Bitcoin Forum

As we all know the Ordinal and Inscription totally spam the btc network which is headache for the small btc holder. Those who understands the real purpose of btc and wants to spread information of btc will never happy with this spam feature because we cannot introduce people that you have to pay 10$ for every transaction (whenever you buy and sell).

Here in Bitcointalk,Signature payments are generally processed weekly and compaign manager have to pay the high fee which is not only loss of projects but also member total recieving payment also affected.

Now officially Bitcoin Devolpers are come into the ground and planning to kill these spamming in Blockchain. I think this is very positive news and maybe the reason or #ORDI token dump. I hope these spam will be no more disturb the common user and we will once again experiencing fast and low fee Blockchain.

Devolpers Luke Dashjr tweet
 (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285)

 

This is not new. Bitcoin developers know how to solve Ordinals and Inscriptions issue and we have discussed this before on this forum when BRC20 surfaced.

Miners are making money from transactions and to solve this, a proposal might be proposed. If proposed in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, did you think that miners will agree? Remember that miners have their own nodes. I do not think any mining pool will agree to this when they are making more money from transactions.

I will also say that bitcoin developers can look for alternatives means to solve this issue of transaction fee because Ordinals makes the use of bitcoin blockchain to widen. Some people that do not like the high fee are the ones that are now complaining.

I do not think that the miners would agree to this proposal as they have seen a good increase in their revenue.


Why would anyone try to reduce their earnings when they know they are making good money before halving? I agree that Ordinals and Inscription are spamming the network but if miners are happy nothing can be done about them. I feel it is the time when there should be another fork of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Don't eliminate it but just raise the tx fees and make it much more expensive for idiots to perform BRC20 transactions.

I'm not a programmer so have no idea if that is technically possible to do but if it is then it will significantly reduce this kind of activity while also keeping the miners happy,
with the benefit of reducing the network congestion and lowering tx fees for everyone else doing normal NON-BRC20 bitcoin transactions.

The Lightening Network has really shown to be a successful Alternative, Since it enables users to establish channels between parties and carry out transactions off-chain without having to wait for confirmations on the Bitcoin network, . In this way, you avoid paying expensive transaction fees and also avoid having to wait a long time for your transactions to be confirmed on the network. It is undoubtedly a pretty great alternative for dealing with the issue of excessive TX fees.

Nobody sets or fixes tx fees in the BTC network, the fee rate rises when the mempool is congested, so you have to outbid other users for a space in a block, and it falls when the mempool is free, so collectively the community sets the fee rate.
That is not how it works, you cannot make one set of people pay a higher fee than others. There is the fee rate in the mempool and i already said how it rises and falls, as for individual fees, any user can decide what tx fees to attach to their tx, but to get your desired priority, you must use a corresponding fee rate in the mempool.

Good, it’s a nonsense spam attack on the network. Go & fork off, do it on their own blockchain. We don’t need that nonsense in the serious commodity sector. People will say it’s censorship but ordinals are a waste of time & they negatively affect people who are trying to better their lives by using an alternative to traditional finance.

Ohh this is very much needed! Thank God it is finally happening! This ordinals are non-sense and just clogging the network with useless transactions. This madness has to stop.

But I am sure miners will oppose this proposal. Because of ordinals, miners are making more Bitcoins from each transactions. Not sure how they will be compensated. It's a bigger matter to solve.

I agree it would be beneficial for us if the unnecessary transactions that are congesting the blockchain were removed. It seems that some individuals are simply utilizing the blockchain to take advantage of the popularity of Bitcoin. Due to the high fees associated with Bitcoin transactions, some may be discouraged from using it. I wonder if people would still be interested in joining Ordinals or Inscription if they were on a different blockchain.

Some have paid more than $10 as transaction fee during the course of these ordinals challenge, but the fear now is that if the whole thing about these ordinals  not have a future implications on the security of the bitcoin network, we should see it this way if not that they have just concluded in achieving their aim of introducing a bug to the network to attack bitcoin nodes and later to then accept the complete removal of ordinals from the network after which they are done with their attack unknowingly to everyone, let's keep on with what's going to happen not until then.

you do realise bitcoin used to have a "priority formulae"
you do realise that legacy transactions are rated at a higher fee than segwit/taproot per real counted byte

you can actually code rules whereby instead of 'if legacy, then feerate* 4 "  you can "if opcode range x-xxx are used, then feerate * 200"
their by only penalising certain transaction formats..
mining pool managers would love it because then they will only add junk if junk pays 200x more

similar things have been done before(as hinted) and can be done again
thats the great thing about code.. code creates rules and fee policies.. its not voodoo magic of human expression

Wow. Just wow. Look at the multiple people in this thread cheering for censorship.

Ordinals are stupid. Inscriptions are stupid. NFTs are stupid. I consider all these things a method to move money from lots of gullible newbies to a small handful of people who successfully convinced these gullible newbies that such nonsense is worth anything. However, we absolutely should not be censoring transactions.

Spam is subjective. What if a bitcoin dev turns round tomorrow and declares all your signature payments spam and wants to censor those? Will you all still be cheering for censorship then?

Allowing individuals to start arbitrarily passing rules to censor some transactions is absolutely not what bitcoin was designed to be. If you want your transactions to need approval from third parties, then go and use fiat.

discussions about ordinal elimination on the network have long been carried out in this forum. many members respond with their disapproval of the ordinal that spam network and make fees high. but there are also those who reject this action because they think that ordinal is a form of decentralization of the bitcoin network and prohibiting their transactions is unfair.

but it seems that bitcoin dev began to take serious action against ordinal activities in the network and things like this were highly appreciated by the community. the decision made by this developer can reduce congested on the network and reduce fees and it can affect the use of bitcoin going forward. hopefully this decision will be implemented as soon as possible.

A week ago F2pool were censoring OFAC-sanctioned transactions, and the community was strongly against it because the BTC network should be censorship resistant and not pro-censorship like fiat and centralized coins. If we were against that, why should we be in support of censorship now, i think that is double standard. My stand on ordinals is that they are bullshit, but nobody in the network should be able to tell another person how they should use their coin and the network too, because the BTC network is permissionless.

though Luke JR is a core dev. he was never considered the "blockstream crew" he always was treated as a sub contractor/sidelined when things he proposed didnt meet the "core roadmap"

so although luke JR has code in his own repo (knots) this does not mean it will be integrated into core.

many things luke proposed over the years got rejected by core devs. not due to bad code. but simply that it doesnt follow the roadmap path the blockstream core devs envision for bitcoin

so dont take this as a celebration. its just a side promotion that people may want to use a different brand of software.. but we all know everyone just uses core no matter what features another full node brand offers. and we know the main core dev team will use the lack of using knots simply because its not core.. as the weak excuse to then say they wont add the code to core because they will say people didnt use knots so no one wants the feature.. even though people dont use knots no matter the features, simply because its knots and not core

This has been a major issue right from the beginning, and this issue is just for those who still don't want to realise that all this NFT, ordinal, and any form of token that could be generated as a result of this is just value based on the hype that the creator can be able to give to it; it's really not worth it, but yet people find it convincing to invest millions over a piece of work that really doesn't have a real value attached to it just because they are called NFT or just because they are under the bitcoin network does not make it valuable.
 
Very soon, many people who are rushing to buy and hold these ordinary tokens will soon be crying out loud, just like those who are already filing a lawsuit against CR7 for the NFT they bought due to its being promoted by him.

I see nothing much different in this censorship from centralization. If censorship is the only option that could be used to defeat this ordinal madness, then it's not an option at all, as it will make bitcoin not different from altcoins, which are centralised and holders funds can be frozen withheld or whatever word could be used, but it means users not having access to their funds as a result of it being censored.
 
We now have someone to decide if our coins are clean or not, and if they don't like it, they can just block it from passing through. That will really be the worst mess up for the bitcon network, more than what the ordinal is doing right now.

I saw this news before reading this topic and one thing that came to my mind is, who is this user of X who said we fixed this issue in version Knots v25.1? How much of him makes equal to the word Developers as in plural form. He is a single due, isn't he? Just asking for a friend  :D :D Other than this, it a good news for those who don't like ordinals in the first place even many other people hate this upgrade because they were making hundreds of dollars by minting free ordinals and by trading in them.
I did not know about the ORDI dump fully but this must be the main reason behind it if there is any dump in ORDI, but why only in ORDI tokens, there are many other BRC 20 tokens in the market why they are not dumping or they are?

If things go well good then this spam will be gone and we will be back to normal rates but will it affect the price of BTC or not? Because most of the people are not selling their few Satoshie due to high fees which means more satoshies are on hold and not in the market but once the prices are lower for fee then those people prefer to sell those few satoshies in no time and supply might increase but the amount would be too low to impact the market overall.

The title of the topic is a bit misleading.

What Luke said is that they will work to correct a vulnerability that allow inscriptions to bypass extra data limit configured in the Bitcoin Node software.

That means that if the inscription contains data that is bellow the limit configured in the nodes, they will be relayed and mined, if they pass the size limit, they will not be relayed by nodes and therefore will have lower chances to be mined.

The idiots that create Inscriptions have an option, though. They can negotiate with miners to increase their group limit size and relay between themselves until that miner/mining pool finds a block and mine their shitcoins/shittokens.

-------

What that implies is, if most of the nodes set an extra data limit very low, it will prevent Inscriptions from been relayed and mined, but that would be a choice of the majority node runners. And that is amazing, cause that is how it should work.

If the majority of node runners organize and configure their nodes to avoid Inscriptions, that's it, no discussion, the network came to consensus and decided.


Miners do have heavy weight in those kinds of decisions, node runners throughout the network also have. If node runners decide to lower their extra data size limit, but miners keep their limit high, it would still increase the difficulty to Inscriptions to be relayed and get to a miner.

-------

Bitcoin Blockchain space is scarce enough for serious Financial transactions and real world settlements, artificially increasing mining fees with these spams only make things more difficult and noisy. The solution proposed by Luke in his post is too soft, in my opinion a more radial proposal should be raised to avoid kids playing with Blockchain space, otherwise the purpose of Bitcoin is at risk.

There is no efficient second layer solution for micro-payments yet, the mining fees as they are now is prohibitive for people to loading their Lightning wallets without paying 10$ to get some money in there.

I think those idiots exploiting the blockchain and Taproot to create shitcoins and shit tokens and shit 80's looking images should be blocked as soon as possible and Bitcoin used for its main purpose which is to be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

There are more people affected by Ordinals and Inscriptions, people who manage or participate in signature campaigns paid in BTC in Bitcointalk is only small part of Bitcoin users.

The more affected people are people who are spending money for those inscriptions and tokens of those BRC20 projects. They soon will lose money and we know in cryptocurrency market, losers are more than winners. They are joining this wave with FOMO and if they don't have cold mind to leave at the right time, they will stuck and lose money like what happened with GameFi, NFT, Metaverse tokens and their NFTs.

This comeback wave of Ordinals is really annoying and troubling for normal Bitcoin users and I wish the developer and community team will reach to a consensus to prevent it to happen. Recent months, miners are happy and they will feel disappointed a bit if any change happens that cause lower mining income for them.

Inscriptions, mempools and miners (https://insights.glassnode.com/the-week-onchain-week-39-2023/).

This is not arbitrary. Satoshi created Bitcoin to be p2p electronic cash. De-facto it's used as a speculative investment or store of value. Most of users are not interested in Bitcoin also being a network for smart contracts, tokens and other unnecessary stuff.

Bitcoin is first of all a community of users who agree on the same rules. It's time to update the rules to remove the unproductive nuisance that is driving the fees up for all users.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, because if someone thinks that the network rules should never change, they can just run the old version and form a network with like-minded users.

Inscriptions, Ordinals, NFTs - they are all information that can be stored in the blockchain one way or another.  Even if you successfully convince every node of the network to censor them, it will not take much until they start looking more like regular monetary transactions.


Who decides what is unproductive?  And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

funny how "anti-censorship" guys think memejunk is allowed but people paying a conservative fee are not allowed (mempool pruning low fee)

how about a way to just target the meme junk/brc junk and penalise only them to have to pay more
how about a way to just target the spammers respending every 1-100 confirms pay more

that way it targets the nuisance
nuisance= transactions not normal to bitcoin that take space away from normal people
EG no one uses their debit card every 10 minutes 24/7 normal people use it 2 times a day on average.

You can be excellent in doing one or two things but when you try to be everything to everybody then you are a master of none.

You can be mediocre at doing many things or extremely good at doing one or two things. Bitcoin should be the latter not the former.

Don't try to make Bitcoin a jack of all trades otherwise Bitcoin will end up being like ethereum promoting endless number of crapcoins and memecoins and worthless NFTs.

If you want to be like ethereum or you want to buy and sell NFTs then use fucking ethereum but stay away from Bitcoin! Bitcoin should be Bitcoin don't try to turn it into  Ethereum or Dogecoin!

When you try to turn Bitcoin into ethereum you will attract scammers and hackers, you increase the attack vectors by making it overcomplicated which is why ethereum related projects and dapps are constantly geting hacked and drained of funds.

Bitcoin is extremely secure because it is simple. When you add too much crap on top of it you increase the attack surfaces and it is no longer secure.

And then you are just giving the perfect reason for regulators to come in and shut it down and giving the government the perfect excuse it needs to go in and shut it down.

I'm very disappointed in people who still insist on using the misleading term "censorship" to describe "preventing an exploit in the protocol".

It is even more odd when you realize that for the past decade that we have been limiting a wide variety of things in Bitcoin including transaction and script sizes, nobody complained nor called it "censorship". And yet they have a double standard when it comes to the Ordinals Attack that is exploiting the new changes in the protocol to inject arbitrary data into the blockchain.

I'm honestly very surprised and disappointed.

This is not a Bitcoin Core fix but it's a Bitcoin Knots fix. My view is that if they do not unplug Ordinals, they should at least severely restrict Ordinals transactions since they are not that important to bitcoin and are mainly being used for spam.

Also does anyone know whether Luke-jr has updated his PGP public key, ever since that server hack that compromised his coins? I probably would abstain from downloading anything on his site for now until that's done.

There is no need to censor Ordinals, NFTs and Inscriptions
because of their congestion of Blockchain network I think Bitcoin developers should devise a major means of addressing the issue once and for all, of course miners are earning well from from the congestion they would kicked against any form of censorship so the way forward is the responsibility of Bitcoin developers and if not addressed appropriately global adoption of Bitcoin would suffer some setup because of high transaction fee and delays if the transaction fee is small for miners to process the transaction.

So build one. The correct solution to too many transactions and too high fees is to increase throughput or move more transactions to a second layer, not to exclude a whole bunch of transactions that some people subjectively consider to be spam.

How can it be peer to peer when third parties can ban your transactions?

I agree that ordinals are unproductive nuisance. However, I also think centralized exchanges are unproductive nuisance, and they spam the mempool with huge consolidation transactions all the time. Can we remove them? And what about dust attacks? Why haven't we removed them yet? Surely everyone agrees they are spam? What about things like Counterparty, Stacks, or RSK? Surely they are all spam as well? And should we ban OP_RETURN outputs while we are at it?

"Unproductive nuisance" is subjective. I complete agree ordinals are unproductive nuisance, but we should not be dictating how other people are and are not allowed to use bitcoin.

So let's say we eliminate this "exploit". There is nothing stopping the whole ordinals thing from moving to a different way to encode their data in the blockchain. You can encode data within public keys themselves, which makes it indistinguishable from random data. Here's a Counterparty based project (https://github.com/mikeinspace/stamps/blob/main/BitcoinStamps.md) transaction which encodes data as bare multi-sig outputs: https://mempool.space/tx/ee9ed76fa2318deb63a24082a8edc73e4ea39a5252bfb1c1e1c02bd02c52f95f. This method takes up even more space than the current method being used by ordinals, so this would make spam better, not worse.

Do we just keep banning "exploits" until only transactions we deem appropriate are allowed? That sounds like censorship to me.

This is one for the best news if not the best in this year. Really this ordinals make some altcoins to boom and those coins are making mouth now. These ordinals make things unbearable to the pro bitcoins and it was making people to do fasting because of the high transaction so they could not pay the high transaction fee and also those who were accepting bitcoin in businesses also suspend it because they can't pay the high fee. Bitcoin should create it Network isolation from the other unproductive network from itself. Whenever the blockchain is congested, it affect many people in the network. And it is those who store their bitcoins for a long time goal will not feel the  impact.

What is the exploit?  Storing arbitrary data in blockchain?  But that is possible by encoding it in public keys and through other means. 

No, I don't have the skills, but I'm a node runner and a Bitcoin user so I can talk whatever I want about it anyway. This is a discussion forum, I'm not on the development section if you didn't notice.

Nobody "subjectively" consider anything to be spam. It is spam because block space is being used for things that are not related to "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". This is Satoshi's description of what the system is, and introducing ways to inject more data into the blockchain for a variety of purposes will dimm the main purpose down until its just another shitcoin that only big companies can afford to run nodes.


The proposal is not to ban transactions, the proposal is to avoid or make expensive to make "Inscriptions" inside transactions.
The transfer of UTXOs from one address to the other is not under discussion here.

??? I've never once suggested anybody should stop talking about this. I'm simply pointing out that banning transactions you don't like isn't a viable long term solution to reducing fees.

Which is your opinion. People who use ordinals are of the opinion it is not spam. I happen to agree with you - ordinals are completely worthless spam - but I don't for a second believe that my opinion is the objective truth and everyone should do what I say.

If your barometer for what is spam is anything which isn't in keeping with "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system", then we also need to ban all transactions from centralized exchanges, since they are not peer to peer either.

They already pay for the space they use just like everyone else. And at the current fee rates, that is very expensive indeed.

So as I've pointed out above, you can transfer UTXOs from one address to the other and embed arbitrary data in the public key (or even in the signature). It's impossible to ban that without hard forking to introduce some new zero knowledge proof that someone knows the private key of any address before coins are sent to it.

And it would still not be enough.  Information can be included in OP_RETURN and coinbase transactions.  You would need to completely eliminate these and introduce a ZK proof that cannot be "exploited" either.  Needless to say that this kind of hard fork would slow down everything and would take up space (which we are trying to save with this hypothetical proposal... ?).  


Even that is considered censorship to an extent.  If we start treating some transactions as "less worthy" and introduce some "expense-meter" for their "usefulness", it will open a Pandora's box.

I am simple man.  I would never want to justify my financial actions in the Bitcoin network.  "Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you".

Bitcoin was not built to only serve criminals or to censor money flow through Bitcoin transactions from criminals. Initially it was not built for this and many years from 2009 to 2023, this core vision was intact.

The development and appearance of BRC20 Ordinals and useless Inscriptions cause a lot of issues for Bitcoin users. Hate it or not, I disagree with any effort of censorship because I agree with your analysis. If they can censor transactions from Ordinals or sanctioned countries, they can do more than that.

Will the Bitcoin community come to another point to fork?
One chain with censorship.
One chain without censorship.

I will support the non-censorship chain and hope that it will be a longest chain.

The only people that can stop this thing is the miners themselves, but I didn't see that happening because miners are in support as they are making money off the transactions, to them it's like a dream come true, because making more money is what makes miners to keep mining.

They will have to find a solution if they want, but right now I don't see any thing solving this, too much money already move into Ordinals and many will make a lot through it in the next bull market, it has the hype already and with the affection of value by price increase from Bitcoin, this is surely going to be the next thing people will invest their money into after Bitcoin.

I still don't like that I have to pay big to move my Bitcoin around but at this point what can I do about it? I choose Bitcoin as a good store of value, and I am fine with keeping my money in Bitcoin, for now, I also don't see this changing anytime in future, I guess we have to get used to the ups and down in the transaction fee just like the volatility in value as well.

And now this developer some of you are cheering for has inadvertently managed to block Whirlpool coinjoin transactions (https://nitter.cz/SamouraiWallet/status/1732584009442443336) in pools predominantly running a Knots client.

Look what happens when you think you get to play judge, jury and executioner.  

And what happens when it's suddenly your transactions that start getting blocked by mistake because you're too stupid to realise what you're advocating for in trying to block Ordinals?  Will you finally see the light when you're caught in the crossfire?  

Idiots.

If they listen to reason that is, they'll definitely agree or there's going to be some concessions about all of this plus the transaction fees can go high even without the ordinals anyway so I don't think that the miners are going to struggle too much about them. Are you like a developer too? That your solution is to find other complicated stuff when there's the solution in front of you already? Kidding aside though, miners would probably keep milking these ordinals as it's a really good way for them to make more money for themselves.

If they are looking into the future and not living in a day they will accept this change. Yes, they will receive a bit less in fees today, but they will earn more from legitimate transactions tomorrow. This consensus is important because it will stop the monkey pic spammers once and for all.

I think this news is not a positive news for only the signature earners of the forum alone, the bitcoin transaction has been a mess that past few weeks and I get angry when my transactions takes forever even after paying a good amount of fees but miners neglect it and go for larger fees. This will reduce numbers of unconfirm transactions and completely remove everything that has to do with with ordinals because it seems more and more ordinals are coming to the network and miners are the only people benefiting from this crappy creativity, just spamming the bitcoin network.

If ordinals want to have something like other chains, they should move down to Ethereum chain or Binance smart chain where the fees are lower, they can do all the shitcoins there and spam there network as they like but I believe that after the halving, this shitcoins and meme ordinals will die just like we now have meme as regrettable investments by some people that once love them.

We, the users. If a new Core release will "censor" the ordinals, I will use it and I'm sure a lot of current users would use it too. Those who strongly disagree with this decision can use the older version and hope that some miners will mine on the old chain.


Bitcoin wasn't created to make some abstract "transactions", it was created to transfer monetary value, not some made-up tokens.

sometimes the line between a bug and "not a bug" gets blurred and becomes a grey area especially when developers don't address it openly and officially. but i guess that's what you get with bitcoin is a grey area of use cases. which is unfortunate for everyone because there's no guarantee that at some point some bitcoin dictator might take over development and stomp out ordinals or things like it. leaving people that invested in that feature holding a broken dream.

example: the inflation bug they really acted on that fast. if they would have just sat around doing nothing and letting people abuse it then that would be how it has been going with ordinals.

and yet, bitcoin is up to a year high even with all the ordinals crap. maybe that's why it is. more use cases.  :o

Bitcoin Knots makes up less than half a percent of active Bitcoin nodes and the only pool using it for mining also has minuscule hashrate. This won't put an effective end to Ordinals but there is widespread agreement that these types of transactions are considered spam so it's possible we might see Bitcoin Core make similar changes. It will also depend on whether mining pools adopt this policy to filter spam transactions.

Earlier this year Monero adopted a similar change after the Monero Ordinals Project was created. For a blockchain as popular as Bitcoin, with many competing interests, I expect there will be a lot more pushback. Some will argue that it's a slippery slope that can lead to other types of transactions not being accepted. Miners could also object and say that higher fees are good for network security.

Well, just because we can't eliminate all forms of abuse and patch all vulnerabilities, it does not mean we should not try to fix the fixable parts of the protocol where it is vulnerable and is being exploited.

With that said, other methods of abusing bitcoin are already facing a lot of limitations making them inefficient ways of spamming the network in comparison to the Ordinals exploit that is basically facing only one limit which is the block weight and is so much cheaper.

Centralized exchanges and other entities are a natural part of the Bitcoin ecosystem, so it's not a spam.



Dust attacks are not profitable, so they don't clog the network as bad as ordinals do. In their case the fee market is doing a good job at preventing them from disrupting the core use case - sending money.


Well if they were as popular and problematic as ordianls, they should have been treated as a bug too. Bitcoin is not Ethereum, it should be a network for money transferring, not for creating digital assets out of thin air.


Bitcoin's only function should be sending money, and we shouldn't dictate how people send money, but I see no reasons why we shouldn't disable the possibility of transactions that in their nature are not about transferring money but do something else, like creating and operating with tokens.

What we have here is a clash of visions about what bitcoin should be, with one side thinking that even if Ordinals are an eyesore they should be allowed even if sometimes they inconveniences the rest of the users, while on the other side we have those that believe bitcoin should concentrate on just doing a few things and do them well, and if that excludes Ordinals so be it, and while both sides have their good points I lean more towards the latter, since I think anyone that wants to create some tokens can use any other network which was created with that express purpose and leave bitcoin alone.

Even when we're already seeing cases of collateral damage?  Purely financial transactions are currently being impacted on the Bitcoin network because LukeJr is trying to create a hostile environment for non-financial transactions.  If you try to make more things 'non-standard', it has significant consequences for legitimate use-cases as well.  If you don't recognise the danger when when you're watching it unfold right In front of you, then I have to question what's wrong with your brain?

No, we do not.  We never did.  This is not a majority-decides-what-to-censor type of network, it is a censorship resistant.  Period.  I do not care about any transaction beyond mine.


What is the big deal with allowing a fraction of the block space to be used for abstract transactions?  You are not paying for them.  You are just keeping them in your disk space, like the rest of the transactions.


How was it called in the whitepaper?  Peer-to-peer something.

Giving up custody of your coins to third parties is not a natural part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. 

In this case, the majority is clearly AGAINST monkey pics, only retarded token creators/buyers support them. And miners, for obvious reasons.  ;D


Yes, but we came to the point when "abstract transactions" are allowing a fraction of the block space to be used for legit transactions! In fact, they're not! They're using up 120% of mempool themselves.  ;D


Perhaps, but they're not causing chaos on the blockchain by ddosing the shit out of it and they actually serve some purpose.

Storing arbitrary data in public keys and other means usually is far more costly than using witness data though, which discourage many people from doing it.


I have doubt Bitcoin Core would do something like that. And FWIW mining pool probably use their custom full node software.
[/quote]

If by collateral damage you mean the tweet you shared in your other post[1], I can't tell how that is related to preventing the Ordinals spam by patching the exploit because it seems like a mining pool refused to mine a CoinJoin transaction which is an entirely different discussion specially since they are arguing over the weird limit their pool sets on OP_RETURN which is another unrelated matter here!!!

Other than that if you have an actual case of a "collateral damage" caused by preventing spammers (namely the Ordinals scammers) from exploiting the Bitcoin protocol, please share the actual case with the actual transaction so that we can analyze it and improve the preventing measures.

[1] https://nitter.cz/SamouraiWallet/status/1732584009442443336

So?  Censorship resistant as long as the majority is OK?  Lmao.


We have a very different understanding of DDoS.


It is also far more costly for the full node user.  Can you imagine the millions of permantly unspendable TXO?

Well , seems that you only read the title and not the whole whitepaper . Look at references 3 and 4 , satoshi pointed there are things that can be done through script , infact he was the first to inject arbitrary data on chain .

This was already discussed before. A small number of developers (most notably Luke Dashjr) want to censor Ordinals inscriptions on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's a contentious subject among community members, especially when it goes against Bitcoin's principles. While the filter is beneficial for users (lower fees, and reduced confirmation time), it's certainly harmful for miners. Especially when they'll be losing the ability to earn some extra money.

How Bitcoin would go forward from now on, is a mystery. It would best to have Ordinals on Bitcoin, while keeping on-chain fees as low as possible. The only solution to this would be to increase the block size (which means greater transaction capacity). Or developers can introduce the filter, and provide a way for Ordinals inscriptions to move to a sidechain or even the LN itself. Lets hope everything goes back to normal by 2024. Just my thoughts ;D

When you write a paper you always refer to other work that was done and share similarity with your new work. When Satoshi was explaining what a "timestamp server" is he referred to 4 other works done in that topic (references 2 to 5) in the past. That doesn't mean Bitcoin is meant to be used as cloud storage just because these references exist in the paper!!!

And he did it within the protocol rules not by exploiting them. In fact he used the strictest one that allows the miner to insert a tiny message (max 100 bytes) in the coinbase of the block they work hard to find.

again the solution is not "lets move over to a subnetwork/altcoin"
again the solution is not "do nothing just pay more fees"

for even the "lets not censor transactions" crowd
for even the "lets not make fee's higher" crowd

ther real solution is simple
these junk/spam are easy it spot and audit in code
a. they use particular opcodes
b. they respend young coins(low confirms)

so penalise certain opcode usage and low confirm UTXO spending. whereby only the spammers and junkers pay more then a base fe everyone else pays. and yes it can be enforced. thats what is great about code

i do have to laugh at certain trolls that prefer to want the junk/spam to continue so that people decide to not use bitcoin in favour of other networks trolls promote.
they dont want memes and spam censored but they do want small payment censored

Remember:
My censorship is good, your is bad!
My opinion is good, the other's is flawed.

Ironically, decentralization both work with censorship and fails with it, as everyone is free to censor if they want as Luke does and at the same time they can ignore it,  but again it's a play of numbers if Luke gets most of the  hashrate on his pool the whole decentralization turns into quasi centralization.
Really fun times to watch this, I wonder what's the plan to clean the mempool once 1 millions "legit" users will try to use the chain, ar we going to have health check on the tx or credit score attached? What is he going to ban next?


Wait till he is going to put a limit on the amount of tx that are generated from a single address, more than one loaf a bread two transactions a day is immoral.

Strange , i thought that script gives that opportunity to use bitcoin as a cloud timestamped storage ( magnificent thought huh ? ) . Imagine downloading something that's 100% safe from a reliable source ? Or many other usecases that could change the world ? Of course , not every one could afford a node to validate it's own transactions ( i thought that's what mining nodes purpose is ) , so probably satoshi didn't think of it well . Everyone should have the right to his own node , period .

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/12/08/E2VyG.png (https://www.talkimg.com/image/E2VyG)

Inefficient yes, but still entirely possible. If requiring them to pay a bit more or even double per transaction than they are paying now by forcing them to use a less efficient method of embedding their data is enough to kill ordinals, then they will easily burn themselves out on the current fee market and we don't need to censor them at all.

Exactly my point. You think centralized exchanges aren't spam; I think they are. These are subjective opinions. We might agree that ordinals are spam, but there are plenty of others who disagree with us.

So we are quite happy with unproductive nuisance until it affects the fees that a particular group of users have to pay, at which point that particular group of users will seek to ban it? That is not the makings of a decentralized system.

Then you need to campaign to remove things like OP_RETURN outputs and all burn addresses, and introduce zero knowledge proof of keys for every transaction as I explained above so you can prove that you are sending money to a known private key, which would require more block space and fees than ordinals do. And what about things like coinjoin transactions then, which are already caught in the crossfire of this nonsense? You are just moving your money around with coinjoins, not sending it to anyone else. Do we ban those too? Or consolidation transactions? What about if I want to move money from one wallet to another? Who gets to decide what is a legitimate use case and what isn't?

My point is that as soon as you start placing arbitrary limits on other people's use cases, then other people can use the exact same reasoning to start placing limits on your use case. Bitcoin is supposed to be about freedom, not freedom as long as you use it in a way we like.

Next up - fees are too high to make a transaction every time you want to pay for something, so instead store your coins on an account with this centralized third party who can then pay other people with an account with them instantly and with zero fees. We could call it a "bank". Problem solved!

I don't see that it is unrelated.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only two possible outcomes here.  Either:

a)  LukeJr is somehow unaware that 42 bytes and 83 bytes are not the same value and he's some sort of putz

or

b)  LukeJr knowingly reduced the permitted size of OP_RETURN data in his Bitcoin Knots client (which that pool are using) because he wants to create a hostile environment for non-standard transactions and managed to unwittingly nuke some coinjoin transactions by mistake. 

It's not necessarily that the pool are refusing to mine those transactions, it's that the software they're running simply doesn't recognise those transactions.  All because a developer tried to make things more restrictive and didn't think it through to conclusion.

If you don't believe your opinion is better than other opinions without anyone convincing you that other opinion is better yet, than you have no opinion at all.


I think the point been discussed is about "purpose". The purpose that brings passion to Bitcoin is having a "coin", means of exchange, store of value, that is independent from state and gives people sovereignty on their own money.
Seeing the blockchain created for this purpose been used as a cloud-driver to store images and non-monetary tokens or data in general is very painful.

The question is, if ordinals and inscriptions in general are bringing harm to bitcoin in any way, preventing its usage as money, isn't this something worth doing something about? Block space is been flooded with images (memes, useless), and jsons creating tickers that represent nothing in reality. This is Ethereum business, not bitcoin.

I don't mean a hard-fork, or a soft fork, I really don't know, but I think it worth discussing without throwing out that anything related with discussing this would be "censorship".



Yes, they pay for it, as I pay for Google Drive space or iCloud... they are using my node as a cloud storage and paying for someone that's not me. It's expensive and unfair with "amateur" node runners, with their 1 TB storage and a raspberry pi.

At some point this might push these small node runners out of the network and make Bitcoin less decentralized.


Before Taproot we didn't have anyone trying to play Ethereum on Bitcoin, because it didn't worth the effort. After Taproot, what can be done to make annoying, difficult or unprofitable to save images of dogs in the blockchain?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5474329.msg63178394#msg63178394

Or this limit existed in Bitcoin Knots for a very long time (maybe from the very beginning) and is not a new thing this implementation of the protocol is enforcing as standard rule. Here is a random oldest version I could find from 8 years ago with the 42 byte limit present:
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/v0.12.1.knots20160629.rc2/src/script/standard.h#L30

The exploit is that you configure your node to not accept extra data over 40 bytes, but the way this data is put in the transaction inscription make your node accept extra data over 40 bytes and relay it.

The correction would make the node configuration be respected and not accept anything over the size you configured you want to accept.

I've made my opinions completely clear - ordinals are spam, but we shouldn't be censoring them. Censoring transactions based on some people's opinions is what happens in fiat, not in bitcoin.

Yes absolutely, but censorship is not the solution. If the bitcoin network cannot handle a small handful of users sending ordinals, how is it ever supposed to scale to a global currency? What will we do when fees are 1,000 sats/vbyte because 100 million people are using bitcoin? Censor entire countries? Or maybe censor everyone involved with political causes we don't like?

The solution is not to censor - it's to figure out how to scale better.

I don't see how you can call it anything else. There are transactions that we don't like, and we are discussing how to ban those transactions from happening.

The natural state of the bitcoin network is to have a competitive fee market with consistently full blocks. This is the only way the network will stay secure once the block subsidy is near zero. Whether those blocks are filled with regular transactions or ordinals is irrelevant to the rate of growth of the blockchain. And a quick Amazon search shows an 8TB hard drive for less than $100, which will take decades to fill.

The variable in question is placing a limit on OP_RETURN data. Ordinals do not use OP_RETURN data; they put their data within the witness.

many valid 'standard' transactions use opcodes(subclass: sigops) that have actual validation conditions of requiring signatures in witness of a certain format that meets most updated policy
ordinals junk use opcodes that dont look for specific conditions and just treats as valid without checking content
code can be used to recognise someone using the unconditional opcodes and set expectations of extreme fees if people use opcodes without the conditions of actual signing proof validations

but you do raise a genuine hurdle about the multisig usage of spare keyspace eg the 3rd key as a dataspace of a 2-of-3 multisig

i ages ago mentioned to ordinals crowd to put hashID of a junk meme into multisig as a way to show proof of transfer within an output instead of appended witness metadata.. but i didnt think of the implications of them actually doing it nor did i think about counter techniques/fixes to identify junk in the spare keyspace, where they then use hundreds of multisigs to have small snippets of junk that patch/join together to form a complete junk meme.
i suppose limit the amount of outputs per tx or charge multiples of base fee for those that use more outputs(penalise th bloaters)

even something like if tx more then 500byte 2x. if tx over 2kb 20x

So satoshi referenced 2 out of 8 whitepapers related to digital timestamping , one specifically for documents , photos , videos , coded a part of script to be used exactly for that use , used it in the genesis block , and i should stand with your view of how things might have been . Nope . Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

Huh...  I stand corrected.  Apologies.

So the timing of this is just a super bizarre coincidence?  I'm really confused now. 

Still, it highlights the importance of how careful we have to be.  If clients are disregarding certain transactions when devs aren't even trying to crackdown on ordinals, imagine the potential for mistakes when they are trying and start making deliberate changes.

Particularly when it comes to coinjoins.  In this current climate, when we're attempting to shift attention away from centralised mixers, we have to do everything possible to nurture and encourage coinjoins.  We absolutely do not need the drama of such transactions being blocked right now.  The timing of this really is unfortunate.

I still urge the angry mob to put down their pitchforks and torches and pause to consider the ramifications here.

I really hope that the guys who are fighting against the Ordinals will succeed. Because this is a real problem! As you correctly wrote - many managers pay an additional commission to send out weekly rewards, some campaigns are closed - and all this is because of the stupid Ordinals.
I, like many crypto enthusiasts, love to trade Bitcoin and in order to transfer Bitcoin from my wallet to the exchange I had to pay 60 dollars! And there are no ways to get around this because swaps inside wallets do not work, and lightning and transaction accelerators cannot solve the problem. In general, as soon as the Ordinals are finished, it will be a big celebration.

That's what it comes down to, whether you can keep your campaign and get that $50 a week so you can order a pizza or DCA into the next bull run, so that, hopefully, you turn it into a $100 and can take your girlfriend out. Ban all the ordinals, censor the network, because if it continues my manager could reduce the participants in the campaign and I'll get kicked out. Censor the network because I have to pay $5 more each time I send bitcoin!

That's what you get for being impatient and overpaying. My recent transaction was 120 s/b and came down to around $11.

They do. Be honest, you're not using LN at all, am I right?

Bitcoiners seem to have this argument where they’re against using the blockchain for purposes that they don’t seem worthy while ignoring all other opinions. If Ordinals are banned from the blockchain, I think Lightning should get the same treatment. I never signed up for giving block space to some other layer of privately patented transactions. The fact one company pushing their patents is making these decisions is the single worst thing that has ever happened to Bitcoin.

Seems like Knots reduced the limit from 83 to 42 ages ago, but it never made any difference to anything since no miners were using Knots and any transactions the few Knots nodes ignored simply routed around those nodes between Core nodes.

Who says this isn't deliberate? Dashjr holds a lot of outright crazy views and has previously used his mining pool (Eligius) to censor transactions he personally doesn't agree with. He's called all forms of mixing money laundering in the past, so I'm sure he has no problems at all censoring coinjoin transactions. Just another step towards governmental control of bitcoin.

and yet when luke came up with a way to fasttrack segwit activation which opened up the exploit ordinals now uses.. everyone including doomad was super happy to see the rush-job get mandated in within a few months

maybe doomad has learned a lesson.. but i doubt it..
however now when people want exploits closed, bugs fixed or even just penalise those using the exploit . the guys that supported fasttrack activations are now playing the long-con game of saying "leave it alone"

If we agree on the basic assumption that Bitcoin is a protocol for sending money and agree that we shouldn't dictate what people do with their money, then it's logical rather than subjective to say that exchanges are not spam, even if you think that they are unnecessary or inefficient. But ordinals are "spam" or rather a misuse of the protocol, and the existing mechanism of preventing wasteful use (fee market) fails because ordinals are profitable.


If the cost of solving the problem is larger than the benefits then the solution should be postponed.

I guess it’s due time, had high hopes for Ordinals too since they were really onto something with the bitcoin but NFT narrative. Although I must say, the problem they posed against the regular bitcoin investor’s a little too much to bear even with how much “revolutionary” the bitcoin ordinal system has been. In any case, this is for the better at least in the grand scheme of things since NFTs are pretty much dead now anyway and ordinals have been a little bit of a problem to the industry now.

Just hoping a similarly revolutionary thing’s to come up to bitcoin soon enough, I know bitcoin’s too big to fail now but having a new feature here and there’s not gonna hurt right?

It hasn't been about monkey pics for months. 99% of ordinals transactions are for BRC-20 tokens, soon to be 99.9%.


Its 100% related. Luke's Bitcoin Knots lowered its limit on OP_RETURN in order to ignore transactions he considers "spam", which is what you think ordinals transactions are, so what's the difference?

Not that his efforts will matter much in the long run. For starters, its economically inefficient to ignore transactions with high fees. It will zap the incentive out of the majority of miners, so his pool will never get very big. But lets say for whatever reason his mining pool becomes bigger and mines 1 out of every 10 blocks. That means Ordinals, Counterparty, Omni, etc. user will have to wait 1 minute extra on average for their transactions to be confirmed.

Not really a big deal.

it's only a problem to you if you're being affected by it. but it's not necessarily a problem for everyone. make the distinction.
that's all quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of the entire bitcoin ecosystem though. as you very well know...


it won't be able to. so i guess in that sense, ordinals is a good little test case for if bitcoin got really popular and alot of people started using it. what have we learned? people will complain!  :o

probably there would be people wanting those things to happen. as for me, if the fees just got to be too much well, i'll have to use some other way to "send money". that's all. i have a utilitarian view of bitcoin in the sense that what can it help me do, not what can it help me make. can it help me send money fast and cheap? if so then i might like it...

that's crazy. most people don't even have any idea what BRC-20 is or anything...all I know is people are using it like a token to pump and dump like an Eth token. scam stuff. but here and there maybe some of them pump and some people win and some people lose.

the way the fee system works.. everyone is penalised equally when some idiot wants to take up too much space
ordinals affects everyone..

this can be fixed where only the bloaters or young confirm spammers can be penalised to pay the most. thus making THEM transact less so that everyone else can transact more

Not everyone is penalised . There were always two groups in bitcoin , miners and users . In the way btc chose there will always be one group pleased and as the time goes those group will be either extremely happy or extremely pissed . Currently miners are the ones cheering with the unexpected increase in earnings and users are crying . In upcoming halvings if the users will be happy that will mean miners will be crying . The fee market is a lost case but maxis still insist on it . In fact , what they want is to make people move on their L2's ( which even their devs saying that can't work in a massive scale ) and make them use their "wrapped" btc . Or even more , if i want to get into conspiracy theories , that bitcoin is a failed experiment .  
As i said in the past , pools are the most happy than all . They get insane profits , especially those that don't share fees , and they don't have to spend a single penny . A rapspi will do the job . That's what equality and left ideology does . Bitcoin was never about equality .

Good news. It was pretty ridiculous to pay $10-20 to send $100 bucks. Bitcoin is supposed to be better and cheaper than the banks. Paying $5-10 to send $50 ain’t cheap. If this shit continues bitcoin will probably lose all the main network usability. One might offer LN as a solution and I am kind of OK with that too but LN mostly operates on custodial wallets. Most people will never run their own LN channels. It is so easy to own a bitcoin address on electrum on the other hand and you have the full control over your funds. Just for this reason alone main network beats off-chain.

miners are not happy
they do not earn 6.25+0.5
miners are not the pool manager, miners are the "workers" where by if there are 100,000 workers(asic owners)
earn 0.00006750 which they wont withdraw instantly, freely because the fee eats into their earnings

dont be so sure
RIOT a group that done alot if inhouse-mining on its pool. is in deep financial trouble

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/12/09/EuFNl.md.png (https://www.talkimg.com/image/EuFNl)


Never heard of riot owns a pool . Any link ?
According to my knowledge , big mining farms were in trouble during the low fee and low price period . Probably now they're on the positives . Of course , if btc doesn't double in price or double in fees , in the next halving problems for miners group will start to emerge .

miners were fine at $17k/btc.. the network was working and fee's were low
[market doubles]
[meme junk escalated]
miners were fine at $34k/btc.. the network was working and fee's were low
[market x1.3x]
[json junk escalated]
turmoil!! disaster!! PANIC!! "we must save the miners" (the naive crowd shouts)
turmoil!! disaster!! PANIC!! "let the spam junk continue.. miners need the money" (the naive crowd shouts)
franky1 (facepalm) (facepalm)
..
every halving(one year prior), we have naive crowds thinking that fee's need to pay for the missing other reward half..
then a year after halving, when the ATH spot market reaction does more then 2x multiple, everyone calms down realising the spot market takes care of things

and yes in 2015-17 there were many debates about fee's being too high(when fee's were just $0.15) and naive crowds screaming that miners need it "coz halving!!!!"
jan 2016 spot was <$300
jan 2017 spot was <$800  ... the market took care of itself even without the 2017 ATH

and yes in 2011-12 there were many debates about first halving and naive crowds screaming that miners need it "coz halving!!!!"
jan 2012 spot was <$4
jan 2013 spot was <$14  ... the market took care of itself even without the 2013 ATH

Can't have it both ways. If you declare other peoples' use cases as spam and decide to ban them, then you are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot do.

The protocol is for peer to peer electronic cash. Centralized exchanges are not peer to peer, ergo they are a misuse of the protocol as well and should be banned.

I'm obviously being facetious here to make a point, but the point is that anyone can argue that anyone else's use case is spam. What makes your claim that ordinals are spam objective truth which must be acted upon, while anyone else's claim that something else is spam subjective opinion which must be ignored?

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Using OP_RETURN also doesn't bloat the UTXO set, which I'd argue is more important than limiting the growth of the size of the blockchain.

If Ordinals are a misuse, then storing arbitrary data in general should be prohibited while that is pretty much possible since v0.1.  I would argue it is not a misuse, it is just considered spam based on your criteria. 


Sure, but this brings us back to the point.  You cannot dictate how people use Bitcoin.  You would never prohibit someone from using Legacy, so why prohibiting someone from doing that?

Good point. Since BRC-20 become popular, UTXO growth at far faster pace.


I get your point, but in practice there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.

So I took franky1 off ignore for a few seconds to see what hilariously irrational drivel he was spouting and I certainly wasn't disappointed.  He now wants to maintain the stance that Core devs are simultaneously holding Bitcoin back, but at the same time rushing changes through too quickly.   :D

Classic.

Back on ignore you go, you spectacular fucking kook.

---

And that's fine.  But if people are going to advocate for continually moving the goalposts on what those limits are, purely because they want to prevent a certain type of transaction, that's still a road to disaster in my view.

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

Outside of limiting taproot script length (which could have its own follies we as non-devs haven't considered), anyone who believes the "spam" can be stopped by fine tuning or placing certain limitations within Core is sorely mistaken. The exact same argument was happening around the launch of Counterparty in early 2014, and the Counterparty devs told the Bitcoin devs, fine, do what you want, we will find ways around it. There's a number of different ways to add arbitrary data to transactions, and there always will be.


Some things never change...

The exploit Ordinals Attackers are using is not related to OP_RETURN and if it did we would have never had this problem to begin with because:
- OP_RETURN is part of the protocol that everyone has agreed with. Ordinals is not part of the protocol and only scammers like it.
- using OP_RETURN is not an "exploit" while what they call Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol, an oversight by the developers introducing SegWit
- most importantly OP_RETURN has a limit on how much arbitrary data you can push to the chain while the exploit Ordinals attack is using has virtually no limit
- even more importantly OP_RETURN does not create UTXO bloat since said outputs are provably unspendeable while Ordinals attack will create dust outputs that can not be spent nor be pruned.

It sucks when creativity has a downwind. Maybe it's different if the dev was intending on this, but if not it's a sad situation.
But if your projects so disruptive that core devs are having to pencil you out you probably knew better.
I don't see many supporters of it here witch leads me to wonder what the hell made it take off?
I've kinda been under a rock this year and not fully with the program.

I don't understand why everyone is surprised about this?
Luke developed Knots, he randomly put 42 in there ages ago based only on his way of thinking how the world should function, why is such a big surprise his new work is based on his previous one and keeps the same limits and numbers?


Were you mining at those prices?
What was the income per kwh spent?
What was the ROI for $100 invested?
What were the operational loses the biggest companies had last year?

To me it will be a battle between "Miners Greed" vs "Censorship of tx's"  .. because the changes needs the full nodes to accept it..and they do not really care for the Blockchain spamming, because it increases the tx fees.  ::)

The problem with this is the exploitation of the loopholes for other spam attacks or projects like this that are spamming the network with useless transactions.  :P

Removing ordinals from Bitcoin is a necessary step. Ordinals are a useless feature that only clogs the network with unnecessary transactions. They increase transaction fees and decrease network efficiency.

However, removing ordinals will also mean a significant loss of income for miners. Currently, miners receive an additional fee for each transaction with an ordinal. Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction. I believe that removing ordinals is necessary to improve the scalability and efficiency of Bitcoin. Miners will need to find other ways to make money, such as through higher transaction fees for high-priority transactions or through other services like staking or mining pools.

they want to rush/force-merge/mandate when it suits their core roadmap sponsored plan..
they delay, make excuses and pretend not to be devs but only janitors when community make suggestions that dont fit their plan..
and you love how they do their own thing that is sponsor paid and ignore things that are community desired.


the network was running fine at $17k yet people are screaming miner poverty at $43k

if its not profitable to mine because you live on a pacific island/high electric cost region. then obvious option is to buy bitcoin while its below your mining cost
thats how the market dynamics works. if market is too cheap to mine. buy on the market, its cheap. help support the market which then helps the miners..
demanding less transactions but higher fee premiums is not the economic dynamics of keeping the network useful and fruitful

i hope you were buying coin at $17k instead of crying that you cant mine and wanting ~3000tx a block to "pay more fee"

You're missing the point here. We were talking about the rationale as to why Luke is rejecting txs with OP_RETURNs beyond 42 bytes. Its because he thinks such transactions are spam. Obviously he didn't agree with the current byte limit which is why he implemented his own.

Regardless, its hard to take you seriously when you continue to mischaracterize Ordinals as an "attack". Its like you don't understand what the word "attack" means and it doesn't help your argument. Ordinals users are not trying to damage Bitcoin, they are simply trying to profit off it. And saying "only scammers like it" is just ignorant. A more appropriate term would be "degens".

In the future, the first inscriptions will be considered legitimate collector's items, like it or not. It could even be the first 10,000 - 100,000 or so.


You can't "remove ordinals from bitcoin". Its just a numeration system for satoshis, so in a way they've always been there since the first mined block. As for the rest of your post, holy moly, that's all I have to say.

its not a collectors item. it fails the real proof oftransfer because the junk sits as metadata in witness, it does not within transaction assign itself to an output
the GUI of ordinal recognising wallets can EASILY change policy of output path.
if the proof of destination is not locked into the blockchain. its not a proof of transfer system

as for the math method of counting sats, even their path of deciding where the first sat goes is wrong.

you pretend to not be involved and instead just an outsider of ordinals,, but you seem too involved in promoting and admiring ordinals and ignoring the logic and economics to be an outsider.. you are definitely someone that either created or scam sold some to someone.. or at worse you paid someone for what you think is a claim of a junk meme but dont want to admit to being a victim, so ignorantly ignoring the code, logic and math that show you got victimised

I don't think that Ordinals are problem. Ordinals are basically shit but people are willing to pay lots of money in this shit. If someone wants to buy a shit for thousands of dollars, who am I to judge? Let them buy it. I think that number of Ordinals users will decline because those NFTs actually carry no value, absolutely no value and over time people will analyze that shit shouldn't be valued over good. But blockchain size is still a problem because as number of bitcoin users rise, number of transactions will rise too and it should be cost-effective for people to use frequently.

It's not a censorship, they exploit bitcoin protocol, they find a loophole and what's wrong with feeling loopholes? Nothing. It will be censorship if bitcoin miners agree to block transactions provided by blockchain analysis companies.

To be frank, this idea is amazing :D

That is really a subjective but so is everything, absolutely everything is subjective because everything has positive and negative sides, absolutely everything! But there are things that we agree are bad, right? It's bad to kill, it's bad to steal, it's bad to abuse bitcoin protocol for ordinals and so on.

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded? What do you think, doesn't current situation push people to move on altcoins? Bitcoin was created for P2P transactions, to get rid of 3rd parties but Ordinals are not real financial transactions. So, it's not a censorship.

I agree with you here and I have also said above some of these quotes that Ordinals are not the only problem. I don't know whether you agree with me or not but this problem will happen without ordinals. Simply, bitcoin blocksize limits the number of transactions and if we want to frequently use it, we have no choice but to increase block size. It's not 2008 anymore and there aren't only a few bitcoin users.

if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong. but the fact that ordinals is kind of just a side affect of a change that was made to the protocol which not necessarily everyone agreed with or knew could happen well that's where the argument has a bit of weakness.

ordinals hasn't always been there. big difference. you can argue that anyone who decides to use bitcoin has to agree with all the historical changes that have been done and the affect those have had but people that got into bitcoin before those changes, i don't know if we can put that burden on them. just my opinion.

satoshi didn't come down off the mountain with ordinals carved in stone.  ;D

so there is some objectivity to the thing. it's based on time. when a person became involved with bitcoin was it before or after ordinals came on to the scene. i think that's what makes it non-subjective.


come on franky. nutildah is a pretty smart person and knows alot about the ordinals and bitcoin ecosystems. but doesn't mean he buys and sells them. so i think you might be making a leap of logic there. but even if he did buy and sell them for profit, that's what they exist for is to make profit. that's why people are involved with them i would imagine. and maybe a few people just like having a picture of a monkey stored on the blockchain so they can tell their friends.  :o

I just believe they are looking for a way to feign relevance in the space.  Just like twitter, everyone want to get % million impressions to be eligible for Elon's payout, same goes to Ordinals.

Unconsciously, they have made Bitcoin even more famous than it was. Whatever their complaint, its not news to the space and so far the tech has also solved all its challenges as there are no ecosystem without its challenges.

nutildah isnt actually as smart as you want to think he is. he is a follower of promoted stuff but misses many factual concepts that can be proven by data and code

also its one thing for the creator first adding the junk for posterity.. but the events after of suckering victims into handing them money for the false claim of pretend passing of ownership, is not legit profit. its scam tricks

ordinals is not just a blight on bitcoin due to excess waste of bytes causing everyone else to pay a premium in some bidding war.... its also selling scam junk that the victims have no real controllable claim over

if certain people want the crap to continue.. then let those wanting to do the crap pay the price. instead of everyone else penalised just to keep the crap going

I don't get the point of doing inscriptions in bitcoin so I agree that it's not something that we should tolerate, maybe it was a fun time when they inscribed the whitepaper but now, I feel like it's being overused and the people that are doing transactions daily are the ones that are shouldering the burden. I hope that the developers and the miners will find some way to meet halfway and at the same time, make bitcoin have a legitimate reason why the tx fees are so expensive.

The point is to make money by ripping people off!

You see what they call inscriptions and the advertisers of this scam method like to call it "token" or NFT is neither one of those in reality. It is arbitrary data, a junk that is injected into the chain by exploiting the Bitcoin protocol.
The only reason why these scammers insist on using bitcoin blockchain for it is to be able to hype up a dead concept (ICO) by associating it with the name Bitcoin and get some newbie victims who don't know any better to buy that fake garbage in a fake market so that they can make money!

As we know these scammers have been desperately changing the name of their scam every now and then to renew their victim pool:

Otherwise if they truly wanted to create tokens there are countless ways of doing it from using bitcoin side chains such as RootStock to actual token creation platforms such as Ethereum.

bitcoins white paper was not titled

"put whatever lame data you like that bypasses validity checks as long as you pay higher fee then other people, its allowed"

How about demanding more transactions with lower fees by increasing blocksize ? Isn't the outcome of a block reward the same ? Who benefits from something like that ? Because the way i see it , current status only favors miners . If onchain transactions go down , this favors users . More transactions in each block would benefit both miners and users . But for sure the only entities that earn more than anybody else with current model are pools . It's basically free money for them .
An argument would be that there is no interest currently to transact on btc so no need to increase blocksize . Global transactions in crypto are hundreds of millions transactions per day . Merchants could use bitcoin instead of visa but as btc works you can't advertise it as an alternative method of payment . Of course , not everyone would be able to run a node , which is against maxis ethics .
By your logic , if blocksize never increases and subsidy is zero , network would still work fine . I'm not saying that it won't work , what i argue is that it won't be secure .

when you learn how cores fee estimator works, then you will see how your notions fail

core doesnt count fees once tx confirmed.. it instead uses the UNCONFIRMED mempool transaction fees and how delayed they are of even getting in a block to estimate the fee new transactions should try to push a tx forward

meaning if the fee was high and pools declined to accept transactions below a certain rate, even if it meant doing part filled blocks/empty blocks... users wont be happy.. the more delayed a tx gets the higher fees go.snow ball effect because users wont transact if costs are high and still not getting in. and if pools are demanding high fee it helps no one

your "if onchain transactions go down, this favours users" doesnt play out if users are still paying huge fees which still sitting in mempool

as for the debunked comparison idiots make about visa.. please do get a new song sheet
only idiots use the visa song as a reason to suggest bitcoin shouldnt scale at all unless its to those extremes.. which isnt even scaling.. its exaggeratingly leaping.. and debunks itself to use leaping song to avoid scaling discussion/options

and you then go extremes of the opposite about not scaling at all, to then say it wont be secure
..and your other illogical fallacies...
you have been trained very (un)well to only assume the two options are do nothing or exaggerate to a huge leaping massive size

..
anyway back to my point
if the only users that can afford huge fee's enough to get accepted into a block are the scammers that overcharge victims on a scam market that 1sat is worth $10k, and need to pay $100 in fee to get the special sat.. then normal bitcoin users will stop transacting.. and all thats left is the scammy crap
(one scammer was willing to pay 83btc in fee just to get coins he hacked moved quickly)
no one will be able to outbid scammers.. and we should not condone the crap that end up penalising/costing all genuine users utility

How do you propose bitcoin survives when the block subsidy is near zero and miners depend solely on transaction fees to sustain them, when even a modest increase in transaction fees is enough to make 99% of the community want to ban the transactions paying those fees? A tail emission? Merged mining?

Banning transaction you don't like doesn't change bitcoin's efficiency whatsoever, it simply decreases the number of transactions in the mempool. If you want bitcoin to scale, then work on scaling, not on censorship.

As I've explained already in this thread, it is impossible to ban all methods of embedding arbitrary data in the blockchain without the solution being worse than the problem. We can only make it somewhat more expensive by forcing them to move the data from witnesses to public keys (or similar), and if slightly increased expense is enough to burn out the ordinal spam then we can equally do nothing and it will burn itself out anyway.

Not at all. There are plenty of objective truths. We can objectively prove that we know the private key to an address by signing a message from that private key (because the chance of randomly generating a valid signature is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible). Whether or not a signature is valid does not depend on the opinion of the person verifying it. It is either valid or it isn't. Whether Transaction A is spam or not depends entirely on the viewpoint of the person looking at it. To us it is spam. To someone else it serves a purpose.

I'll pay the appropriate fee.

And again, as I've said above, centralized exchanges are third parties and are not peer to peer. So if you are using those reasons to argue for banning ordinals, then you should be arguing to ban centralized exchanges as well. Can't pick and choose.

Ok, so let's say we ban this method of embedding arbitrary data in to the blockchain. Ordinals then move to embedding data in to public keys instead, which takes up more space and so the spam problem gets worse, rather than better. That would be fair game at that point because embedding data in to public keys has been possible since day 1 of the protocol?

In that case, limiting Taproot script size (probably 10K bytes following which used as older script type) and maximum data can be pushed inside witness data (80 bytes or higher based on OP_RETURN) shouldn't be much problem. Although FWIW those number i mentioned wouldn't stop BRC-20 at all.


Or perhaps premium services which include non-standard TX such as TX which contain OP_RETURN data higher than 80 bytes.

Do you realize you are exactly mimicking a no-coiner point of view in your post? Many no-coiners invest in bitcoin or any other crypto thinking the exact same thing. “If these morons are willing to pay their hard earned cash for these useless pixels, why shouldn’t I profit from their stupidity?”

If you truly think NFT’s are dogshit, then you should also support the removal of NFT’s from btc. Just because somebody is making money from selling dogshit, doesn’t mean that we all have to like eating dogshit.

---

I like to eat dogshit only if it is wrapped in catshit.

You're right. I've never touched them, but that hasn't stopped me from wanting to learn about them. The underlying system is a brilliant idea that only one person had ever put forward before. Ordinals have reinvigorated interest & sparked lively debate in Bitcoin in a way that not much could, besides the Bitcoin ETF, which is kind of boring in comparison.

I've put franknbeans on ignore as all his arguments eventually devolve into a personal attack, if not immediately. He's not here to learn anything -- he's here to lecture all about his opinion. The problem is, on a technical level, he's often wrong. And he'll never admit it, which is why its not worth engaging with him.

I'm also more into Dogecoin in terms of what I do for a living, but I also never touched Doginals, even though its all the rage, currently filling Dogecoin blocks, and I'd be up big if I bought the 1st "DRC-20" tokens when I first heard about them.


The entire allure of Ordinals rests on the idea that its data is directly embedded in Bitcoin, the world's most popular & secure blockchain. This is why they don't care about alternatives. I'm just trying to help you understand why things are the way that they are. You can continue to rail against it if you want, but we both know that won't change anything.

ordinals wasnt baked in since satoshis day.. ordinals only became possible later in bitcoin life
multisig wasnt baked in since satoshis day.. multisig only became possible later in bitcoin life


heck a bitcoin block wasnt even able to surpass 0.5mb until 2013 let alone 4mb of junk which was not even possible until 2017+
the ability to add upto 4Gigabyte of junk is not something that was baked in as an ability to utilise even in 2023..
i dare you or larry to even try and make a junk meme video of 4gigabyte and add it into the blockchain
you cant because rules that were baked in prevent it..
however over time the rules have been relaxed to by pass things, no longer even requiring consensus activations when opcodes were set as conditioned with rules. now idiots can use a whole class of opcodes that are unconditioned which in the olden days nodes would not even relay


nutildah doesnt want to learn. he doesnt even understand how they works still. not the code nor the economics. he just loves promoting them .. as he says entertaining his trollisms of discussion

its not a brilliant idea because its not even what it promises to be

as for him admitting to be ignorant by putting people on ignore when they try to show him the technical and economic flaws.. that is proof enough he doesnt care to learn.


remember the "promise" of taproot
'it wil look like a normal tx that only uses one signature length' pfft. promise broke from day one.

At this point I should ask: when block subsidy will be near zero? Near zero in BTC or near zero in fiat? I guess this block subsidy amount protection is built into Bitcoin, it was meant to work like that by design. If by the time block subsidy is say 0.0001 but Bitcoin price is $100.000.000 will miners be able to survive?  

I'm happy you can afford it, but think about Venezuelans trying to send money to their families, people from developing nations working here for sig campaigns on this forum unable to receive their pay (and for many it's their only source of income) etc etc... why these people have to suffer because of some person storing his dick pics and fart sounds on the blockchain?  

You assumption is based on a mempool 0f 300 kb if i'm not wrong , correct ? What happens with a mempool of very big limit and a big blocksize ? Maybe i got things wrong , i'd like to hear your thoughts .

Edit . at what size do you think blocksize should be increased right now ? And why is idiotic to reach visa levels ? There's been 13 years of bitcoin existence , with billions of transaction across all projects , why would be idiotic to gather those transactions to the most secure blockchain ? People are willing to pay to transact , just not in btc .

I know high fees are a real problem. But there's nothing we can do about it, other than wait until the hype is over. Siding with developers to help reject/block Ordinals transactions would be nothing more than pure censorship. If you want to save money on fees, I'd suggest you choose a time when network congestion is low. Usually during the weekends early in the morning. I've paid around $2 -$3 in fees doing this.

The Lightning Network promises cheaper and faster payments, but still requires you to pay on-chain fees to open or close a channel. Besides that, the network is still experimental (full of bugs). As a last resort, you can switch to an altcoin with lower network congestion to save big on fees (Solana, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc). I'm hopeful the community will find a solution to make Bitcoin great again. As long as it stays decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters. :)

its got nothing to do with mempool size..

even if mempool was 500mb but only had 150mb of transactions in there. pools can still deny adding transactions below a threshold. leaving people waiting and needing to RBF to reach whatever threshold mining pools want

so in a 4decades in future scenario when mining pools are going to demand fee's they can just leave the cheap fee tx in mempool to fester for 2 weeks, causing people to RBF upbid their fees to get recognised

---

as for leaping to "visa levels"
that debate replaces "scaling" by suggesting the only option is "gigabyte blocks by midnight" to then argue that the network is not ready to even do that. to hope it ends the debate about any type of scaling.. and yea idiots been playing that bait trick for years

the actual scaling is not just "jump blocksize to XX"
its more nuanced
a. punish the frequent spammers: if it costs only them excess fee, they transact less. meaning more genuine people can take the space
b. leaner transactions: punish or prevent bloated transactions, meaning more genuine people can take the space
c. remove the blocksize miscount of 4mb (1mb base+3mb witness) cludge. so that any and all transactions get full utility of the full 4mb space
d. SCALE the blocksize in incremental amounts over time.. no sudden leaps to stupid amounts

Wow, I wonder how this will go for Ordinals and what will be the result of these actions. Certainly ordinals has sparked a bit of a following and many folks would be very sad if it was no more. I wonder how ordinals would do if this didn't happen, or even if it does....

he didn't say he could afford it. he said he would pay it. i'm sure he doesn't want to pay a high fee but that's beside the point. he believes in bitcoin so he's willing to put his money where his mouth is and support the network. that's what he's saying.

They could use something like Western Union or some other remittance service possibly.

so you're saying the money they make is not even enough to pay the transaction fee? then why would someone waste their time doing that? that's like working for nothing.


that was a huge thing to allow into bitcoin. you would think that such a huge thing would have been discussed alot and written up about why it was being done. with analysis about the potential repercussions of it. but nothing like that seemed to happen. so here we are. not knowing if they intended for it to be this way or not. but it is this way. kind of crazy.

a feature like that should have been heavily discussed and debated prior to being implemented though and I'm sure someone would have brought up the issue that a single transaction could then consume an entire bitcoin block. and who would think that was a good thing?  ???


yeah but franky thinks just because you're learning about them that equals being involved in them DEEPLY.  :o amazing logic on his part i must say.

I'm not talking about denying . Currently mempool is filled so miners do have to choose , even if they wanted to pass all transactions they can't . This is a condition which can happen with any mempool size . Even with 1 MB miners can deny to add transactions to blocks even if there are higher fees than what would be normal . In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .
So , without the option of denying , how would a mempool and blocksize increase would affect transaction fees ? 

---

So , let's consider a real bussines . If you had a store with a range of customers would you punish the ones that prefer to buy from your store ? And you would try to reward the ones that buy from you occassionaly ?
And what genuine people means ? There are people waiting with their money in hand to have their transactions get into a block . What makes your  transaction more genuine than someone else's ?
As for the incremental scaling . There's been 13 years since the launch . 6 years since blocksize wars . I remember Adam Back , Lopp and others saying at that time it was ok to increase it . Right now ,  according to what most devs believed , blocksize should be at least 32 MB . How big do you think blocksize should be currently ?

if you increase block sizes so more transactions can fit in each block then that would help bitcoin scale. but if you allow a single transaction to hog up all the blockspace that's not helping anything.

so if you could increase the blocksize to say 32MB and require each transaction to be less than say 1KB then that's progress. There's no way bitcoin can get world domination without blocksize increasing. Unless people are satisfied with using something like Lightning Network but I don't think some people want to use that.

even with the above restrictions people could still use bitcoin for ordinals and stuff. so it might not really change that aspect of things. it just might mean more of the same. 

ok lets consider a business
lets take some international postal/cargo businesses. for customers wanting to ship a army tank by sea or by air.
..should everyone pay more for a postage stamp? just because the tank is taking up alot of space.. or should the person trying to send the tank pay a super premium to slide infront of the queue at the ports
why should a tank be able to pay a postage stamp but cause all postage stamps for everyone else to become nearly a hundred dollars for everyone

as for the other stuff about scaling vs leaping.. read what i said and you will understand

right now core devs dont want any scaling/leaping of blocksize bigger then 4mb.. but here is the thing, currently there are other ways to scale onchain to allow more transaction per block before needing to twist their arms to get them to act like bitcoin devs again instead of their other side hustle sponsored projects they prefer

try to read a,b,c,d and you will see how things can be done without having to scream at devs for 'bigger blocks'.. and then when that cludge is sorted then scaling can happen above 4mb
(in short if they have built an ignorance chamber at the 4mb limit. then lets sort out and streamline the 4mb limit)

by the way. you keep talking about gb blocks EG "be like visa"
by the way. you keep talking about 32mb blocks
you keep talking in leaping speak

and its this leaping speak that just makes the debate end because its the same as asking a pregnant woman why dont you give birth to a 6foot tall fully adult son
.. because progressively growing is the logical and most common sense approach. not suddenly birthing large amounts

do you understand scaling yet or will you just reply with another random number
most people want scaling.. so please drop the leaping act. its not helping anyone

and by the way 2009-2013 blocks could only be 0.5mb
and by the way 2013-2016 blocks could only be 1mb
and by the way 2017-now blocks APPEAR as being able to be 4mb. but not all of that 4mb is lean legacy style tx that just do what bitcoin intended
3mb of the 4mb is bloated special scripting witness and other junk that are not even anything to do with signature proofs

so for 6+ years now things have slowed down. even when physical technology has sped up
they say: "but we gave you 3mb extra "bigger blocks", so why still ask for more"
response: "no that 3mb is mainly for junk and new bloaty scripts not even possible pre 2016. however the tx count of 2016 is not even 4x legacy tx count today. not even 2x today not even 1.1x more legacy tx count today, which shows how the so called "extra 3mb" has not actually given people proper scaling to transact more"

You forget about part where only certain TX can be aggregated/merged.


But with hard-fork frowned by majority of Bitcoin community, the choice at that time is either that or keep using bytes (which means no block size increase).

... no?  The time it takes to calculate the merkle root is minimum.  It is really against their interest to not collect transaction fees. 

they argued "hard fork is a crime" when they said bitcoin needed to be qt0.1 compatible, as their excuse to not do a uncludgy, straight forward 2mb/4mb upgrade
funny thing is QT0.1 would fail as soon as it synced to 2013 data

as for modern bitcoin. easily having code that at block 870,000(example demo number) if block version is 10 then txid merkle is for all transaction in a 4mb space
where it only activates if 3630 of 4032(90%) blocks show version10, else do nothing
giving a year for people to upgrade node. if not, oh wel nothing happens, back to the drawing board

and yes its possible
.. core went from core 0.12 to 0.14 in a year back then(few extra subversions inbetween too) in the leadup to segwit and no one was using any qt versions

You are correct . My bad on that .

It will be very good if Developers kill ordinals and inscriptions, I really hope it won't be only idea and will be released because Ordinals make it impossible for people to use Bitcoin to make Bitcoin transactions. Also, by killing ordinals, they'll lower the number of people who fall for these scams. I know they may move on different platforms but at least Bitcoin will not feed these scammers.

I agree with you that not only bitcoin blockchain but word blockchain is used to hype many meaningless things.
To be fair, I don't know much about NFT and Ordinals, I have maybe only seen one or two articles about them on Cointelegraph and that's all, so count me as a person who doesn't know about them. Right now I am checking the marketplace of ordinals and NFTs and I'll be fair, I can't understand why I should pay money for them and why I should hope that price of ape NFTs or Ordinals will go up.

I'm honestly not sure how much more (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html) write-up (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq) you'd (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/) like (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/) but I'd say there was enough (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/21/launch_segwit_testnet/) of (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/) it (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/) for people to make an informed decision.  And the length of the scaling civil war means that everything which could have been discussed was absolutely discussed several times over.  Any notion that such a change was "rushed through" is demonstrably false.

Be mindful of those who are trying to re-write history to further their own sordid agendas.  Some people are still just bitter that they lost and will make up just about any lie to try and gain support for their ridiculous views.  The rest of us, however, would very much like to move on now, rather than re-treading fruitless ground for what feels like the thousandth time.  

when they see the last block solved. they do not send a message to all asics to halt hashing their current(now stale) block
instead the pool does send them a new header with the just-solved blocks hash as prev-block for asics to hash on. and yes its an empty block

the pool manager then confirmes utxos in 'just-solved' block as spent and removes them from utxoset, then adds the new confirmed outputs into utxoset and removes the now confirmed transactions from mempool
then it creates a template including transactions from mempool that are still unspent that were still waiting in mempool

the pool manager then updates the asics requests for new nonce extra-nonce ranges with the new template
so pools dont wait around to make a new template filled with transactions they set the asics initially to work empty block and then update asics once the blocktemplate is ready

yes larry should be mindful of the trolls that pretend segwit is perfection like doomad.
shame doomad can never use code or block data to back up his narrative

heck funny thing even doomad shows all the false promises and lies




still waiting on the proposed 1.6mb-2x legacy amount.. its been 6 years..
really did laugh when doomad linked things full of broken promises and lies and he thought it validated his narrative
yet 6 years of block data show no legacy tx data ever surpassed the 1mb limit

as for the "no rush"
you can check the deadlines, where community didnt even give it a 45% vote after 8 months(it wasnt good enough) and the boom unnatural mandated rush to 100% under 2 months (when their commercial contract(sponsorship) deadline of 12 months was nearing expiry)

heck it activated in 2017 but they didnt even finish the GUI sign message feature for years after

they do rush things when its something they want even if 55% didnt agree

That's only $10,000 per block, even at the price of $100 million. At the moment miners are earning about $250,000-$300,000 per block. And what when the subsidy is actually zero? Fees alone will sustain the network, and banning swaths of transactions which pay high fees will not be sustainable.

This. Ordinals are spam, and I personally would prefer if they didn't exist. The high fee situation we find ourselves in is less than ideal, and I personally would prefer if fees were lower. However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with. Bitcoin as a concept is far more important than the personal inconvenience of higher fees.

If the fees are becoming prohibitive for normal people to use bitcoin, then we need to work on scaling, not on censorship.

It's only going to be time until another "exploiter" is to come into the bitcoin network hoping to innovate this otherwise linear network only to be banned and displaced by the devs cause they'd rather keep the current situation of bitcoin than actually do something about the scalability issue. Ethereum was able to do it and arguably it's a more inferior (marketcap-wise) crypto to bitcoin, what excuse do we have for not actually doing something about the current and what would seem to be the future situation of the industry?

Don't get me wrong, i'm no ordinals fanatic, frankly speaking I don't think they even broke the mold in this one cause what they really just pose is "NFTs but bitcoin", but what of the future innovative applications that bitcoin could foster but wouldn't, cause we're stuck with this scalability issue? 

if bitcoin was a railway train where you think it does not discriminate on people based on how they look. you are not realising it is discriminating by only letting first class premium passengers on.. where some morbidly obese person paying for one ticket but taking up three seats then causes other first class passengers to pay a premium for the remaining seats and causing economy class passengers to be left at the platform(mempool) untill the platform guard purges them off the platform
"sorry peasant your to poor to be standing on my station platform, come back when you are rich"

have you ever considered if a morbidly obese person wants to ride the train in circles on every trip taking up excess seating.
if a group of kids just want to use their childrens pass to get their parents a cheap seat and they just ride the train in circles all day
maybe its them who should be paying the most. not everyone else
that then allows everyone else to have a chance to afford a seat in the spare seats

if those that use it the most pay the price and not everyone else. then it evens the balance out and stops incentivising bloat/spam

i reviewed all 3 links you referenced but none of them had a big warning that someone could hog up an entire 4MB block with a single transaction or that people could use the witness field to store pictures and audio and video clips. was that supposed to just be understood and assumed that everyone knew those things could happen and was ok with it without even mentioning it at all? i don't think people are that smart, in general. but the developers should be. no question about that...

i get that. i just wish when something like segwit gets proposed that they be honest and detail all the possible use cases controversial or not so people can understand what might happen. i guess they missed the boat on this one just a tiny bit. but if that's what they intended then so be it. if they realized monkeys could be in bitcoin blocks then ok. but they should have put some pictures of monkeys on the segwit upgrade guide to warn people.  :o

that's the attitude we need more of. for people to stop complaining and support the network if they believe in bitcoin. but i think for alot of people maybe even myself to some degree the loyalty ends where the buck begins. if it costs more than i like i get cold feet about supporting the network. that's a bad bitcoiner!  :o

you've mentioned scaling a few times and i'm curious what type of scaling you have in mind exactly. i'm all for making bitcoin scale so it can have bigger thouroughput.

remember doomad and oeleo do not support bitcoin scaling.. they support offramping to other subnetworks where middlemen can syphon routing fee's for unsettled payments(insecure non-immutable), which they call offramping as "scaling solution" they love high bitcoin fee's as it promotes their favoured subnetwork as "the solution"..
thats the real reason they dont want it to stop

they are ok with(rail train analogy) economy class passengers being kicked off te carriage. but they want the first class morbidly obese passengers to stay as it makes the business class passengers pay more so that the only passengers on the train become the obese junk eating first class that underpay their seating and businesses

those 'dont stop the junk' trolls you follow and admire are happy bitcoin is not for the unbanked anymore

i don't know franky. i'm not even sure what we mean by "scaling" but i thought it meant "larger blocksize" basically. i don't know their views on that but since i respect them both a great deal, i would respect their opinion on the matter. just like i can respect yours.

oeieo even said in this thread he doesn't like high transaction fees but he's willing to pay them. to support the network. that doesn't sound to me like someone that runs off to LN to avoid transaction fees he's a real supporter of bitcoin, franky. which is why i respect whatever his view on this matter.

so there's people that don't have a bank account but yet they can do everything they need using just bitcoin? i guarantee you that no one that lives on the streets is in that category.

but their version of "bigger blocks" is to exagerate "1gb" speaches and "but visa does" speaches.. thats called LEAPING and they do that to try to quash any debate
scaling is progressive (rational) growth/increases... literally the meaning of the word scaling
scaling is not just progressive small growth of blocks (rational), but also tweaking the cludge of how transactions at the moment are treated to become leaner to allow more transactions in allowed blockspace. and also penalising spammers and junkers so they transact less so genuine bitcoiners can have more opportunity in the space

the network worked fine when the reward was 6.25 * $17k last year=~$107k .. miners dont need transactions to go from ~$2  to ~ $30 in that same year comparison.. because the bitcoin reward is 6.25 $40k+ = $250k
and we have not even got to the halving.. so basically miners are getting more income then they need. they dont need extra subsidy via fee.. so dont play the scripted sales pitch to put up with junk  "due to the poor miners".. they are not poor, so dont fall into those crappy traps
their game is make fees higher so it advertises their preferred subnetworks.. its that simple


many sanctioned countries cant do international fiat transfers..
many developing countries have low income but can and do buy bitcoin
heck even CZ of binance got fined millions of dollars (equivalent to the fees) for the transactions he processed from sanctioned countries that cant use the normal banking system internationally.. now we all know those fee's are only 0.x% of value. which shows the value of the "unbanked" of just the clients CZ of binance helped with,, is billions of dollars of value transfer

so dont dismiss the "unbanked"
bitcoin was meant to hedge against the banks that mess with peoples lives. for many reasons people dont have full international access of bank services. its not just the peasant on the streets

there was a lady in arizona that put her life savings into an account. they closed it due to "breach of terms of use" and the bank lost it...
nigel farage in the UK had account closed due to political views
(stories sound familiar?)

To be fair the preventive measure discussed here and also what I've suggested from day one has been "standard rules" not "consensus rules". Meaning it wouldn't make Ordinals exploit invalid, it would only make it non-standard which means it still can NOT be censorship if the community is deciding to enforce these rules on the full node they run.

The problem is that despite the length of time that has passed we haven't seen the option to reject Ordinals type spam in full node implementations (except the very recent Knots thing in OP) so the community never had that "choice". So you can not say whether it is a "small group" or a "big group" of people who don't want this spam on chain.
First that choice has to be added to the implementations then those who don't want to see this spam would start activating that option and reject the spam txs and those who want to see this spam would start running nodes and relay the garbage! Then we can see if it is actually a small group or not.

That's how Bitcoin should always work.

its only censorship when certain people want malicious stuff to continue.. otherwise its called mempool purging/pruning, relay dropping, block rejecting
which are actual bitcoin features to stop people for instance trying to broadcast litecoin or dogecoin or bsv transactions the bitcoin network
also when people try to broadcast already spend utxo's(double spends) or try to do other stuff the network does not want..

there are many reasons transactions get dropped..
an exploit that allowed junk should not be considered a "feature" just because devs ignored the warned 6 years ago and pushed ahead and allowed the exploit..
exploits need fixing otherwise not fixing exploits will compromise the network security more then the naive thoughts that fixing exploits would be treated as anti-bitcoin

Ordinance and others should leave our Bitcoin for us in peace, I don't know why some people would just come up with what would continue to be a problem for the network. It could be highly insane for the Bitcoin transaction fee to be as high as $12+, which was the highest I saw just last week, and this was still very little compared to the high fees experienced in July. It can be frustrating and annoying. I don't truly know how people would want to use the Bitcoin network for their businesses if it persis like this, and it would only be a matter of time before they will be turning their backs. Even on this forum, campaign managers are being forced to voice out and start suggesting alternatives to Bitcoin. If such frustration could happen in a Bitcoin forum, it can happen anywhere.

I hope they will be able to fulfil this, Bitcoin is in dire need of it. A low transaction fee will make Bitcoin more competitive as owning it alone is not the beauty of it but building businesses around it as well. The grace it is still enjoying is that it's the number 1 of all the cryptocurrencies, if not, even businesses would have been turning their backs now as it doesn't pay them with the high fees associated with the congestion.

As for ORDI, I have not seen many dumps in it for now, it's still about x10 of the level that Binance enlisted it. Currently, at about $52, it's still not responding to any of the dumps as much but only retraced its former gains. This is a reason why I fear whether this project could ever push through. My major fear when I wanted to buy ORDi was the evil in the project and how it was affecting Bitcoin, but painfully, I had to lose all the earnings that it would have delivered into my account.

Whether we admit it or not, the higher fee on bitcoin transactions does not really do anything good for all bitcoin holders. Why are there bitcoin holders who want a high fee for every transaction they make here? Do you want that?

That's why if the high Bitcoin transaction fee continues, maybe one day this will be the last Bitcoin halving cycle. Of course, who else would be interested in buying Bitcoin to hold it if they knew its bitcoin fees were so high? Although I know it's impossible to happen right now, No one knows what will happen in the future.

the cost of a tx to pretend binance has control of ORDI and cost to withdraw is ~$53+ total(fees were $30 each) so dont expect binance users to sell for less
thats their tx fee break even with zero value for the junk idiots want to pretend they are buying

I'm of the opinion that the hash rate will come down after block rewards get closer to zero; of course we're talking decades down the line. So it won't be as expensive for miners to do their thing -- theoretically, in terms of the ratio of mining cost to BTC price. The hash rate is already inconceivably high.


You can be happy, resting assured that's exactly the way things are already working right now...

Of course, you can always run a pruned node as well, that option was always available.

Including single TX (excluding coinbase TX) always has been possible if miner/pool wish do that. But i guess even developer don't expect witness data would be used to store arbitrary data. Although this link mention 4MB block is possible if it's mostly contain witness data.

So if we all hate ordinals so much, then why are more people not rejecting them from their nodes? I'm sure I've seen you mention before that you reject them from your node, but you are the only person I've seen doing this until Knots. And I can see a grand total of 13 nodes running the newest version of Knots. Is the conclusion that node runners simply do not care and will just run whatever Core tells them to run?

And as we've seen with full RBF, we only need a minority of nodes to accept these transactions and they will broadcast through the network and reach miners largely unhindered.

I think, we can be confident to say that when the block subsidy will be near zero, bitcoin will be a very popular and widely used currency with very high number of users and transactions. Let's say roughly that one block on average includes 3500 transactions, bitcoin's price is 40K and average transaction fee is $2. Number of bitcoin users are increasing, right? So the number of transactions should increase. If we have 200K upcoming transactions, we will have 400K upcoming transactions tomorrow, right? I assume this because if that's not gonna happen, then it means bitcoin failed which I don't think will fail. So, if there are upcoming 400K and millions of transactions, are going to wait for centuries and pay thousands of dollars to get it confirmed in next block instead of next months? No! We need to increase block size. For example, If transaction costs $2 today and miners collect $2000, if we double the block size, transaction will cost $1 and miners will still collect $2000 because the number of transactions will fill the blocks, because there is a demand. If we triple the block size and demand meets that, we will be able to pay 0.8$ and miners will collect $2400 in fees. So, if demand increase and block size gives us capability to get transactions confirmed and don't be in queue for months.

If there is a 51% network attack on Bitcoin and we can avoid it via some code modification, would you support it or not? I think you support 100% total freedom, yes, that's good but you have to keep in mind that we don't touch freedom here, we touch those who abuse the bitcoin protocol. I think there is a difference between good and evil. Yes, something good can be evil for you and otherwise for me but is there anyone who thinks Ordinals are a normal thing and not an abuse of bitcoin protocol via a small bug? It will be censorship if we implement the support of blockchain analysis companies in Bitcoin network. It's not censorship to kill ordinals.

To be honest, Bitcoin Ordinals are not problem for me because I am waiting for the time when people will stop paying thousands in dogshit. If they don't want to stop, I'm here just to laugh to see how stupid someone can be. But if there is a talk about removing ordinals, I would vote for it. By the way, every time problem is solved, another bigger problem comes up but that doesn't mean we shouldn't solve problem with the fear of another problem coming up.

Is there any talk about bitcoin ordinals in bitcoin whitepaper? Bitcoin whitepaper says that Bitcoin is a purely peer-topeer version of electronic cash that allows online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Now explain, how would ordinal serves a purpose for someone else? Are we going to ignore bitcoin whitepaper? Arguing about this is like arguing that a person is a human but feels that his/her identity is old Persian horse. Doesn't make sense, right?

Is bitcoin for everyone who want to improve privacy and independence from financial institutes or is it only for rich people?

Yeah, I agree with you that Centralized exchanges should be banned too but this game is not in our hands anymore.
By the way, answer to these problems is Monero. Centralized exchanges ban Monero and Monero is also the most privacy focused currency. Move on Monero.

I would not be so confident if we start rejecting random transactions we are ideologically opposed with.


There is virtually nothing that can protect us from a 51% attack other than the present game theory.  Whatever you modify, so long as the attacker owns the majority of the hash rate and uses it to reverse transactions, the entire concept has practically failed.


Is there any talk about centralized exchanges in the whitepaper?  Or lightning channels?  Or segwit transactions?  Or coinjoin transactions?  No.

The default position is that all transactions are allowed.  


I am already there pal, and you should consider moving too.  But that does not mean I will support censorship on bitcoin.

Unfortunately the inscription has caught the attention of people people and now I checked in the telegram channels that other chain Doge, near, solona inscription also started and people started minting spam NFTs People munted more than 100k NFTs in just matter of 3 days so can guess the hype. Well, one thing is that all people are those who don't know much about btc and there Mission is just to take short profit from current trend.


Now add one more token also Brc20 1000Sats which is recently listed in Binance and token price surges 150% after Binance announcement. I think Ordinal trend is going high day by day and Devolpers have to do something special to control otherwise normal use of btc for payment will be affected for long term.

"" No sooner had one grief averted than another came""

because 99.99% of node users dont even read code to tweak code to reject such

by the way its not "their node" they didnt write the code.. dont deflect the issue to blame the user. (shameful act by you)
99.99% of users just run whatever code core throw at them. infact most node users cant even get to vote on consensus due to core abusing the "backward compatibility" of assumevalid/isvalid tricks that make nodes not even check and just let new funky junk pass into a block untested

yep CORE code done that.. not users.. not AI

yep core opened up the exploit even when 7 years ago they were told that it can be abused
(a few people including me were talking about how the check bypass of allowing (buzzword then) "anyonecanspend" to bypass checking what data is where signatures should be. allowed junk to be put where logical people would want the code to have policies to actualy check whats put there and that what is there has a function for proving ownership transfer privilege)

allowing funky tx's into the blockchain unchecked has been mentioned to core devs for many years as a risk.. they ignored it..
and now you want to pretend its not their fault. but users fault... (facepalm)

---

the reason core dont want to disable it, is because it means disabling unconditioned opcodes. meaning core cant just trojan in new features anytime they like. and instead they would have to comply to old concepts of consensus where they would need to get majority of users to upgrade to a new version of core that understands a new feature. then core activates utility of the feature once network is secure.. and core dont want to have to rely on community to vote a new feature in before it can be used

That's the point, when the software that 98.97% of the network run does not have the option to reject these transactions we can't know how many people "hate ordinals" and how many want it.
It's like wanting to vote for a soft-fork while your client doesn't support voting for it!!!

I'm not exactly running a full node, it's more of an experimental implementation of Bitcoin which is in its early stages but can be a full node which I modified to reject these spam transactions.

I wouldn't say they don't care, it's just that they don't have any other choice.
The alternatives are either exact copy/translation of core with same behavior and no extra control for cases like this or are unpopular and insecure to use.

The pattern goes like this:  Every time I don't agree with franky1's attempts to completely distort and butcher the definition of a word, he claims I don't believe in or don't support that thing.

He did it with 'consensus'.  Because I won't accept his entirely made-up and sociopathic definition of consensus (i.e. "everyone has to ask franky1's consent before they can code anything"), he says I don't believe in consensus.  I absolutely do believe in consensus, which I interpret as "everyone can code and run what they want.  Those running compatible code will be matched up with people who want the same thing and they'll build a network together".  I would argue that reality more closely reflects my definition than franky1's definition in terms of how Bitcoin and the various forkcoins work, but I'll leave you and anyone else reading this to be the judge of that.

And now he's trying to do the same with 'scaling'.  He means "linear growth" but he says "scaling" as if that were somehow the sole extent of what scaling means.  He will *only* accept "linear growth" and point-blank refuses to accept any other forms of scaling.  Some would argue that repeated linear growth doesn't even count as scaling.  Perhaps if I were in a charitable mood, I might call it weak scaling at best.  I'm not entirely opposed to *some* linear growth, but I don't think doing it forever (like he does) is remotely viable and I would only endorse it when those securing the network are prepared to carry that additional load.  It's certainly not a "solution" to the problem and there are serious trade-offs to consider.  

Scaling primarily occurs when technology advances and there's a noticeable difference in performance.  People don't run multiple dial-up connections, they use things like fibre optics and 5g, because technology got better.  People don't carry hundreds of 1.44mb floppy disks to make data portable, they use USB sticks and mobile phones / cellphones, because technology got better.  That's what scaling looks like in reality.  But franky1 is seemingly always at odds with reality and just wants to play make-believe and be a pathological liar.  He just wants to take the "carry more floppy disks" approach.  It's asinine when technology has far greater potential.  Yet he resists every attempt to explore such options.

And I just don't have the patience for that kind of childish nonsense anymore.  Engaging with him is a waste of your time.  All he will do is lie to you and then berate you when you eventually disagree with his bizarre and unrealistic delusions.  Given enough encounters with franky1, sooner or later, everyone will tire of his toxic and obnoxious behaviour.  And for that reason, he's not a threat.  He'll go through life gradually alienating everyone he comes across.  To the point where literally no one will listen to his insane technobabble anymore.  That's why he's now on my ignore list.  That's the sum extent of what he has to offer.  Lies, delusions and toxic behaviour.  Literally nothing of value.

If we need developers to dictate which chain is the "correct" chain, rather than the network, then bitcoin has failed. You can already have this kind of centralized "developers decide" approach with the vast majority of altcoins.

In your opinion.

Every development in bitcoin in the last 10 years isn't mentioned in the whitepaper. If we only went on the whitepaper, we wouldn't even be using addresses, only pubkeys.

And is bitcoin for everyone who wants to use it, or is it only for people who use it in the ways that we decide are acceptable?

Dashjr published some code months ago which anyone could simply paste in to their copy of Core in order to start filtering out ordinal transactions from their mempool. The most likely thing is that most people do not care either way, and will simply run whatever Core implements without a second thought.

However, there is something unique with Bitcoin. Everyone is able to "not comply with the rules" running whatever they want. Then the only thing they need to do is to convince other users to use the same set of rules.

Personal Opinion:
I am personally in favour of not dropping ordinals now, but if the majority chooses to reject ordinals, I will have to obey to this. I will still be able to run a version that allows ordinals, but in fact it won't matter because the majority will reject them.
Finally, I hate ordinals, but it is not safe to run specific code to reject them, because it will also impact other features that I (and perhaps many other users) need.

in response to troll doomad

doomad is the one that wants to stick to only a couple floppy disk era data. his post history speaks for itself
he then uses "GB by midnight" as the exaggerated oxymoron approach to suggest bitcoin cant cope with scaling as the reason to stick with a few floppy disk amounts limits that should not be changed unless core greenlight it

again he mis represent everything and even assumes scaling is just linear or "leaping" and he adjusts his troll posts to go from one exaggeration to the other to avoid any real rational discussion of improvements

linear is going like 1mb, 2mb,3mb,4mb
exponential is going 1mb, 2mb,4mb, 8mb, 16mb, 32mb, 64mb, 128mb
leaping/exaggerating is going 1mb, 4mb, 1gb, visa

my post history has shown my opinions has never been "linear" nor "leaping"

my post history has been more nuanced:
things like:
a. fee formulae to punish and dis-incentivise spammers/junkers from using soo much of blockspace to allow more use for genuine bitcoiners
b. decludging the blockspace to get back to real byte counts of transactions and blockspace to fully utilise allowed realms of blockspace limits
c. making transactions leaner so that 5tx couldnt fill a block pre 2017 and 1tx couldnt fill a block post 2017
d. and as for the progressive adjustments to bitcoin blocksize limits. i have never actually claimed judgements on any number. instead i have said idea's around progressive adjustments

in regards to (d). there are many ways to do this
much like how bitcoin difficulty doesnt adjust by a fixed linear/exponential amount. bitcoin blocksize doesnt either
it can adjust, without dev politic decisions, to grow based on the data of the blockchain

taking details like blockfill % and fee to make a calculations that shows how much over-demand there is for blockspace to then adjust by a varying amount from 25%-400%

based completely on blockdata not dev decided politics

as for doomads trolling pretending that i lie to him about the events of bitcoin history.. i can back up my description of events using code and blockdata. he can only quote social drama and fanclub leaders words and their broken promises

ill stick to the facts of immutable blockdata that cant edit history and the code that helped produce it, thank you very much

---

doomad post history of 2015-16 was more open minded. he wanted dynamic block increases he wanted people to continue to be able to buy coffee onchain. he wanted fee's to be moderate per user but total enough to keep the network happy WHEN the network needed the extra subsidy(not this decade)
he even didnt want the spam
..
however he completely flipped the script in 2017 and went full core affiliate program, selling their empty promises and repeating dead scripts that could not be backed up by data or code.. he became a sellout in the 2017+ era

by the way doomad has lost a recruit in his clubhouse(blackhatcoiner) so is desperate to hire another idiot to kiss his ass and be obediently loyal to his trollism narrative,, dont become one... its not healthy for you

do your own research(based on data and code, not social drama/politics of core roadmap of broken promises) and dont just sound like an echo of a troll.. think for yourself based on real data not social drama/ass kissery of previous and future broken promises they offer

yeah that's the problematic thing. something like bitcoin shouldn't be the result of unintended and unexpected consequences. so if they would have put in the specification that "NOTE: people can store arbitrary data in the witness now and that is how it is meant to be and how we want it to be" then that's one thing but I don't think people would have understood the reason for that stance. unless they also said "This is an unavoidable consequence of segwit and there's nothing we can do about it. Sorry!". but then people would say it's poorly designed and needs further work...

yawn.. "unexpected",, pfft   note the dates of these quotes.. yep pre segwit, talking about how segwit opens up the exploit

..
when core implemented the upgrade publicly from november 2016.. there were good reasons why the community did not vote above 45% even upto june 2017..
there were however dev politics and dev sponsorship reasons why MANDATED economic node(NYA agreement) forced/pushed/blackmailed the networks mining pools into an unnatural 100% compliance/activation by august 2017.. bypassing a real natural community vote process

its is also proven by blockdata and code of the version bits of june-july-august, of it happening

also to debunk the troll you "respect"

see i was talking about dynamic progress(scaling) not linear nor exponential and not requiring dev politics to decide.. but here we are 7 years later discussing how errors made 7 years ago have come to fruition via the exploits mentioned 7 years ago about junk arbitrary data. and how scaling still is being demanded but not achieved, and we have trolls trying to make other exaggerations about how exponential and linear wont solve anything to avoid rational discussions about real solutions

wow franky you were pretty spot on in your prediction. i mean you saw monkeys coming from a mile away! uncanny how you predicted exactly what was going to happen to the T.  :o

not exactly foreseeing monkey images.. i was thinking more like people writing the bible into the blockchain, or the encyclopaedia or the full series of harry potter..

but yea, it pays to actually read and scrutinise and review code, and look at how things work. instead of just reading social/blog posts of confirmation bias trolls who just want to ass kiss devs like gods promoting uptopian fluffy cloud empty promises of heaven.. and then those trolls form social groups to all agree that they love core devs and agree that no one should dare read, scrutinise or review code as it goes against devs ambitions and hurts devs feelings. and use each other as proofs of each others narratives by quoting each other in an echo chamber

when idiots say that the community should not requests devs to do something. pretending asking devs to do something is authoritarianism.. the truth is letting devs do as devs want without question, scrutiny, critique is the true authoritarianism

i was not the only one that seen problems with segwits implementation.. its why it only got 45% over 8 months(nov-june) where core devs were hoping to reach consensus in one month(nov-dec).
they by june realised their 12 month deadline was approaching, and instead of accepting defeat and going back to the drawing board to offer something the community could actually fully get behind, they done some bait and switch empty promise marketing campaigns of mandates and mining pool blackmails via their sponsors(NYA agreement) to push it through, just so that the devs can collect their 12 month sponsor deadline reward when activated

Ordinals are not part of traditional bitcoin transactions, they just abuse the bug. Is it really censorship if we don't let others to abuse the bug? Ordinals are damaging the bitcoin and you guys protect the ordinals, doesn't make sense for me. Even in censorship-free world, abusers should be punished.

Censorship, censorship. 100% censorship-free is a failure and we already reap the results.

I highly respect your every opinion but I can't agree with you on this particular task. You say that bitcoin is for everyone but Ordinals kill it for everyone. I, like many people, can't use Bitcoin because of ordinals. Now ordinals spammers use bitcoin instead of genuine bitcoin users. Imagine you live in a world where everyone protects rules but there is a guy who robs and kills people, should that person be punished or not despite the fact that everyone else protects rules? Someone might argue with me that it will be censorship to get rid of that one bad person but if you don't get rid of him/her, he/she will get rid of all of you. 100% censorship-free system is impossible, even for Bitcoin. Ordinal spammers abuse network, they are abusers.

how could you not expect images, audio and maybe even short video clips to appear? wouldn't that logically follow? i don't think there's been too much storing of audio and video but there has been some. people never stop at just text. i'm sure you know that.  ;D


so there was other people that were against it for the same reasons as you? to me that's hard to believe since i don't think most people have any idea about the code. or what it would allow. i just don't believe people would have known about the arbitrary data being put into the witness issue. i guess i could be wrong but i'd need to see their posts from the relevant time period to know for sure. because as i said, i don't think most people know much about those kind of details.

back then no one was talking about NFT, art copywriting or tokenisations. they were just talking about immutable whitepaper and wikileaks publishing


node users are not part of consensus voting anymore.. there was not such a thing as "user assisted" even in 2017
using the old fashioned consensus has died off in recent years. definitions of what is defined as "consensus activation" has changed
though some trolls will think that consensus always has been some lame trick user recently.. reality is it hasnt, consensus was stronger in earlier years to activate important stuff.. but now consensus has gone soft

it was mining pools and services(economic nodes) which are a certain subset of bitcoin community that had the strength of a recognised vote/allegiance to a certain codebase(research the NYA agreement/mandated activation)

USERS whether they upgrade or not would not be able to stop or activate a feature(research backward compatibility).. a "user assisted activation" has not been a thing for a long time.. (and although troll promoted as such, user assisted was not the mechanism used in 2017.. which you can learn by looking at the block flags and bips and code of what actually activated the 2017 upgrade (economic node NYA+ mandated mining pool blakmail)

In retrospect, we can see that it did logically follow. However, almost nobody was thinking about using the blockchain for anything other than payments for its first several years.

Story time:

Nobody had the foresight to use Bitcoin for digitally recreating physical items outside of money, such as trading cards or artwork, until 2015. There were the famous BitLen / Ben Bernanke ASCII images that was embedded into a transaction in 2011, but they weren't transferrable.

The first time a piece of art was embedded in Bitcoin and associated with a transferrable, Bitcoin-based asset was August 2015, when NFT pioneer JP Janssen made a Counterparty broadcast (https://xchain.io/tx/299585) containing a HEX-encoded thumbnail-sized image for his OLGA (https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA) token. This was accomplished by splitting the image data into multiple outputs, which were eventually spent.

JP also created one of the first wallets that made it easy to transfer & organize Spells of Genesis (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=957797.0) tokens, which is widely considered to be the first digital trading card collection:


How many people reading this have heard of any of these things? Outside of knowing about 'BitLen', I'm guessing not many.

The point is, virtually nobody had the foresight to use Bitcoin for image storage until well after NFTs were a thing, and it was only recently enabled because of Taproot. Before that it was limited to postage stamp-sized images.

Here's a really good article that covers all these early experiments:

https://medium.com/kaleidoscope-xcp/the-early-evolution-of-art-on-the-blockchain-part-1-d52d1454e34b

If we don't kill ordinals, ordinals will kill us. Some might argue that we shouldn't remove ordinals because we have to remain 100% censorship-free but don't these transaction fees affect your pocket? We want to use bitcoin for p2p transactions but some people use it for sending JPEGs and some crazy dudes are willing to pay millions in these crazy JPEG files. So, many of you can't use Bitcoin in everyday life because fees are super high. Do you guys want massive adoption? Do you really support crypto payments? Do you want to buy things with crypto? How are you going to do that? To pay $50 on each $5 transaction and go bankrupt quickly while miners will spend their holidays in Ibiza?
Natural selection works in cryptocurrencies too. More and more people move on altcoins while more and more ordinal guys move on Bitcoins. Soon there will be 100 censorship-free bitcoin full of useless JPEG files while the financial world will move on altcoins. Is this what we want? This forum will probably be changed by ordinaltalk and Casey Rodarmor will be a new satoshi. Is this really what we want? Or should we stop arguing that if some people think black is white, maybe they are right bullshit? Ordinals are spam, it doesn't need arguing or if it needs, good luck with using Bitcoin alone with JPEG fanatics.

Turn the question the other way around.  Don't the rest of the transactions affect your pocket?  Would you ever consider to censor the rest for the sake of maintaining a low median fee?

Not at the cost of fundamentally altering one of the core tenets of bitcoin - censorship resistance.

High fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. As I've said before, bitcoin cannot survive long term without high fees. If we can't tolerate these fees, then we need to innovate to increase capacity, not censor transactions we don't like.

We don't want to increase block size, we don't want to get rid of ordinals. This is ridiculous. We have to do something, not every solution will ever get 100% support but something has to be done. I don't plan to move on Lighting Network because that's not why I am here. Why should I be forced to move on LN? No reason. Ordinals have also never been a part of Bitcoin, it all started recently. So, blocking them is not cersorship. But okay, leave it, let the people buy shit, I see no problem into it but shouldn't we increase block size? When this question gets asked, someone comes and says, I think it should be 8MB, 16MB, 1GB. Then someone says why should it be 8MB and not 9MB and so on.

You say that high fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. I want to say it again, in the future. At the moment, high fees are not necessary. These fees just give unnecessary extra reward to bitcoin miners while hugely and unnecessarily taxing regular users. This is not the network security, this is robbery.
And if we talk about future, I'll say this: Number of daily bitcoin transactions will skyrocket and if we increase the block size according to the increased demand, miners will still get solid profit because they'll earn small commission but in very high quantity.

Just imagine this (Today):
- 100K daily transactions, 4K transaction included in each block
- Miners get 0.001 BTC from each transaction (on average), i.e. 4 BTC from each block.

In the future:
- 800K daily transactions, 64K transactions included in each block
- Miners get 0.0005 BTC from each transaction (on average), i.e. 32 BTC from each block. Users pay less but they get more.

---

So, if bitcoin price, number of bitcoin users and transactions grow, mining will be still secure without enormously high fees.

A sustainable fee market needs to develop organically over time. We cannot manipulate the system to keep fees low for as long as we want and then expect there to suddenly be a competitive fee market when we need it. Are we going to go the other way when fees are 1 sat/vbyte and no longer enough to secure the network, and start uncensoring transactions or reducing block size?

Ok, great. So let's start a discussion about further increasing block size, or further changing the weighting on different parts of transactions to make non-ordinal transaction relatively cheaper, or batched tree payments, or some other layer two, or some other scaling solution. All are preferable to censorship.

This is all of course entirely theoretical. As I've pointed out before (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476758.msg63283016#msg63283016), there is no way to actually censor ordinals. If we ban the method they are currently using, there are countless other ways they can embed their data in transactions including some which are impossible to ban, and many of these other methods are less efficient and will therefore make things worse, not better.

We're not doing anything, unless you count bitching and moaning as "something."


Technically speaking, Ordinals has always been a part of Bitcoin since the genesis block. Its just a serialization system for satoshis. This is the full list of "rare" satoshis:

https://ordinals.com/rare.txt

The first transferrable "rare satoshi" was mined in Block 1 (https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098).


Paying more than 96 sat/vbyte is necessary if you want to include your transaction in the next block.


This is exactly the way the network was intended to function.

How do you know that a hasty increase of the block size limit won't just lead to more & bigger monkey pictures, thus more blockchain bloat, storage & bandwidth, making it more costly to run a node? It may very well lead to a temporary decrease in fees, but at what cost? These are the things people far smarter and more familiar with the subject than us are currently contemplating.

wrong
if you know anything about economics and maths(doubt you do) if you knew how bitcoin treat UTXO value and then fee's and then value in a block
you will notice that the way that bitcoin accounts for sats is that the output to destinations is the "change" after fee
meaning the utxo value pays out fee's first and the remainder goes to destinations. so the "first sat" goes back to pools in real math/economics of bitcoin..
thats why ordinal sat counting is a failed policy. because it just doesnt actually count sats properly.
also the sat counting done by ordinals was not invented in 2009. it was created BADLY in 2020+

emphasis: ordinals theory of counting sats was not implemented in 2009
emphasis: ordinals theory of counting sats does not follow the spending economics of sats from 2009 economics

For me, if the developers really wanted to fix this issue they had to find alternatives to totally stop these "attacks". Why? Because this will ruin the true purpose of existence of Bitcoin as a "new kind of money" and the other one that says "innovative payment network" that contradicts the current situation because who the heck wanna spend more fees for just a small amount of transaction?

It can be very challenging to raise the block size without affecting decentralization. There's no perfect balance to be honest. Either developers add more block space at the cost of higher centralization (which leads to lower network fees) or all the other way around. I think users will vote in favor of banning/filtering Ordinals for the sake of lower fees. Miners won't like the decision, but it's the majority that counts. How can we call Bitcoin a digital "Peer-to-Peer electronic cash system" with higher fees than Fiat? It doesn't make any sense.

I'd bet people from developing countries (eg: El Salvador) are suffering dearly from the current situation. If Ordinals are to be kept, they should be moved to a sidechain or L2 network. Or move to a smart contract platform like Ethereum or Solana. Who knows how long will the craze last? :)

ordinals theory wont work on subnetworks
think logically
if a user has a "special sat". that user locks it into a funding tx for a subnetwork..
ill emphasise this "locking it"
heck lets say it 3 times to really drill in the point LOCKING IT to the federated multisig/channel

whereby any subnetwork payments then does not move the special sat because the sats are locked to the funding lock
the recipient of new balance is not getting balance from the "special sat" funding lock. they get balance from another allotment of locked coins they are partnered with elsewhere on the subnetwork
when the scammed recient wants to close the channel/federated multisig. they are not closing the special sat lock to claim it.. they are instead closing their own arrangement with their own partners elsewhere on the network, far away from the special sat lock

as for junk memes
if you want junk meme scamming to continue where they pretend to change ownership via a bitcoin subnetwork. again means using the bitcoin blockchain for publishing and then scam spending an output to a lock. where the subnetwork then doesnt do anything about the junk because the junk is on the mainnet.
yes sidechains could relax their code to allow 4mb of junk. but they are not going to be dumb enough to do that

overall ordinals just needs to be stopped because the ordinal theory of counting sats and assigning arbitrary meta data, does not follow the rules of bitcoin, nor economics, nor maths, no immutably proven linkage to destination

and no, these junk do not follow the bitcoin rules
bitcoin rules have been relaxed to no longer byte check every byte for specific content. new opcodes that bypass validation have been added and its this exploit that ordinal junk uses. core devs need to re-engage stronger ruleset of expected bytecount/content relevance of opcodes and disable unconditioned opcodes. whereby new opcodes only get enabled when network readiness is there to validate the rules of new opcodes that have expectation of bytes/content, via consensus upgrades

That is the problem we have to worry about after 100 years. I believe things won't be the same today and 100 years later. Today we have a different reality and things have to be adjusted to this reality. I don't understand why it should be a problem to increase block size two times and probably even more. If we think that 100 years later 8MB, 12MB or 16MB block size won't be enough to secure the network, then we can be confident that Bitcoin has failed because it lost popularity and people don't use it. If Bitcoin gets more popular and that's what is the hope, then today's 1 sat won't be the same in value too and focus here is not about 1 sat/vByte. We don't even know if we have USD as a currency 100 years later, I think it's too early to worry about the moment when miners won't be able to mine btc, there are many things to consider and that's impossible to predict: active global currency, the purchasing value of that currency, Bitcoin's price, electricity costs and so on.

Why should we move on layer two? Let's move Ordinals on layer two :D Ok, I'm joking.
If it's impossible to actually censor ordinals, then does it mean that Bitcoin as a P2P version of electronic cash is a failed project and it's only left for those who want to send JPEG files?

I mean that Bitcoin's price is enough to keep mining profitable and there is no necessity of super high fees to keep network secure at the moment. I mean, mining will be very profitable with way lower transaction fees.

We will need a high fee market long before then. It is only going to take 20 years for the block subsidy to fall below 0.1 BTC. If BTC is worth $100,00, that's only $10,000. Even if you think bitcoin will be $500,000, that's only $50,000. Miners are currently earning upwards of $300,000 per block. A high fee market isn't some distant problem to worry about, and we can't kick the can down the road and then have this exact same discussion in 10, 15, 20 years when the hashrate starts falling.

Bitcoin failed as P2P electronic cash a long time ago when the majority of users started using centralized exchanges and letting third parties hold their coins.

Personally I consider Monero as pure P2P money and I am very happy that Binance will delist XMR. Seriously, I think where Bitcoin fails, Monero jumps in and reminds me why I bought Bitcoin in the first place. Well, now I hold both, but Monero serves my original purpose much better.

I think it's not too late though for Bitcoin. I don't want to derail the conversation but I believe that instead of killing ordinals, we should focus on running more nodes and more miners. It is sad because a bitcoin node requires minimal hardware to work and people rely on other nodes. At the same time, people use exchanges as you said. I think we must focus now on expanding the network horizontally. When that happens, we can consider more changes, but for now, I believe more devices should be running. It will not solve the problem, but it will definetely follow the original purpose of Bitcoin in a meaningful way.

you have no clue
if you think 1btc is only going to be worth $100k in 20 years you really are scratching at the bottom of the scarecrow pole holding up a strawman

why is it idiots like you and your small group of echo chamber scripts that keep failing at math and economics and actual bitcoin concepts to pretend the extremes of low market or high blocksize are the only options.. you have no clue about rational thought of actual scaling and deflation and spot market dynamics

look we all know you adore the fee war. it helps promote the subnetworks you prefer people to use.. we get your promotions.. but can you try for 2024 to stop thinking about your desires of pushing people off bitcoin via high fee's into your middle men services. and just once actually think of things that benefit bitcoiners that want to use bitcoin

your favourite subnetwork LN failed P2P cash its first day because it requires middlemen and locked up value

Agree. Monero is more decentralized than Bitcoin now, probably because it's not driven by VCs own interests. While a spot Bitcoin ETF is good for investors, it will do more harm than good for BTC's decentralization. Ordinals are hated by users simply because they raise on-chain fees. The wealthy, however, love Ordinals because it makes them a lot of money in the process. Elon Musk and Michael Saylor are both avid supporters of Ordinals inscriptions.

Is Bitcoin meant to be a system for VCs and institutional investors? Or a currency by the people, for the people? It seems to me things are heading into the wrong direction for the premier cryptocurrency project. Long gone are the ideals of true decentralization and censorship-resistance. You can see why Monero is disliked by many (governments, banks, exchanges). BTC has entered uncharted waters, so expect the unexpected.

It will be interesting to hear, why do you support Bitcoin then? To be honest, I came up with a conclusion that Monero is everything that some people wanted bitcoin to be. Monero is anonymous, decentralized, delisted from centralized exchanges.
Right now, for me it looks like, Bitcoin is the number one currency because it is the most marketed one by millions of individuals, billions of money is invested into it the fact that its creator(s) is unknown, it's promoted as the only decentralized currency because of that but actually it's very much centralized because centralized exchanges hold the most reserves, they all are KYC enabled and at the same time, mining two major mining pools own more than 51% of hashrate. Long story short, governments managed to get it in their hands.

Why do you call him an idiot? He is a very smart and good guy, he is a great asset of this forum. He knows a lot, is very helpful and the most important thing is that he never says something out of thin air, what he says is always verified. This is the case when there is a disagreement on this opinion between him and other users. He has his arguments, I have mine and you have yours. Maybe you, me and him don't agree with each-other but this doesn't make him idiot.
I like to read posts written by both of you, you two are very informative, for me at least. Hope I am not on the wrong path.

Because I'm not ready to give up on it quite yet. :P I do agree with the points about Monero though, and Monero now better encapsulates many of the reasons I got in to Bitcoin in the first place. I've said many times it's the only coin I own and use other than bitcoin and one of the very few alts which I consider to not be a shitcoin. It also remains a lot easier to spend Bitcoin nearly anywhere than it is to spend
Monero, but that is slowly shifting as time goes on.

Haha, classic franky1. I've had him on ignore for a long time. You and I disagree with each other, but can discuss that like adults and put forward our reasoning. franky1 is unable to do that - he is 100% right on all matters and anyone who disagrees with him on any topic is an idiot, as far as he is concerned.

i call him an idiot when he is blind to facts, data, real world math and economics and he is just repeating crap he read from another idiot..
its the times he sounds like a brainless echo chamber of someone else that i call him an idiot.
times where he uses extremes of empty sentiment to ignore the actual proposals
times where he says things that go against code and blockdata
where the only thing backing him up is a club house of echo chamber scripts repeating repeating each other as a form of confirmation bias without using any actual thought or intelligence

in the post said by him i quoted. he was talking about nonsense extremes that in 20 years the btc market price will be just $100k/btc and how transactors would need to pay more sats then they are this year.. completely ignoring logic, economics and maths of bitcoin utility/deflation, market reaction to several halvings. and ignoring basic assumptions of things like more transactions per block solves the fee total issue he cries about, more then the demands he wants to impose on less transactors to pay more

if he wants to be called an idiot less, he should stop being a blind copy and paste of some scripted rhetoric being repeated and instead think about what he writes and use some code, data and math, basic common sense and logic
i also call his echoed club house mates blackhatcoiner, windfury and others idiots when they too just repeat the same crap rhetoric. they can all avoid being called idiots by simply stopping repeating the foolish rhetoric which is obviously repeated without thought or consciousness

when certain group of people want bitcoin to be too expensive to transact but then promote that everyone should shift down to some flawed subnetwork.. its obvious they prefer bitcoin to be ruined to promote their favoured other network that uses locked up value and middlemen.. and that shows how little these idiots care about bitcoin.

..
he has the gall to try to incite REKT campaign to avoid fixing an exploit. by pretending its inferior node, inciting people should just avoid it, but in same post promotes an even lessor known/ more inferior deamon that doesnt even have a good GUI or wallet functionality..
he is too determined to want the exploit to continue and cause more annoyance/expense of using bitcoin all so he can promote his favoured alternative services that involve middlemen

when he sounds like a scripted snake oil salesman pitching things that do not help the bitcoin community, he deserves to be called an idiot


so you think him saying individuals paying fee's need to increase.. and you think thats not out of thinair and think thats verified
so you think him saying bitcoin wont be deflationary and will be stuck at just $100k in 20 years. and thats not out of thin air but verified

come on even common sense of the previous 15 years shows that a 2.2x rise in next 20 years is not the limit

he says stupid thin air extremes nonsense of 1btc=$100k in 20 years.. to then set some numbskull entry of his scripted narrative he read by some other clown that wants fee wars to remain. wants exploits to remain, wants junk to bloat the blockchain. because they have an agenda, whereby he is either complicit. or ignorant of his own following of their scripts

Good, it's insane what these ordinals are doing to the bitcoin network.  I was never really a fan of the idea of adding something like this to bitcoin.  I always thought that smart contracts were better suited for smart contract coins like Ethereum, for example.  Perhaps in the future when bitcoin scales better, or they open up another layer or whatever, then it could be a positive, but right now I see it as a much bigger negative than positive.

But I don't think this developers of Bitcoin are doing anything to douse this problem of high transaction fee because it has passed one month when the hike of fee started but nothing has been done to stop this problem but instead these ordinals are doing all there best to stop all the channels which people are using to accelerate the transaction and spam the network.

These ordinals are making things unbeatable for Bitcoin users. People have been waiting for this transaction fee to come down so they can withdraw their money but no way because the fee is equivalent to the total amount of Bitcoin in the wallet. I don't blame the ordinals but the developers for allowing the ordinals to come into the network.

Bitcoin should stick only to financial applications (money transfers). Otherwise, it would add more burden to the blockchain than necessary. Why were altcoins invented? To take off the load from the main Bitcoin blockchain. It's the reason why BTC can't be the only cryptocurrency to handle everything it's thrown at.

Smart contract platforms such as Ethereum and Solana are better suited as multi-purpose chains due to the way they were designed. It's no wonder why they're the King of "De-Fi" and NFTs. Ordinals inscriptions should move to these chains to make Bitcoin great again. Lets see what the community decides in the long run. As long as decisions are made with decentralization in mind, nothing else matters. Just my opinion :)

This has been discussed on the mailing list since as far back as January last year, when the first wave of ordinal spam hit the network. And it was rightly pointed out on the mailing list that banning this kind of data is technically impossible, as I've also said many times in this thread, since the spammers can just move their data to other parts of the transaction which are impossible to ban, such as embedding it with public keys themselves.

Have you considered your biggest issue is using centralized exchanges from which you have to withdraw "your" money in the first place? Why should we start censoring transactions and adversely affect the future security of the network because you didn't use bitcoin peer to peer but instead let a third party take ownership of your money and dictate fees to you?

For 99.99% of altcoins, to make their creators rich.

its not technically impossible. it just means core cant be so openly able to trojan horse new transaction formats without network readiness/consensus if they did tighten the rules again

separately yes they can put data into 1-of-2 multisig whereby the unsigned key is a hash of data. or a clear hex of data with a prefix to fake it to appear as a key..
.. but compared to the junk of allowing 1tx to have 4mb of space to throw memes into. using multisig becomes more expensive.. plus they can actually make a fee formulae that punishes the over use of multisig. EG limiting output numbers or making certain opcode/output formats a premium
no single transaction should have upto 4mb of allowance. we need to get back to lean transactions again via re-introducing harder rules that were softened, as well as other things like making spammers pay a premium if they spend young utxo too often or using too many outputs it multiplies the fee overall..
and yes it can all be done.. because code can do alot of things.

i do laugh you think its technically impossible. you should try comedy because technical discussion seems to fail you in certain topics that come with an agenda to make bitcoin annoying to use to promote the utility of other networks

at most its 'Dev politically' impossible under the current core governance of the protocol.. but thats different to 'technically' impossible