Good call. So the numbers become 19 valid possibilities, for a chance of 0.46% or 1 in ~216.

hosseinimr93 is correct. 20,000 sats for 110 vbytes is 181 sats/vbyte. Both of these values are far below the DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MAXFEE and HIGH_TX_FEE_PER_KB settings in Bitcoin Core (which are 0.1 BTC or 1,000 sats/vbyte, respectively).

If you are getting the same error on multiple servers, then the problem is with your transaction. I also suspect you have maybe set the fee to 20,000 sats/vbyte rather than 20,000 sats overall (which as LoyceV has pointed out, will achieve nothing anyway).

Did the previous rescan definitely fully complete? It showed up all your coins and transactions? If you shut down before it was fully finished then I assume it will start again from the wallet birthday whenever you next launch Sparrow.

Other things to consider - did you close Sparrow normally and did you close Core normally? Neither of them crashed? Did you change your wallet's birthday, create a new wallet, or import any new addresses? All of these things will trigger a rescan. And you haven't moved/edited/deleted any of the Sparrow wallet files?

Have you checked the Sparrow logs to see if they show anything useful?

Exactly. Exchanges cannot surveil it, cannot control it, and cannot censor it like they can do with every other coin. Their only option to conform with governmental demands is to delist it entirely. This is just more proof that Monero works.

And as I've said before, no one who is actually interested in the privacy that Monero provides is buying it through a fully KYCed centralized exchange anyway.

It makes up a third of all volume at Coincards: https://nitter.cz/CoinCards/status/1720502526339088602#m
And apparently now the most popular currency at this EU based online store: https://nitter.cz/shopinbit/status/1726672087761494495#m

Only because most altcoins are incredibly insecure. If you think BCash is fast, for example, it actually takes over 1,000 BCash confirmations to have the same security as 6 bitcoin confirmations.

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?

I've still got Kruw on ignore for obvious reasons, but I've debunked his nonsense about tracking toxic change many times before: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457560.msg63102560#msg63102560.

An interesting experiment.

Valid seed version numbers for Electrum are 0x01, 0x100, and 0x101. This means that of the 2¹² possibilities for the first 12 bits of the hash of the seed phrase, 18 of these possibilities are valid (2⁴ + 1 + 1). This is a chance of 0.44%, or around 1 in 228. You can literally type any word and then just hold down the last key in the seed phrase box. Watch closely and you'll see the "Seed Type:" dialog pop up every so often when the hash happens to match what I've described above. (Obviously no one should ever use this method to actually generate a wallet!)

Out of curiosity I worked out the average BIP39 word has 5.4 characters and so the average 12 word seed phrase has 65 characters, meaning that a little less than 1 in every 4 Electrum seed phrases on average will create another valid seed phrase while being entered.

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.

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?

The large group of people outside of Bitcointalk who are interested in coinjoins are predominantly using Samourai/Sparrow/Whirlpool. As I've said 100 times already, even putting the whole mass surveillance thing to one side why would people abandon a better coinjoin implementation in order to bootstrap an inferior one which suffers from address reuse and deterministic links?

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.

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.

$150 for a closed source box with no screen which means you have to sign your transactions blindly and which gives Block the ability to completely surveil all your transactions. Seems like all the concerns we raised multiple times in this thread have been completely ignored and Block have powered ahead with the worst possible combination of features.

Hard pass.

You just need to look at the court case of Roman Sterlingov for proof of how completely unreliable they are. Chainalysis had to admit under oath that they have absolutely zero scientific process underlying any of their methods, that they have absolutely zero proof that any of their methods work as advertised, and they have no data at all on how many false positives they generate. In other words, the entire thing is little more than guesswork.

So in summary - censorship you agree with should be allowed, but censorship you don't agree with should be banned.

Can you not see how this is a problematic statement to make? Bitcoin is either censorship resistant, or it isn't. Allowing some censorship that some users think is ok opens the door to any and all censorship.

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!

But it's a prime example of why trying to ban ordinals is a mistake. You will absolutely end up banning other legitimate use cases, while the ordinals can easily move their arbitrary data to elsewhere where it is impossible to ban.

A tiny amount. This censorship from Ocean will be irrelevant to Whirlpool, but it's a terrible precedent to set and governments will absolutely latch on to this as more proof that mining pools can censor at will.

Knots sets the upper limit of OP_RETURN data to 42 bytes. Core sets it to 83 bytes.

Whirlpool Tx0s create an OP_RETURN output larger than 42 bytes (but less than 83 bytes), so Knots sees them as invalid. Since this Ocean mining pool is based on Knots, it will not mine these transactions as it sees them as invalid.

I always thought this scenario was an "if", and that more people would be disgusted by this behavior and do something about it. Given how little everyone seems to care, I worry this scenario is now a "when".

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.

You can be my +1 for now. My last +1 is still chained up from the last party disappeared in mysterious circumstances.