On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

it was called "anyonecanspend" but even that had a byte limit

You mean a standardness limit? Protocol rules only got stricter since then. You don't have any advantage other than standardness-related.

But the problem = it opens an attack vector for self-sustaining network congestion.

What attack vector? The only problem Ordinals create (or bring, it is years created) is higher fees for Bitcoin users. It pretty much works the other way for the miners, who're the ones who sustain the network.

1, protocols got relaxed since then as new formats can be slid in more easily with less checks
LEARN  "backward compatability" softening of consensus
LEARN OPCODES
LEARN w0 op codes w1 opcodes

2. ordinal deadweight bloat added dead weight bloat which is a spam attack vector
i know you prune so dont care about blockchain data and your not a full node so you personally dont see it. but bitcoin is not a meme library and never was.. so this spam attack vector is making bitcoin become:
a meme library
filling blocks with extra data that has nothing to do with making lean payments of btc value
causing everyones average fee to increase

its instead turning into a meme library to scam people of btc value by charging them more then the btc value being moved for something they dont get to own

3. seriously blackhatcoiner you seem to be throwing yourself back into supporting the same crap ideals as your forum-wife again. saying things she says without actually thinking for yourself. what happened did she pay you off to stay together

I wasn't debating the fact that it will be expensive, or some users will be priced out. I was merely saying that censorship-resistance and decentralization come with a price. Are you willing to pay for it? Or do you want PayPal?

bitcoin has never been censorship resistant
we would have seen litecoin, monero, doge,(100,000 altcoin) transactions being broadcast and pushed into blocks if there was no rules of acceptance

you need to learn that bitcoin always has been a consent network. by mass agreement of certain fortmats. where lots of crap data does get rejected

yep blocks get rejected if they dont fit rules

you thinking the rules ned to be taken away is breaking bitcoin rules. some are already broken which has allowed this crap data to be let into blocks

stop following your forum-daddy and forum mommys scripts of stupid buzzwords and rhetoric

[1714482941]

1714482941

[1714482941]

1714482941

[1714482941]

1714482941

[1714482941]

1714482941

[1714482941]

1714482941

[DooMAD]

I am very curious on what satoshi would think about this situation.

Bitcoin is much bigger than any one individual's wishes.  It's what we do as a whole that matters.  Appeals to authority are also considered a logical fallacy. 

crap ideals

LOL.  You're basically a Stalinist.  I guarantee you are not in a position to lecture about "crap ideals".

[franky1]

I am very curious on what satoshi would think about this situation.

Bitcoin is much bigger than any one individual's wishes.  It's what we do as a whole that matters.  Appeals to authority are also considered a logical fallacy.  

crap ideals

LOL.  You're basically a Stalinist.  I guarantee you are not in a position to lecture about "crap ideals".

YOU love the authority known as core
yes appealing to core to change their roadmap is a fallacy because they will remove/ignore anyone that does not like their plan. due to their moderation policy

core are the stalins/monarchy/authority and you support them even when they introduce flaws and features that harm the masses

oh and you love that they can introduce things without the masses consent

[Hispo]

I started a new 1 sat/b actual Bitcoin transaction yesterday. Lets see how many days the current spam wave will make me wait... Remember, it used to be 2~12 hours before Ordinals and friends invaded.

I would have set that transaction at 2 sat/bit at least, considering I have been noticing some important accumulation and delay on those that have opted for 1 sat/bit. Nonetheless, I am confident enough that this weekend we could see a significant drop in the mempool memory and the cheapest transactions could go through without much problem.

If there is no reduction, then next week would be one of high fees, similar to what we witnessed in mid February.  

This year, I believe we will truly start to understand the point of RBF and the fee market. It will not be the perfect situation, especially for those coffee-transactions, but with censorship-resistant, unstoppable money will come a price. I'm starting to understand that if it's not Ordinals, it's going to be another situation that there's more demand for block space. Maybe if there's more demand for payments in Bitcoin perhaps?

I believe one needs to understand the point of view of Artemis3 and people who agree this is spam. If we talk of Bitcoin as "free money" or a P2P payment system. Then where do the NFTs/ordinals find their place in this concept? Or isn't Bitcoin to be a tool to transfer value rather than a decentralized storage for thousands of pictures?

My personal opinion is, we may have our own opinions about it, positive or negative, BUT calling for its censorship is going against the ethos/philosophy that founded Bitcoin, and brought it where it currently is = Permissionlessness/Censorship-Resistance.

But the problem = it opens an attack vector for self-sustaining network congestion.

While I agree RBF is useful, one should not expect it to be an ultimate solution if one wants to pay something in a reasonable period of time. Specially in countries where each dollar counts.

I wasn't debating the fact that it will be expensive, or some users will be priced out. I was merely saying that censorship-resistance and decentralization come with a price. Are you willing to pay for it? Or do you want PayPal?

I would never go back to paypal or keep any of my little money over there, even if they suddenly decided to go fee-less. 
it is a biased corporation willing to sensor people's transactions at will. That being said, I am not trying to justify censorship within the Bitcoin network or anything like that, I am just worried on the vector attack this opens to some entity or government with enough money to artificially halt most of operations.

Or are we supposed to stay calm and wait for it to happen and just pay over 100 sat/vbyte to compete against the malicious spammers who want Bitcoin to be disabled for basic transfers of value? 

If there is a way for people to upload images without lagging other's transactions, then it is fine.

[franky1]

another reason these crap memes are a attack vector:

changes to bitcoin where it was considered legally/ recognised as currency allowed countries regulators to get involved. then it was a currency asset. then it was a commodity

and now by instead of just being a financial network it is becoming a media library of image, sound and video. new regulators can step in and try to control what happens to bitcoin due to data laws

we should not let that happen
by continuing to allow dead weight data to be added. means regulators will start to want to set rules on controlling all data to prevent the small case deadweight data from containing illegal content.

bitcoin was never designed to be a media library and due to laws about data and content we should not allow more regulators to decide what happens with data inside bitcoin. by instead trying to get bitcoin back to its main and sole purpose where by its not even considered to be a media library thus avoids any new regulator jurisdiction involvement

bitcoin has never been a censorship-resistance network. the words censorship resistance is not mentioned once in the white paper, nor "censor" not "resistance".. however consensus is mentioned
agreement is mentioned. verification is mentioned

it includes phrases like
Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

no where does it say "let anything in and treated is as 'isvalid' by default"

ill leave you with this quote to think about

expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

the consensus method has been softened and changed. thus whats happened since the change is not part of bitcoins true purpose

[BlackHatCoiner]

1, protocols got relaxed

Define protocol relaxation. I only understand soft forks and hard forks. And I know that if there are only soft forks, rules become stricter, not the opposite.

3. seriously blackhatcoiner you seem to be throwing yourself back into supporting the same crap ideals as your forum-wife again. saying things she says without actually thinking for yourself. what happened did she pay you off to stay together

Seriously, cut the crap. Stop this horseshit before I begin to turn nasty. I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that I'm blindly following DooMAD's ideas and perspective, but I've got to tell you: I don't. The fact that most reasonable members make perfect sense from his writings in comparison with yours should tell you a lot. He happens to be a lot more voice of reason than your perpetually refuted ass.

Now listen up, and listen good. This board is consisted of adult discussions. If you want to take part, please act like an adult. Check your ego, don't be an asshole, and don't derail and interrupt every discussion with the same things you can't comprehend since 2017. Kατανoητό;

[SeeBiscuit]

And then there's also the issue of fungibility considering that a Satoshi assigned with a unique inscription such as an image or even a video is no longer the same with the rest.

What is your opinion on this? Are you in favor of this or not?

_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

I think this is what everyone will have a problem with.

I feel that if a satoshi that is part of the real bitcoin network gets modified at the fungible level, then it kinda defeats the whole purpose of having fungible electronic cash in the first place. This is especially true when considering proof-of-work, and the amount of work that the miners and full node operators have done over the years to secure and defend the network from attacks. It's almost offensive IMO.

This is most likely why people are considering this as an attack on the network itself, and you know what, I kinda see it that way to be completely frank.

I mean there are other chains in the crypto ecosystem that deal with NFT's such as Ethereum and Solana. Then again, "bitcoin can already do stuff these other shit-coins are doing". Haha right? -.-

Furthermore, I have a problem with this because not only are you ignoring other ecosystems that are built for NFT's and stuff, but you go right back and force something bitcoin was never meant to do.  

Can't have your cake and eat it too sometimes I guess.

Then again, having satoshi's get taken out of circulation via ordinals can be looked as them getting burned? If that's the case, then some people might support ordinals because of the fact that it will make their ₿ags more valuable when they want to start $elling.
_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Where do I stand on ordinals?

Hell-to-the:

[franky1]

i want to talk about the dead weight data bloat.. but yet again a social drama queen group want to make it all about "franky"

silly fools will do anything to resist learning. researching, thinking.. and it seems "franky" is to blame for their ignorance

1, protocols got relaxed

Define protocol relaxation. I only understand soft forks and hard forks. And I know that if there are only soft forks, rules become stricter, not the opposite.

you know very well about how consensus got softened you have been loudy promoting the "backward compatability" flaw that allows new things in without mass node consent
(backward compatibility translates to 'abstinence is consent')
you know that older nodes treat new things as valid by default even if they cannot fully verify the content
you know the flaw. you love the flaw dont play dumb now

3. seriously blackhatcoiner you seem to be throwing yourself back into supporting the same crap ideals as your forum-wife again. saying things she says without actually thinking for yourself. what happened did she pay you off to stay together

Seriously, cut the crap. Stop this horseshit before I begin to turn nasty. I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that I'm blindly following DooMAD's ideas and perspective, but I've got to tell you: I don't. The fact that members make perfect sense from his writings in comparison with yours should tell you a lot. He happens to be a lot more voice of reason than your perpetually refuted ass.

you deny following doomad then admit you follow doomad all in the same paragraph

as for what he says being reasonable.. reasonable to WHOM oh yea corporate paid centralist groups wanting alternative networks to become middlemen services for users so they can take a fee from users, whilst trying to ruin bitcoin to help push people to alternative networks

again reasonable to whom is doomads rhetoric?

as for refuting
show me the code, data, and statistics that back up you and his rhetoric

yes your echo chamber crew can repeat "franky is wrong" but you can never back up how or why. unless its just some "i dont understand what your saying"

try to escape your echo chanber of confirmation bias of idiot group..

do some real learning about source DATA (not social drama)
such as reading code. reading bips reading moderation polices and development plans for the core roadmap..
read how things work from source code. not social clubs

difference between doomad and a rational person
doomad tries to recruit people and control people trying to tell them what to say and where to say it. including those who disagree with him

i simple say go do some real research and learn for your own risk awareness
if you dont want to learn for your own independent value risk and usage awareness. thats on you... but atleast try,, not for my benefit. but for your own


if your getting angry and upset that i say 'stop sounding like an echo and instead do some research'.. then take some real time thinking about what you are actually angry about
because its now seemingly like you are angry either by:
a. fear of learning
b. fear of losing a loved ones relationship
c. fear of realising you have been a follower of social drama queenery

do you know whats great about doing your own research instead of relying on social queens
its the fact that you can do your own research without needing social queens

give it a try.. just dont use doomad as your main source where he will not back up any of his rhetoric with code/data/stats..

so try some independent research.. emphasis independent.. for your own benefit. not some buddy

[Artemis3]

Hmm the Electrum node i was connected to decided to "forget" my transaction, i had to push the broadcast button. It feels like the distance was about the same i had moments ago some 4MB. When this started at worst there was like 50MB traffic ahead. Its been only 5 days (i conveniently started on March 1 so its easy to remember). But while I'm typing this, the distance seems to be slowly increasing again...

[larry_vw_1955]

Well I mean NFTs on ETH and altcoins is part of the whole speculative gamble of that stuff - buy random stuff and hope to get rich quick. The Bitcoin community has moved beyond that now. So I'm saying I'd be surprised if there were very many people in the Bitcoin community that are interested in that sort of stuff on Bitcoin, especially when Ethereum and other smart contract chains already have those communities and markets, even if the way NFTs are handling are worse on those chains.

people are coming over from other blockchains to bitcoin for the bitcoin "nfts".

These NFT communities don't care about dumb pictures not being stored on-chain, otherwise they wouldn't be into NFTs in the first place,

they didn't have a choice before though. now they do.

they just care about selling NFTs for a profit as long as the fad lasts (or lasted as it has mostly collapsed already). For people into NFTs ETH is the market you want to be in because that's where NFTs are still sort of popular, Bitcoin would not be a good choice so I gotta imagine the number of people involved with ordinals has gotta be very small and will probably diminish with time.

people and companies that have launched popular nft collections on ethereum will probably consider doing the same thing on bitcoin. some of them already have...it's just another income stream for them so why not?  

Ordinals... I stand where I always stood. As long as ordinals and cardinals can get along well, I am all for it.  I don't care if it is an ordinal who sits on the throne or a cardinal. The devs will know the best. I trust them.

the devs are MIA. missing in action. they had no idea their little taproot loophole would be used for bitcoin nfts. so i think you might be putting a bit too much faith in people that haven't steppped up to the plate to fix their mistake yet...

not too technical to understand that the whole thing is just like a fly riding on a cow's rear end. one big loophole.

[Artemis3]

Without the devs what is there to do, revert back to an specific version?, if so which? What can we do to signal disagreement with this spam?

[franky1]

Without the devs what is there to do, revert back to an specific version?, if so which? What can we do to signal disagreement with this spam?

solution is much much simpler
no re-org is needed

all thats needed is to do a miner assisted consensus hardening. to have instead of the opcode used for these deadweight memes being kept at allowing upto blockweight(4mb).
have it using only upto 80bytes that way it doesnt break old nodes because 80 bytes is still within the current 'upto 4mb'
thus not causing issues for older nodes
whilst strengthening consensus and also removing future bloat from occurring

[larry_vw_1955]

so they explained it here:

Script size limit The maximum script size of 10000 bytes does not apply. Their size is only implicitly bounded by the block weight limit.

but then as rationale for the above statement they say this:

Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed.

can anyone make any sense of that explanation. franky? anyone? even though i don't understand what they're talking about it seems like they are basing their rationale on cpu time spent on a signature check and not even considering the bloat that it would add to the blockchain.   equals bad move on their part...

[franky1]

going by what you have said

rationale would be translated as:
because the witness was suppose to be one signature length. the implication then became why have extra rules to check that its only 1 signature length or 10kb if its implied that taproot would only need 1 signature length by its normal use, why waste cpu time checking for length at all if taproot is going to be 1 signature length as standard.. so they stopped checking for length

you are correct based on what you quoted was a bad judgement/move on their part

again the solution is
apply a 1 signature length rule check
it doesnt break old node rules it just stops future bloat

[pooya87]

you would think the devs would understand that point of view and do something about it. why did the witness need to be so big anyway?

Historically the bitcoin consensus rules about things that aren't checked have been loose (they still are) for example your output script can be literary anything like an invalid script or any arbitrary data of any size like a picture that is not even a script.
This is a good thing because it allows future expansion through soft forks but also it could lead to abuse of the system and spam attacks.

historically pre 2017 there was only ONE opcode that allowed things unchecked
it was called "anyonecanspend" but even that had a byte limit

it was the 2017 events that opened that up

There has never been any OP codes called "anyonecanspend" ever in Bitcoin.

You can easily check what I said above on regtest or testnet, as I said your output script (ie. scriptpub) is NOT checked so you can dump anything WITHOUT using any OP codes in there with any size (of course smaller than block size).
The ONLY thing preventing you from doing it is the standard rules where nodes don't relay your "valid" but spamy transaction.

[franky1]

@pooya
you might want to google the word anyonecanspend and realise that it exists as a bitcoin thing
i will give you zero hints .. oops maybe im too subtle


much like other opcodes are called things like checksig and checkmultisig and hash160
there are loads of them

dont be anal with grammar naziism simply because i used the common name instead of the op number

[pooya87]

@pooya
you might want to google the word anyonecanspend and realise that it exists as a bitcoin thing
i will give you zero hints .. oops maybe im too subtle


much like other opcodes are called things like checksig and checkmultisig and hash160
there are loads of them

dont be anal with grammar naziism simply because i used the common name instead of the op number

Yes if you send your bitcoins to something like OP_TRUE then anybody can spend them but that still doesn't mean there is an "anyonecanspend" OP code in Bitcoin.

[ABCbits]

so they explained it here:

Script size limit The maximum script size of 10000 bytes does not apply. Their size is only implicitly bounded by the block weight limit.

but then as rationale for the above statement they say this:

Why is a limit on script size no longer needed? Since there is no scriptCode directly included in the signature hash (only indirectly through a precomputable tapleaf hash), the CPU time spent on a signature check is no longer proportional to the size of the script being executed.

can anyone make any sense of that explanation. franky? anyone? even though i don't understand what they're talking about it seems like they are basing their rationale on cpu time spent on a signature check and not even considering the bloat that it would add to the blockchain.   equals bad move on their part...

They definitely didn't consider bloat when considering removal of script limit, maybe they didn't consider existence of OP_PUSH. But IIRC 1000 bytes limit was imposed to reduce quadratic verification/hashing time problem (fixed with SegWit) and longer time to verify a transaction. But quadratic problem no longer exist and Taproot improve verification time (through Schnorr signatures, batch validation, and signature hash), so i guess there's no reason to impose the limit anymore from perspective of verification time.

P.S. Don't forget to mention source statement you mentioned, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki.

[BlackHatCoiner]

(backward compatibility translates to 'abstinence is consent')

Abstinence is a safe strategy. Deal with it. Observe computer science. Nearly everything that surrounds it is consisted of backwards compatible software / hardware. It's essential for sustainability. You can continue whining as much as you want, but you've always been avoiding this.

[franky1]

(backward compatibility translates to 'abstinence is consent')

Abstinence is a safe strategy. Deal with it. Observe computer science. Nearly everything that surrounds it is consisted of backwards compatible software / hardware. It's essential for sustainability. You can continue whining as much as you want, but you've always been avoiding this.

how about you observe computer science
you sound exactly like your forum wife again.. too much infact.
as for backward compatibility
brand new webrowsers dont like old flash/java
heck even old html tags dont work any more like <marquee><nobr><no embed> to name a few

old webbrowsers dont understand DIV CSS or the latest media players

heck even core do not support computers of old operating systems or .net software below a certain release

as for you abstinence=push it in without consent adoration:
the bitcoin network is a consensus network where FULL nodes are suppose to agree on a set ruleset which unites them and keeps the network clean

you wanting to have devs continually break consensus and have lots of fullnodes downgraded into being fool nodes( to not fully validate and also prune to not fully archive) just shows how shameful you are to want to break bitcoin

..
by the way nodes made pre 2016 do not store full blockdata nor are part of the block or tx relay of all bitcoin users. they are instead via newer nodes handed a striped out version of blocks where old nodes cant fully validate all transactions nor propagate full blocks
(even the core devs admit to this)

this is not about sustainability. its about breaking security
you and your forum-wife keep trying to pretend that backward compatibility sustains the network. when actual fact it dilutes the security and also dilutes the numbers of actual full nodes.

stop shamefully misleading people into thinking that the stuff you admire which is to dilute the security soften the rules is good. the reality is its bad

you are very shameful in your adoration of exploits