it.  Crypto is all about financial incentive, or, in this case, disincentive.  Kill the economy, kill the resulting spam.

So don't ignore it.  Fight it by making everyone aware that it's a massive con.

the only people that we can excuse from getting duped by ordinals though is people that never were around to see the NFT market tank and all those expensive NFTs turned to scam. anyone that saw that should have the common sense to know better than invest in this type of thing.

I'll just say I was really surprised when I heard that bitcoin transaction fees were spiking:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/11/08/bitcoin-fees-soar-nearly-1000-since-august-as-ordinals-are-back-in-vogue/
At $6.84 on Wednesday, average transaction fees for using the Bitcoin blockchain are now up roughly 970% from a low of $0.64 touched in August, BitInfoCharts data shows.

that's why this thread is here because of the high transaction fee i guess! no one wants that and that's why they want something done about ordinals.

doomad in this topic talked about do nothing to the meme junk. let it die out. now he says doing nothing means letting it fester
debunking himself yet again

gotta love it

funny thing is every few days doomad flips his own script hoping to pander to both sides, hoping to recruit a new idiot
some days he wants the junk left alone and tells junk creators to make their money on his prefered network. (thus he promotes the junk has value (if he can take a cut)).. next few days he pretends to hate it. but still doesnt want it stopped(hence pretend)

he is just trolling for drama points trying to find  new friend that will believe in him. but his post history shows his unethical approaches to things. and yes its him making sole demands(no coffe or chewing gum or pizza on the mainnet).
i just DISCUSS my opinion on a DISCUSSION forum.. and no an opinion is not control.. core have control over the rules. not me. so i laugh when he thinks i am controlling the network.. shame that he cant just be honest about his idols of core (his gods of power he wants to remain in power)

I missed the bottom part of your post. I believe limiting witness data may not only make Ordinals users evolve and "innovate", they'll probably also start storing data within the actual blocks themselves like how Bitcoin Stamps is doing it. It's more costly but what is "cost" to a person who believes he's be storing his/her "art" in a bank vault.


"KARENPRIME1". Hahahaha! You made my day ser. 8)

ORDI is actually a gem coin, Bitget had the token listed on its exchange back since May. Currently the token is doing great and it’s really making a lot of waves in the crypto space.

In terms of alterations to the protocol, my stance remains "do nothing".  That hasn't changed.  You're just failing at basic literacy again.  So, if you're quite finished making feeble attempts to twist my words, maybe take a few adult education courses or something.  Improve your communication skills.  They are sorely lacking.

The source of the problem is that people are making money by selling this junk to suckers.  If we educate the suckers and they stop buying it, the problem goes away.  No one has to go all totalitarian and start denying anyone's freedoms.



Again, my stance has not changed and is perfectly reasonable.  Ordinals are 99.9% a scam (*).  But censorship is not the solution.  If you seek to find ways to prevent others from transacting, governments will be watching closely to see if they can use the same method to stop all of us from transacting.  And then Bitcoin dies.  Even a total fuckwit like you should be able to comprehend the meaning of these words.  But no doubt you'll infer some other totally different meaning, because you're a raving sociopath.

I will happily discuss any proposals speaking in terms of incentive and disincentive.  The moment anyone talks about banning/blocking/stopping/preventing certain types of transactions, that's where I draw my line, so expect a confrontation if you cross it.  That line of thinking is incredibly dangerous.  Neutrality is a key tenet of this network, whether you're ignorant of that fact or not.  It is fundamentally essential to the survival of Bitcoin.  I cannot emphasise this strongly enough.



(*) 0.01% there could be a legitimate use, in terms of real-world assets represented digitally, but there are far more resource-effective ways to implement it compared to how most ordinals are currently done.  This is a discussion for a different topic, though.

Actually ORDI isn't even a smart-contract based token because bitcoin has no smart contracts so even the "standard" that it is based on being called BRC-20 is an exaggeration. The creator has absolutely no control over it. It's just a shitcoin made for fun to demonstrate how BRC-20 could work, and other than that it serves no purpose at all.
The fact that it's doing well in terms of price action has nothing to do with the reality of bitcoin being clogged and doesn't stop it from being a shitcoin. But hey, if you're interested in ORDI I've made a thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473344.0

I'm with you, because are there truly any assurances that embedding dick pics and fart sounds will truly be stopped after an update to disallow Ordinals? Bitcoin Stamps embeds data in the actual blocks.


KarenPrime1 is playing 4D Chess and trying to make chaos. Because he sees that there are users in the forum who are trying to make the debate a philosophical one instead of being merely a technical one, he keeps putting fuel into the fire to encourage those people who are making it a philosophical debate. He's playing with all of you.

windfury, pick your own buzzwords.  stop echoing your forum daddys words like an obedient sheep. you are just echoing trollisms, it makes you look even worse by not having an opinion of your own
(you reading your forum-daddy and your forum-daddy reading you, does not then make you both right because you both read someone else saying what you said. it just means your both the cause and consequence of your own confirmation bias )
(i would not even mind if you atleast came up with your own insulting nickname for me, instead of copying your forum-daddy's nickname, it would atleast show you had alteast 1% independence)

i have been the one actually mentioning TECHNICAL methods to stop it. YOU and your forum daddy have been constructing social drama about philosophy while never mentioning anything TECHNICAL

your philosophy is to say "the dickpic memes wont stop if technical changes are made"..
but TECHNICALLY
if there are tx/block rejection rules /conditions where sigscripts(witness) are no longer upto 4mb and no longer unconditional.. then it will stop.
because then witness data will have rules to know what every byte of a sigscript is suppose to include

imagine if even opreturn didnt just have a 80byte limit but a condition that the content needs to be something or cant have unlimited uses of opreturn per tx

yep code makes rules and rules make conditions and conditions meet the purposes of the payment system

Name any obstructions you are encountering that would prevent you from persuing this course of action.  We're not stopping you from running such code.  Please, go right ahead.  You have my full and unwavering support. 

I, for one, won't be joining you, though. 

 ::)

But when you actually DYOR, you learn and truly understand that it was frankandbeans who is really lying and who's gaslighting you into questioning the facts. It might work for people who didn't DYOR, but it won't work for the people who did their research and learned from the right people.

It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating.

the trust rating is meaningless because those commenting are the ones your forum-family instigated to the moderators.. your family caused it so again your trolling you are trying to use as proof. when its jsut your own forum-family trolling to pretend your right

instead of believing your forum daddys version of events of the 2017 scaling debate.. i actually used CODE that exists on github, NYA agreements that are public and blockdata of the flags that reached thresholds.. and what caused those flags(the code/bips)

yep you cant trick/edit the blockdata, available code and agreements and proposals that are public..
but your forum daddy can tll you a story not backed by facts

you have not done any research beyond asking your forum daddy and believing his story..
LOOK at the code, bips, agreements and blockdata..


1. cores dominance, people cant simply put their code into cores repo.. their moderation(NACK, ban) prevents openness unless it fits their roadmap
2. REKT campaigns of proposal reference node that are not core .. because "its not core so dont trust it"
3. even just discussing solutions outside of roadmap ends up receiving ban threats in discussion forums, IRC, mailing lists and github comments

None of those things prevent you from running such code, though.  Stop deflecting.  Name the obstructions which prevent you from running that code.

I just want to say that I am very annoyed at the presence of ordinal on the Bitcoin network, making a lot of blockages, making the transaction price very expensive, so I have to wait longer to transfer my bitcoin so that the transaction fee subsides.

Sorry if my expression is only a frustration over the presence of ordinal in the Bitcoin network, I hope the ordinal is returned to his hometown and do not disturb the comfort of Bitcoin in his own network.
A few days ago ORDI listed on the Binance Exchange and immediately experienced a price increase, and my Bitcoin transaction fee became more than $ 5, it was very annoying. :-\

You mean it was listed on the biggest active volcano on the crypto planet? Maybe this is an indirect indication that we should adopt lava aka bnb, I hear they charge very low fees and speed of confirmation is superb.🤑

When that volcano erupts, it will be the biggest eruption of this century, people don't know it yet they are living under an active volcano.

---

@DooMAD and other LN shills, ( lol ), do you guys remember what Bitcoin did with faucets back in the days? Hell I myself learned so many things by using them, so why don't you guys spend a few grands on LN faucets to incentivize the community members to interact, learn and then spread the words about LN?  The best advertising is education, then campaign managers, service providers, bounties they will all start to adopt LN payments. ( I mean soldiers are good for such situations, they can spread awareness)

Core team should either think about block size increase, or provide a good, easy to use and secure alternative side chain/second layer in OPERATIONAL mode, not DEMO.😉

We need to draw a line on what's considered prevention. Is it the hardcore softfork way (invalidating these non-standard taproot transactions), or is it simply an update to everyone's mempool policy? In my opinion, and due to a recent discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473275.msg63145403#msg63145403) I've had with pooya, I think it'd be a good experiment to start treating these transactions as non-standard and see how it goes.

But, to not distance myself from my honest opinion on this, nobody should be censored for adding non-monetary data on-chain, because:

• They can then take advantage of the network's nature, and make these non-monetary transactions indistinguishable from monetary. (BTW, that's worse for us because of this (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473275.msg63140044#msg63140044))
• Arbitrarily messing with softforks can override future softforks.
• Censorship sucks?

The network congestion caused by this ordinal has entered the annoying stage. this community should be aware that what they are doing to the Bitcoin network is useless, they are making the network even more congested with their shit coins

Unfortunately many users say that what they do with the network doesn't matter because the Bitcoin network is decentralized and everyone has the right to use this network as they wish

but this reason cannot be justified because we have rules where all users must maintain this network so that it remains scalable and can be used by all. When a community exploits a network and disrupts others, it is only natural that they are kicked off the network along with their shitcoins because it has disrupted others who use the network

The network isn't even slightly useless. It's just a little more expensive to make regular transactions. People who transact regularly should consider using second layers.

There are no shit coins. What's injected into the chain is plain data.

We have no such rules. Everyone's free to broadcast any transaction they like as long as it's valid. Censoring transactions to maintain scalability is a crystal clear sign you don't understand of Bitcoin.

Under this premise, everyone should be kicked off the network, because everyone partly disrupt others by using the network.

bitcoin does have rules.. its what code does.. recently some rules has been softened to allow junk[you call plain text], which does not mean they are truly valid. because they use an opcode that has no conditions and just bypasses check without verifying content..
YOU are abusing the term"valid"

so you want everyone kicked off the network but want the junk to continue.. yea your game is obvious..
how about realise junk that has no conditioned of content is the disruption that should be targetted or atleast be penalised.. rather then regular bitcoiners

you are definitely singing your forum-familys hymn sheet. too obvious

(certain people are certain units of a family of trolls.. when talking about the direct relationship between specific troll family members i note their relationship and gender them by how they speak at a given moment.. when talking about them all collectively i talk about them as a family)
(they know who they are and which of them is the forum-daddy and forum-wife and forum-kiddies of their lil troll cult)

First it was a forum wife and now a forum family? :o WTF dude???

I can see why you think that would reduce transaction fees, but keep in mind, it would make all transactions cheaper.  That includes those who are uploading media.  Lowering the cost to append silly pictures to the chain would likely encourage more of the same.

Be careful what you wish for.

core can put in fee multiplier rules where transactions using certain opcodes pay X multiples.. as they did for legacy

that way, lean bitcoin transacters get rewarded and junk/bloat validation bypassers get penalised

bitcoin core (software) is not a sidechain/subnetwork.. fully agree..
but
the core TEAM are sponsored to code txformats in bitcoin protocol to allow access to sidechains/subnetworks
the core TEAM are sponsored to code RPC commands to allow access sidechains/subnetworks software
the core TEAM are sponsored to work on side projects of sidechains/subnetworks software

the core TEAM are motivated to concentrate their time of features and functions that benefit their sponsors other projects

If you can be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge and admit that this would be a temporary stop-gap at best, then I'll leave you in peace to drum up support for the idea.  Personally, I think it's futile.  But others may feel that a temporary reprieve is better than nothing.

Alternatively, if you still don't fully understand the 'cat-and-mouse/whack-a-mole' problem I've been alluding to in the last half-a-dozen topics about Ordinals, then I can explain it again.  Essentially, if you create a cheap way to transact and an expensive way to transact (or look to close off methods of transacting altogether), game theory strongly implies people are going to look for ways to exploit the cheaper/open route.  There are numerous methods to append non-transactional data to the chain. 

1. more then that.. look at the purpose of "descriptors" and how it creates more things than just legacy vs segwit
2. many RPC's aid communication to other subnetwork software by changing from old RPC's that were fine communicating bitcoin node to bitcoin node
3. when most bitcoin upgrades dont bother fixing headaches of bitcoin. but produce better functionality subnetworks use.. you see their priorities
one example. most bitcoin node users are individuals. yet recent addition RPC commands are about "partially signed" transaction utility
4. take a closer look at most changes over the last few years, the big changes not minor tweaks. and see who benefits most from new utility

Clearly he's referencing DooMAD, Wind_FURY and their lovechild, BlackHatCoiner. They act as a mafia to suppress research and critical thinking in favor of promoting the Blockstream agenda where we are all ruled by faulty, NWO-esque subnetworks and Layer 2's.

No but really everything that can possibly be said about this topic has already been said... I think this was accomplished by page 5. There's nothing left to do here except make fun of franknbeans.

BSV fanatics (such as HmmMAA (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=400626)) promote this totally unfounded conspiracy theory... but they don't explain us why BTC Core developers (who are also BTC hodlers) would want to destroy their holdings (BSV cult members like Calvin Ayre -a notorious self-confessed (https://files.catbox.moe/ve2wtn.jpg) pedophile (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn0D09YaMAQF9Uj?format=jpg&name=small)- preach that BTC will go to zero (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-price-crash-zero-says-204253747.html)). ::)

They also believe CSW is Satoshi, because apparently he's such a great philosopher (bigger than Plato). :D

I definitely believe not with your negative trust-rating, ser. gmaxwell and achow101, both who are truly respected, honest, and trustworthy Bitcoin Core Developers wrote those NEGATIVE comments and it would be your word against their words. I DEFINITELY trust their words against yours after you and Jonald_Fyookball were misinforming the newbies of BitcoinTalk during 2016 - 2017. Some of us believed you and trusted you, and actually thought that following Roger Ver towards big blocks was the "answer" for the Scaling Debate. But upon DYOR, I learned the HARD WAY. You were lying, spreading misinformation/FUD, and gaslighting.


That's unfair.

YOUR small family cried to moderators.. your family created the drama. because my opinions were different to the core roadmap sponsored plan

i never followed ver.. your troll family tried to pigeon hole me into the ver group because i had opinions different to the core roadmap.
your troll family circle jerked the mods into chaos but because your family ass-kissed the mods and treated them as gods, they appeased you trolls
because the mods are... CORE DEVS that had their own roadmap plans they didnt want resisted. reviewed,scrutinised, criticised
it was a massive circle jerk of protecting their patents, their production, their paupers and their parishioners


as for your DYOR
you dont do research. you just blanket copy and paste buzzwords of your troll family. idolising core devs as gods**

yes its blindingly obvious your small forum-family love and adore and idolise achowe and gmax.. no one denies the hormones you produce when you talk about them or ask them to quash other people that dare speak non positive of core devs actions or inactions✝*


it is fair.. but if you dont like being associated in "the family" stop just being a blind sheep copying their antics and pretending that repeating their mantra is "research"

** start actually doing data research, not deadbeat recites.
                        examining information, not echoing idiots.
                        checking source data, not soliciting delusions.

✝*core devs are not gods.. they are human.. and when they retire, get bored of bitcoin.. where does that leave you
learn to understand bitcoin. care about bitcoin. not dev gods

actually learn from block data and code. not biased adoration tweets and social network blog and social club familiarity
learn to want to protect bitcoin from exploits. dont just troll-speak things to protect cores sponsorship deals


you "trusting" instead of verifying is your own downfall
i understand you trust and have faith in some peoples speeches and anyone going against your trusted speech makers you treat as "gaslighting" .. but for once actually do some real research and stop acting like an echo of the troll family.

learn for yourself for once. stop sounding like a repetition of someone else voice. dont pigeon hole yourself or think others are in pigeon holes

dont bother replying with more rehearsed speeches you read, dont repeat insult/buzzwords you heard to avoid putting in any effort. just take some time to learn bitcoin away from your forum-families words.

---

i would have not problem with you if you had a technical discussion about an exploit created by core devs.. where it was about the technical exploit and not a ass kiss opportunity to show you have faith in dev gods of core/forum-family of trolls

i would have not problem with you if you had for once a response that did not include any wording that sounded like a script wrote by your forum-family of trolls

try to have an independent discussion for once, using your own mind and thoughts and words not resembling the many known trolls wording

For all your bawling about "technical discussions", I can't help but notice you've never published an alternative roadmap.  Instead of crying about what others have got, why don't you put together a plan of action?  All I see from you is the equivalent of an entitled and cranky child's Christmas wishlist.  You've never actually put together a genuine technical proposal.

If you really think your ideas are worth considering, then put the effort in to present them in a fashion that would cause people to take you seriously for once.  All this whiny tinfoil-hat-crackpottery clearly isn't getting you anywhere.

Part of me suspects you don't want to put the effort in, though.  Maybe you prefer playing the role of the petulant loser who spends the rest of his life crying about all the things he can't have.  It's just who you are.

doomad... try to read and learn not cry and moan

you say i didnt offer any suggestions.. well good that this forums stores posts.. people can read them.  shows your ignorance to not even know whats even been said in this topic in recent days, let alone this forum over the years

heres two examples from the first page of this topic..

need me to quote myself from this topic more??
or can you exercise your finger to click the pages and read for yourself,
stop asking to be spoonfed when you are in ignorant idiot mode..
instead try to read, try to learn . stop pretending you suffer from dementia or get sudden amnesia

by the way
YOU specifically and your troll family have been ass-kissing the devs/mods to get me banned from technical discussion..
yet you now cry that i dont present technical proposals in the technical discussion due to acts YOU CAUSED

i dont know if you want an extra kiss on the ass for your act by thinking me calling you out is a win for you.. but stop being a troll inciting social drama while ignoring the actual topic content.. which i can prove i provided content related to the topic that shows solutions not ignorance
your posts are simply "ignore it, let the problem continue"
EDIT1: answering below
i've ran businesses, got rich through bitcoin. retired young, travel alot. have a family

are you enjoying penny pinching for sig-campaigns where you try to find friends on the internet? is your life sorted yet?
EDIT 2:
doomad believes families put children live in cellars, must be his life experience to think people commonly do it

quoting for posterity. when he says something stupid, it reveals more about him than the insult he tries hurling at others.. it reveals his experiences and thoughts and memories of his childhood

If you honestly believe the entire community is going to go trawling back through your incoherent waffling post history to try and piece together your "genius vision" for what Bitcoin supposedly ought to be, then you're even more of an ego-maniac than I realised.

For all your bitching and griping about Core, the simple fact is that they can communicate their ideas in an organised manner, using reason, working collaboratively and demonstrating good rationale.  You can't do ANY of those things.  The only skills you've ever displayed are lying, crying, holding petty grudges and drawing technobabble ascii art.  And you wonder why no one listens to you.

Enjoy your pathetic life achieving nothing.  



I'll be sure to alert Crimestoppers that you've got some poor souls caged in a cellar somewhere like Josef Fritzl.

franknbeans certainly possesses several characteristics that render him and a run-of-the-mill troll indistinguishable, but the negatives left on him by gmaxwell and achow101 are not a correct use of the trust system. The trust system is for trustworthiness regarding trade or any type of exchange of money, not for punishing critics or trolls. Mr. Beans has made it clear he will never trade on the forum, therefore these ratings should be neutrals at worst. Furthermore, he rarely posts in sections of the forum where the trust rating is visible, anyway.

Even the forum's most prolific troll, BADecker (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=149737), doesn't have a negative. What he does have is a neutral, which is the correct approach.


I get a little too in character sometimes and forget to make it clear when I am being sarcastic.

wow guys this thread really devolved in to alot of bickering and drama.  :o kind of like it always does when ordinals is being discussed.

TBH I've put franknbeans on ignore; that way I'm not tempted to respond to him, even though I still end up talking about him  :D it is indeed a minor shame

Dozens - perhaps even hundreds - of threads have been derailed by him over the years. Whenever he posts, discussion usually devolves back to the same tired blocksize debate and completely away from the topic at hand.

To get things back on topic, fees are totally fricken out of control at the moment, JFC.

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/11/16/FnSiv.png (https://mempool.observer/)

well at least I am getting some bigger fees. I think the high fee issue is never going away.

I will just repeat over and over.

well he's got his own strong opinions about ordinals so i say let him have them. it's not hurting me but if i was trying to send bitcoin it surely would be hurting me. high fees that is. i don't know what's causing them but you think monkeys?  :o

how many us dollars is that? i'm lazy today.

It may never go away completely, but it won't always be this bad, and mark my words: degens won't always be this interested in ordinals/inscriptions. They will move on to something else once the easy money to milk has dried up. Because that's what degens do: move from racket to racket.


Haha no. It is 99.9% BRC20 inscriptions. The real entity to blame now is Binance since they started listing $ORDI token.


Well, this is what one of my wallets currently recommends for a "high priority" fee:

https://talkimg.com/images/2023/11/16/FnmP5.png

not cool, unless your philipma1957, I suppose.

oh ok. well then the monkeys kind of faded away. like you said scammers move on to a new racket the problem is if that racket is still on the bitcoin blockchain the fees won't get any relief! but i heard kevin olearly is talking about some new exchange that's supposed to take away a bunch of business from binance. maybe that will help some but who knows.  :o


wow thats not cool at all. going broke just to send someone some money. no thanks.

"An internet board" is just as important as anywhere else, after all Bitcoin network is run by regular users not by devs. First people have to realize what Ordinals is then we can move on to making a change. So many users still think they are creating a token with this exploit!
Not to mention that I'm already doing that elsewhere too and am already rejecting these malicious transactions myself.

What is Binance getting from listing a BRC-20 pseudo-token? Oh yeah, trading fees.

Well I cannot say I am surprised. This company has done shadier things such as wanting to reverse a block using a 51% attack in order to recover money from one of their hacks.

Binance treats the mempool like it's a giant public restroom.

I'm curious if $ORDI beats its ATH from May 08 ($28.52). It's quite close (now slightly below $27, but the last local high is around $27.50). If yes, then I almost feel my whole effort to keep people away from that BRC-20 bullshit was in vain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5451905.msg62211946#msg62211946), :(. (And we can expect a couple of days more with record fees.)

Small hope: Currently it's falling a tiny bit. But it already fell several times in the last weeks and always recovered.

I know $ORDI isn't the main reason for the current congestion. But it seems to be a "thermometer" of Ordinals attractivity - if its price is high, then lots of people will try to get rich minting some new token. At least there was some correlation in the last weeks between the $ORDI price tendency and blockchain congestion.

But that doesn't change the fact that you are merely a FUDster, who spreads disinformation, and a gaslighter. Because why would our fellow users report you to the moderators, and why would two if the MOST TRUSTWORTHY Bitcoin Core Developers give you a negative trust-rating.


But you were always a big blocker though, and that's a FACT. We have debated many times before.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


 ::)

It's unfair for him to post that because those users debating against you are merely calling out your bullshit, and NOT trying to surpress research and critical thinking. 8)


But ser, from a more objective viewpoint, is this good or is this not good for the network?

So your effort was in vain because $ORDI might breach its ATH for a few days and then go back to earth?  :P

Nearly all tokens (that are not stablecoins) follow a very familiar pattern: They launch, then one day the hype becomes unreal and some people get rich, but within a few months or years comes crashing down like a house of cards, into negative profit territory, and stay there, because everyone has moved on to the next token.

more specifically
the junk creators suddenly go "promotional viral" and get to scam victims in fomo pumps/ITO (initial ticker offering).. but then the victims cant resell to break even later, because everyone wises up to the scam and no one wants to buy
the creators dont care because they profit at the pump. and they are washing their hands of it. using their scammed proceeds to fund the next scheme 'ticker' of the same junk

I agree, but it has to made more officially. Currently, there are two groups of people, those that want to completely invalidate Ordinals, and those that treat them as regular transactions. Maybe there's another group of people who don't want to censor Ordinals, but simply disincentivize their usage (i.e., making certain taproot tx non-standard). At the moment, I only observe a sort of intense disagreement, but nobody seems to really care much to propose change.

i had two solutions to appease different groups

a. shorten the bytelength limit and put conditions on all active opcodes requiring expectant content (thus ban junk)
b. put a base fee multiplier on transactions using certain opcodes (penalise only junk)

They are tokens. "Colored coins" are/were considered tokens (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Colored_Coins), and nobody has a problem with the nomenclature as applied to them. This is essentially what ordinals are.


It's a noble cause, but none of the people trading BRC-20 read the forum. TBH most people wouldn't read it -- its largely dominated by unintelligent shitposts. Nobody that isn't already here is going to sift through all the garbage to find the occasional nugget of interesting information. Outsiders looking to get educated only visit the forum when they want to read posts written by satoshi, Hal, Vitalik, and a handful of others.

did you even read your own link YOU use to claim definition approval??

because the funny thing is, and its something i keep telling you about, involving how its not a proof of transfer system.. is that the BRC and meme junk sits in the meta data(witness script), basically appended to the end of a transactions.. but no where inside that metadata does BRC/junk instruct that it belongs to a certain output, there is no instruction in the data locking a linkage to specific output in the transaction data, to then become immutable when inside a block

instead the PRESUMPTION of output is declared in just the GUI display of not widely used wallet software. which the ordinals creators can alter at any time, even after junk included transactions are confirmed, they can change their wallet presumptions and change ownership claims.. thus.. its not proof of transfer if the ownership can change without breaking the immutable data

get it yet


scammers usually recruit victims by telling them to join and only trust the content in their slacks/discord/telegram groups, pretending forums are just junk and only to believe promotions publicised in the scammers community group.. yea we understand your mindset..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_ECtbDW0AAEiPF?format=jpg&name=large

Ordinals and tokens might continue to exist "in the blockchain" longer than expected. Udi Wertheimer and Eric Wall, developers of "Taproot Wizards", were given $7,500,000 to "bring magic back to Bitcoin".

::)

I believe with that money, they should hire developers to find solutions and make Bitcoin more efficient with the features they want, and they should definitely take their dick pics and fart sounds off-chain.

i see it as $7.5m will be wasted on 300,000tx of $25 fee to scam people into paying more then $100 per junk, to hope to keep their reserves full to keep the scam flowing

The Binance hype has driven ORDI to a second pronounced high after the "launch hype". Generally that occurs with coins of a certain quality, but ORDI is exactly the contrary, it's among the "worst of the worst" (ok, it's not an outright scam because nobody promises anything about its value, but very close). Although for now (it just crashed 8% compared to BTC) it seems it hasn't reached its old ATH.

By the way, it seems congestion is going down a bit now. Seems the end of the ORDI hype was also not beneficial for other BRC-20 projects.

I'm not that pessimistic, above all in the local (non-english) forums there are often new people with real interest in BTC and the shitpost ratio is very low. Even in the local altcoin sections.

One problem with my thread was however that it originally was in Beginners & Help forum where it attracted some attention, but then was moved into the Altcoin Discussion forum. :(

Clowns. I wonder how all those posters who suggested to "don't be greedy add some extra sats" are feeling now? Ok ok I suspected you were retarded and didn't see this coming. Right now my wallet suggested me to pay ~$30 worth of BTC in fees for a ~$200 transaction. Am I being greedy? What's next? pay 1/2 in fees? Fuck Casey Rodarmor and his retarded invention which broke down Bitcoin.  >:(

I disagree. Bitcoin is still solid.

Yeah, you wish. Today I went to pay an invoice and the transaction fees have suddenly rocked up again to 280 sat/vB for low priority, and pruning is activated for <21 sat/vB.  >:(

and yet the certain people that dont want anything done to bitcoin.. because they dont think transactions should be rejected... are strangely happy that transactions get rejected(pruned)

a LEAN tx of 226byte. paying rejectable amount of 21sat/b is 0.00004746 = $1.76

and so minimum fee of $1.76 is being rejected.. for being too low..(facepalm)

heres another idea
(if they fix the current byte count code cludge)
have a 2 tier system.. (there used to be one years ago)

90% of block base 1mb blockspace, standard tx(normal legacy, normal multisig, normal segwit not using opcodes of 'assumevalid' bypass)..
10% block this junk using certain opcode and or their utxos are less than 144confirm age

where by those in the 10% category are paying a fee rate for that space of 200x of base rate. and the usual normal standard 90% pay base rate fees from 10sat per kb  (lean 226byte=3sat fee total)

atleast that would appease the contradictory morons that want the junk to continue

I like this option more since at the very least it makes abuse very expensive while satisfying those who claim "censorship"!
But through script size threshold not OP codes because if we place any kind of restrictions on OP codes we may end up hurting regular users who aren't injecting junk into the blockchain.

i already explained in many topics and this one about conditioning the opcodes(looking for certain details). so the "penalise only junk" was related to that, having conditions and fees and penalties for just a subgroup of transactions.. much like is done by making legacy * 4 but in a more detailed and enforced way

i was trying to keep it short (avoid "wall of text") as it appears some other people dont read more then a couple lines before they get on the defensive

I may have a simpler idea - adjust the weight unit calculation and place x10 multiplier on script sizes >10000 bytes. This means the vsize is now almost x10 itself which corresponds to an x10 increase in fees. Now Ordinals and BRC-20 users who abuse the protocol to dump stupid JSON like:


will be paying a penalty to miners (who still win regardless, because even if BRC-20 volume reduces to 10% the x10 fee on the remaining inscriptions compensates for that.) Also covers OP_RETURN edge cases at the cost of making fringe use-cases for Bitcoin more expensive for L2 node operators.

Sorry, I sometimes skip your posts since they are filled with drama and LN/SegWit bashing :P

10 kbyte is too big though. Even a big ass multi-sig script containing 15 public keys (15*33=495) and 15 signatures (15*72=1080) barely reaches 2 kb (2000 bytes) and nobody uses such a crazy script.

P.S. IMO since 10k is the script size limit for legacy and witver 0 scripts, I'd say reject anything bigger than that for witver 1 as non-standard instead of just adding a penalty.

great thing about code is there are many ways to do thing
however fees recently were 5sat/byte.. now 200sat/byte.. meaning 40x.. so you only wanting to penalise them by 10x is low
also them taking up 10kb with lean tx being 0.25kb is again a 40x space steal.. so penalty should be way more then 10x. more so a minimum multiplier of 40x.. id prefer 200x



i was thinking back to the days when there was a fee formulae that created a 'priority' score. where by first 50,000bytes had 'priority' of 0 fee(lean tx, old utxo age). then there was 250,000byte of high fee space and then 700,000byte of low priority low fee..
but modernising it by using a priority space based on opcodes.. where there were 2 separate "fee estimation" where nodes would default to 200x fee for the 10% space of junk.. that junk can only go in that 10% space. and mining pools would only put junk in if they are paying the 200x fee rate estimate..
this too would make the scam junkers think again if its costing them 200x * X% of blockspace for 1 tx.. and instead they become leaner to fit in more brc creations per block in that 10% allotment. but yes paying 200x for lean junk

I added "pseudo-" because unlike BRC-20, the ones on other networks such as ETH, BSC are actually being used for practical things. Not just as a price ticker.
(Sure there are a large category of money-grab altcoin tokens as well, but it doesn't comprise *all* the network's tokens like the BRC-20 ones do.)

This is true. As a collector of old blockchain knick-knacks I looked into it once and all the original Colored Coins protocols are dead. I tried messaging their creators and they never responded to me.


Point taken. The big difference is BRC-20 tokens can't offer any kind of functionality... They aren't being used for anything other than hot potato ponzinomics. I suspect we'll never see them gain functionality as it will be prohibitively expensive to move them around as compared to ETH (usually), MATIC or BSC. Besides, that's not what the players of that particular game are there for, anyway.

But that's how the network was actually designed, with the regulated blocks and the fee market. I know it's an inconvenience when the fees are high, but from an objective viewpoint, look how robust the network currently is in the middle of the so-called "Ordinals Attack".

A user could make an argument that Ethereum is as robust as Bitcoin because it too has not experienced any down-time, BUT try running an Ethereum node with your home computer. Ethereum developers gave up the ability to scale out for more transaction throughput, AND they're fees are STILL high.


Although that's not my personal opinion, in another topic I did say that's how he'll be remembered.

It depends on how you define downtime. In 2017 there were a couple of times that the exchanges were forced to shut down all deposits and withdrawals of Ether and its tokens because the network congestion had effectively crashed their system!

the bitcoin network WAS NOT actually designed like that
before core. there were fee formulas("priority" threshold) where:
50kb of a block was for 0 fee high priority based on a few factors
250kb of a block was for high fee low priority based on a few factors
700kb of a block was for low fee but above min relay fee
simplified

buy spending in a leaner tx makes number bigger. by having more confirms makes the number bigger, by keeping more sats to spend instead of declare as fee makes the number bigger.. in essense by not spamming every block, by not spending just a few sats, by having a lean tx you can get away with not paying a fee at all and have more priority then a bloaty tx that has a large fee


its not always been the "fee open market" your forum-daddy mentor has told you. its become the way he likes since core removed these things... because dev politics want bitcoin to be expensive and headachy to use.. to promote that people should move over to their commercial middlemen service proposition of subnetworks where they can take a cut of commission from middlemen fees.. they can only charge sustainable middlemen fee's IF using bitcoin direct is not cheap

causing a fee war and fee market is not about "miner" economics. core devs are not tweaking fee calculation junk for some altruistic cause to help miners. its all dev politics to appease their corporate sponsors

bitcoin WAS NOT designed to appease corporate sponsors feature that aid corporate ROI.. but it has become it.. and bitcoin is not AI that changed itself. core devs did.

A real down-time by its real definition is something that stops functioning, and in the context of a cryptocurrency network going through a down-time would probably be when it stops producing blocks and a majority of full nodes can't connect with the rest of the network to validate.


I'm talking about how the network is currently designed, and it's robust.

not as rubust as you think it is.. there is actually a tier system of node types and abilities.. its not as peer-to-peer equal as you have been told
your mentor pretends that pruned nodes are "full" nodes, that 'backward compatible' stripped nodes are "full".. they are not. they offer less peer services and do less functions than an actual full node does

learn the differences of what effects things have on the network when/if too many nodes 'prune'."strip",'bypass' EG use 2015 'backward' software thats stripped blockdata to then not IBD to full nodes, and bypasses validity checks.. or use 2019 that bypasses taproot validity checks.
 
with 99.99% of nodes reliant on the code of core(multigenerational but still core based), there is a central point of failure effect aswell. bitcoin no longers stands by the solution of byzantines generals problem.

years ago people wrote different nodes that knew the rules but checked them different ways in different code languages (coding is great at doing that) but things have got too cludgy and just become the same copy/paste line for line bug included bypass stuff as cores own node release..

bitcoin can be more robust than it currently is.

Yeah the network could be strengthened.  One way is to recognize the main purpose is not sending 0.00009999 btc or less in a send.

As the main chain should not allow small sends.


0.0001 is $3.75 value its small enough.

and 0.00001 is minimum fee that is  $0.375

Also 8mb blocks.

These three changes along with no node pruning allowed would work.

4tb ssd are cheap they can handle a larger chain.

Full sized nodes are a must.

Also certified a ssd with linux os and first 12 years of the chain could be sold by a few companies.

If people wish to form their own conclusions as to why 'priority' was removed, they can view the pull request in question here (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405).  Let's see if anyone else can find evidence of a conspiracy.   ::)

Bonus:  here is a post from a developer dismantling franky1's numerous misunderstandings about network function and fee policy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5080565.msg48919868#msg48919868).


//EDIT:


Sure.  It could be.  But no one likes you enough to listen, so it won't.



That's certainly one perspective.  Another is that the dev correctly interprets the situation, whilst it's you who twists all the words and does all the pretending.  

he didnt dismantle anything.. try to read like someone that knows the code.. not someone on auto pilot allegiance to core dev gods sponsorship deal preferences.. .. .. he twisted words and pretended x crap didnt happen (but then debunks himself by then saying it did but not in the way he read me saying it). then he goes on and says things cant be consensus because by definition its not. but then says how nodes are consistant in things based on known parameters..

priority formulae CAN be made a consensus rule.. anything can be made a consensus rule.. the rules are just code. and anything can be made a rule and enforced by the code..

got to love gmax's twistings
everyone this week has seen mempools pruned purely for low fee rate.. everyones seen it. the prune rule is remove transactions due to a fee rate..
where as a fee priority would remove spammy, bloaty transactions first..

so when this was said

he pretends pruning mempool has nothing to do with the fee rate, "market".
(facepalm)
its the fee rate level, rules and code that decides what to prune!! which affects the market.. its all related and symbiotic

rather than a proper coded formulae that would have decided that spammers should be pruned or bloaters should be pruned first

THEY CHOSE to make the pruning no longer remove spam/bloat first. and instead remove low market fee first

the point i raised then and keep raising is we keep getting occurrences of congestion where junk and spam are allowed in and many peoples genuine transactions are dropped due to a fee rate rule. rather than a rule that actually prefers to drop junk/spam first.. rather then a rule that penalises just the junk/spammers
they prefered to "simplify" to "just a fee market" to cause everyone to be penalised when junk/spam occured but not deal with the junk/spam problem..

..
next funny is how he says about how this stuff reduces all the transaction relay repeats.. but then due to their actions, guess what.. people need to re-send their transactions to get back into mempool if the market goes down or respend with a higher fee RBF before being pruned or after being pruned if still not high enough or even send a child transaction to try to keep the low fee in mempool.. thus more transactions do get relayed just to fight the pruning mechanism

No, it's not that easy.

Nodes don't have an uniform view about the mempool. So you can't force miners to include certain transactions that pay a certain fee or have waited a certain time, because you can't know they have seen them. It would be necessary to know which transactions "exist objectively" for an efficient priority mechanism, but that's simply not possible when we have decentralized mempools.

If we could enforce a priority mechanism by consensus rule, then we would also be able to enforce an "anti-censorship" rule, i.e. that no transaction that pays enough fees could be discarded by miners. But that has the same problem.

The only way I see to implement such a thing is with a two-step confirmation process: Miners in a block simply collect transactions without verifying them, and in the next block another miner confirms them. This would need collaboration of two miners to override the priority mechanism, but still would be possible. (I have previously mentioned in some discussions a mechanism where nodes have to sign the txes they "know", but this could be gamed, too.)

If you see a way, then - we'd have censorship problem solved, so I'd love to see your BIP :)

its not about that. code can do wonderful things. its not just about nodes own mempools. thats just the first post/checkpoint that makes transactors think about the transactions they produce to have best chance of even reaching a mining pool... when broadcasting to peers at the pre-confirm relay
if they want better chances, they organise there transaction to be lean, mature utxo and not use certain junk opcodes

separately.. the consensus enforcement..
its about when mining pools solve a block. nodes check if they contain junk that has not paid fair fee according to fee formulae.. reject the block. thus enforcing pools to actually choose transactions wisely. its what consensus rules are for

you call it censorship resistance.. but just look at what mining pools do now. they cherry pick transactions anyway. atleast having decency rules about what should get priority to get included first.. where the indecent junk get penalised personally if they want to be included. again its not censorship if a spammy junk bloaty transaction has to pay 200x higher than a normal tx.


not even a 2 step mining process.. just a fee formulae score reading. as soon as it reaches a threshold of priority, put it in the block template, if not just leave it in mempool until utxo age matures or transactor RBF. or mempool of mining node prunes low priority thresholds

...
my posts about a fee priority formulae are not about censoring (default reject, no question) transactions. its about penalising transactions specifically independently without penalising everyone.. transactions that spam(young utxo). bloaty transactions(tx length). junk transactions (abuse unconditioned opcodes)