On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[larry_vw_1955]

It is excellent. Innovative and smart. It will help BTC's adoption. Haters gonna hate. But this is going to skyrocket.

probably not. probably it's going to be shut down by the developers. they have common sense. anyone with any common sense knows that this is unsustainable and bitcoin can't be everything to everyone.  

better get your buy orders in for a monkey now boys because they might get discontinued in the future. no better time to buy than the present.  

Climb into a bin and stay there, please.  You are trash.

Doomad, you and franky have some serious relationship problems. i hope you can get it worked out and be more friendly to each other. 

[1714472322]

1714472322

[1714472322]

1714472322

[1714472322]

1714472322

[dragonvslinux]

Do nothing, it will solve itself...

"4 months later..."

And just like that, a few days after fees hit their peak (May 9th if not mistaken) at around $30, they are back down to less than $1 (for high priority). Despite many thinking this won't simply resolve itself...

While people probably don't think you can do technical analysis on the mempool itself, I beg to differ. In summary, based on previous times (2018 and 2021) that we saw high fees the "red" transaction finally stop being added (140+ sat/vB), then the "yellow" transactions (40+ sat/vB) clear through - while the actual number of total transactions in the mempool stays the same or even increases - this is usual. Finally, the network clears through the 10+ sat/vB txs while the number of transactions in the mempool generally start declining quite quickly. Probably because few people are actively adding 1-10 sat/vB transactions to the mempool, because they already submitted them 1-3 weeks ago... Within a week or two the network could be clearing through 2 sat/vB, because there is no longer high demand for fast transactions anymore.

[DooMAD]

Climb into a bin and stay there, please.  You are trash.

Doomad, you and franky have some serious relationship problems. i hope you can get it worked out and be more friendly to each other.  

If I thought he were capable of being reasonable, I'd make an effort.  But he's proven repeatedly that it's just not in his nature.  Watch him over time.  You'll see it soon enough.  In his mind, the "solution" to any and all problems will always take the form of trying to control others.  He can't help himself.  He sees others enjoying their freedom and immediately wants to stamp it out.  An ego-maniacal, narcissistic, sociopathic control-freak.

I don't personally believe in being courteous and kind to those who would happily strip me of my rights and freedoms whilst not feeling a hint of guilt about it.  You don't get far in life by appeasing those who would take from you that which you hold dear.

And if you don't mind my asking, what is it that you see in him, exactly?  

probably it's going to be shut down by the developers. they have common sense. anyone with any common sense knows that this is unsustainable and bitcoin can't be everything to everyone.

If it can't be censorship resistant, then Bitcoin is going to be a lot fewer things to a great many users.  Again, you may not recognise the importance of it, but others do.  I still maintain the stance that efficiency does not take precedence over liberty.  

It's a widely accepted fact that blockchains are not efficient.  The reason we use one is because it guarantees that no one can prevent us from transacting.  And now you proclaim that it's "common sense" to prevent people from transacting on a blockchain?  Sounds like the opposite of sense to me.

[BlackHatCoiner]

if you think the only option is to be subserviant to 6 core maintainers or f**k off.. you really have been fooled into authoritarianism.

I have only said developers are more experienced, competent and deserve more influence than arrogant laymen who think they know better than them, in an extent that they are justified to enforce their view upon the protocol. Being "subserviant" is your interpretation, and it's false as I am a provably strong supporter of verifying studies whenever possible.

It is excellent. Innovative and smart. It will help BTC's adoption.

Care to share us one way it will help on adopting bitcoin as currency?

[Call_Me_Guru]

I am not that tech guy but I know that ordinal is not what we want right now. Bitcoin is better like it was when everything was cheap and transaction flows were easy not what the ordinal is causing. The decision to stop it is a welcoming one, it may be a good and advancing technology but bitcoin was not designed to accept it easily. The size of each block is too small, I don't know how these two factors could be incorporated together and will not affect the network.

My readings were much on this because I am a curious person and those developers that supported this are few. Maybe the size of the blocks should be increased, this is the only solution I can think of for ordinal to work fine.

[Kryptowerk]

It is excellent. Innovative and smart. It will help BTC's adoption. Haters gonna hate. But this is going to skyrocket.

What exactly is going to skyrocket? Ordinals or BTC itself? The latter, yes. Ordinals will stay a strange niche and maybe, just maybe, get a FOMO bump every once in while. But probably only for very few tokens, probably shilled by insinders anyway.
So no, it's neither excellent nor smart. Innovative, slightly, it's just an exploit for something that was never intended as a data storage for such things.
Zooming out in time a bit I think the ordinal stuff will turn out to be a minor glitch,. One of the many tiny hick-ups the Bitcoin network experienced over the years with not much impact in general.

[larry_vw_1955]

If I thought he were capable of being reasonable, I'd make an effort.  But he's proven repeatedly that it's just not in his nature.  Watch him over time.  You'll see it soon enough.  In his mind, the "solution" to any and all problems will always take the form of trying to control others.  He can't help himself.  He sees others enjoying their freedom and immediately wants to stamp it out.  An ego-maniacal, narcissistic, sociopathic control-freak.

i don't see him that way.

I don't personally believe in being courteous and kind to those who would happily strip me of my rights and freedoms whilst not feeling a hint of guilt about it.  You don't get far in life by appeasing those who would take from you that which you hold dear.

what rights and freedoms did franky try and take away from you?

And if you don't mind my asking, what is it that you see in him, exactly?  

well i think he's a decent person. first of all. anyone that has a nice stash of bitcoin and has been around it for a long time and knows alot about it and is willing to share their knowledge they have my respect. i think franky cares about bitcoin and its success. that's why he's here. otherwise why would he be here? why would any of us be here?

If it can't be censorship resistant, then Bitcoin is going to be a lot fewer things to a great many users.  Again, you may not recognise the importance of it, but others do.  I still maintain the stance that efficiency does not take precedence over liberty.  

all i ask for is clarification from the development team did they intend for ordinals to exist or not. if not then patch the hole. if so then there's nothing more to say.

It's a widely accepted fact that blockchains are not efficient.  The reason we use one is because it guarantees that no one can prevent us from transacting.  And now you proclaim that it's "common sense" to prevent people from transacting on a blockchain?  Sounds like the opposite of sense to me.

again, all i ask for is clarification from the developers that ordinals is ok, that it will never be patched to stop it. or if not then patch the hole and in either case there's nothing more to say. but there's confusion on my part about whether this was intended functionality or just something that got overlooked and needs to be fixed, aka, stopped. the confusion is the worst part about the whole thing. for me.

[franky1]

he does not want freedoms.. he loves authoritarianism. he just tries to distract where the authoritarianism is by blaming anything else. and pointing in other directions to not let people talk about the real culprits/source of exploits/control

doomad pretends im controling the forum
how many people have i demanded their posts get deleted compared to doomad
how many people have i asked to be banned compared to doomad
how many people have i said should shut up(on a DISCUSSION forum) compared to doomad


doomad pretends im controlling the bitcoin community(it makes me laugh when he does this)
how many people have i told to use another network compared to doomad
how many people have i told to not ask devs to fix things compared to doomad
how many people have i told to just pay more rather than want things fixed/efficient/fair compared to doomad
how many dev groups has doomad called opposition becasue they are not following cores corporate plan

domad pretends im the cause of bitcoin rule breaks and cause of all the bugs/exploits/delays of progress

its obvious doomad is controlling
its obvious doomad wants the central point of failure(core) to reign supreme as central control rulers, without them taking responsibility for their actions(authoritarians)

he does not want freedoms.. he loves authoritarianism. he pretends to be against it because his motives loses his fans so he has to now and again pretend to be againt his own desires to recruit more again..
he just tries to distract where the authoritarianism is by blaming anything else. and pointing in other directions to not let people talk about the real culprits/source of exploits/control

if core devs changed the units of measure where instead of the true limit of
2,099,999,997,690,000 it became something like
209,999,999,769,000,000,000 just to match some broke networks unit measures

he would call that a bitcoin feature. he wont care that it can bug out in many ways like extending the end point of the last mining reward date. by changing units of 5000000000inits(binary measured) to no longer be 50btc causes calling satoshis own 2009 stash of 50btc per address then 0.00050btc. he wont care that it breaks scarcity or other economic rules. or value held on old utxo's
he will just be a core dev suck up and not want it prevented because it helps his other favoured network be compatible to bitcoin. becasue all he cares about is breaking bitcoin to influence people to move over to his prefered network

yep he is happy to break any bitcoin rule, loosen all verification policy, and have junk on bitcoin where it causes everyone to pay more. all because he does not care about bitcoin and only cares about a corporate dev group that support an altnet

he wants DEV FREEDOMS not user freedoms. he does not want a functional efficient bitcoin network. heck he has been for years telling people to prune the blockchain so that the amount of fullnodes are reduced, centralising the blockchain to less nodes(less decentralisation of the blockchain) less blockchain seeds able to provide initial block downloads and where less users are full nodes.. all to give more power to other nodes that stroke the egos of the crap that he adores

[DooMAD]

I don't personally believe in being courteous and kind to those who would happily strip me of my rights and freedoms whilst not feeling a hint of guilt about it.  You don't get far in life by appeasing those who would take from you that which you hold dear.

what rights and freedoms did franky try and take away from you?

I've already listed them.  My freedom to use SegWit, my freedom to use Lightning and my freedom to participate in any future opt-in softfork.  He believes no one should have the right to do any of it because it is all "fake consensus".  He's been campaigning incessantly since 2017 to try and take it all away.

He talks about rules, but then he constantly breaks the forum rules by derailing topics, so that he can rant about SegWit and Lightning when other people are trying to have conversations about other matters.  Notice how we're now talking about SegWit and Lightning in an Ordinals thread?  Completely off-topic.  And that only occurred because of franky1.  Hell, read franky1's first post in this very topic.  He is already trying to steer the conversation towards Lightning (his preferred term being "subnetwork"). 

My first post in this thread was on-topic.  I wasn't talking about SegWit or Lightning.  And then franky1 starts whining at me, completely unprovoked, like he always does, and starts babbling nonsense about conspiracy theories.  Again, he literally can't help himself.  He is a rabid zealot.

Read page 1 again.  Tell me I'm wrong.  By the end of that page, we are already off-topic.  Just like we are again now.  No one can have a conversation about anything without franky1 turning it back to his obsession with 2017.  One of the forum rules states quite clearly "No posting off-topic replies".  And then he whines when people question why someone who breaks the rules in just about every topic they've ever posted in isn't banned.

all i ask for is clarification from the development team did they intend for ordinals to exist or not. if not then patch the hole. if so then there's nothing more to say.

If only it were that simple.  Developers have no desire to become the arbiters of which transactions are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" that's not their role.  It could be their role, but that has fundamental implications that completely change what Bitcoin is.  By asking them to perform that role, you are requesting the creation of a central power who can block transactions you don't approve of.  And then we've effectively just re-made fiat and there's arguably no reason for Bitcoin to exist at all.

What's the point of using an inefficient blockchain when a central database with someone in charge blocking transactions would be far more efficient?

The reason we don't use a central database with someone in control is because that control can (and probably would) be abused.  That's why we accept some inefficiency as a compromise.  Freedom is more important.

[Artemis3]

Freedom is not endangered, Bitcoin is. When the bug that allows this exploit is fixed, the chances for this DDoS will be reduced, as it used to be. Or else you will see more and more nodes rejecting those things that were added to the protocol without enough care about security.

PS: "A few months" have passed, and this has not been forgotten... (by the spammers).

[nutildah]

Freedom is not endangered, Bitcoin is.

When the bug that allows this exploit is fixed

LOL "bug." You have no idea how disrespectful that is to actual bitcoin developers.

Meanwhile 24 sats/byte gets your transaction confirmed in the next block.

[jokers10]

I am not that tech guy but I know that ordinal is not what we want right now. Bitcoin is better like it was when everything was cheap and transaction flows were easy not what the ordinal is causing. The decision to stop it is a welcoming one, it may be a good and advancing technology but bitcoin was not designed to accept it easily. The size of each block is too small, I don't know how these two factors could be incorporated together and will not affect the network.

My readings were much on this because I am a curious person and those developers that supported this are few. Maybe the size of the blocks should be increased, this is the only solution I can think of for ordinal to work fine.

There are several problems with that. First is that increasing the block size is lowering the decentralization level so it should have very strict reasons for any decision of this kind. Decentralization is very important to play with it without restraint. Second is that it is not a decision which can work forever: once we'll face the same problem with over-flooded mempool and what next? Increasing a block again and again? I can remind here what I said the first, it will work on a centralization what is not what we really want.

I hope devs will find some technical solution which will let to increase the network bandwidth without lowering the level of decentralization. And they try, they gave us LN which works a bit for it, and they plan to improve it. I'm sure they'll find something else in the future also. And it's important for us to be patient.

[Artemis3]

LOL "bug." You have no idea how disrespectful that is to actual bitcoin developers.

Meanwhile 24 sats/byte gets your transaction confirmed in the next block.

Until tomorrow the next spammer decides otherwise.

If you don't like the word bug, then lets call it sabotage. Do you like that better? Did they willingly made those changes with the intention to harm Bitcoin like franky1 says?

Don't worry, i don't think so, at least not ALL of them would be pushing someone's agenda easily anyway. Otherwise, the market will pass judgement.

[Volgastallion]

I dont know why so many people still opose to the idea of "fixing" thebug, exploit, or whatever you want to call it.

The idea of now we are safe because they run out of money its very silly, what if tomorrow they charge with more power?.

Its like we have a gate in the wall open but how me know when they enter the city we can win we dont close that gate. Totally stupid, close the gate and you dont have to battle.

[d5000]

Its like we have a gate in the wall open but how me know when they enter the city we can win we dont close that gate. Totally stupid, close the gate and you dont have to battle.

Please, educate yourself a bit and read through the posts me and some others have written on that topic!

I may resemble a parrot now , but again:

BRC-20 (which is a very anachronistic, dumb, inefficient token format, and I don't support it in any way!) does NOT violate any limit which was imposed before Taproot. These inscriptions are really small (~300-400 bytes). So it is NOT something which was "made possible because Taproot eliminated the script size limit" (which is the "bug" or "gate" you're complaining about). The problem is the massive amount of these transactions.

But you could also have a big amount of other kinds of transactions. What if an "Omni craze" breaks out, e.g. Pepe is released on Omni and people freak out? Omni is using Bitcoin since 2013/14. You would like to ban OP_RETURN too?

I remember actually the first fad where people were complaining about spamming was perhaps Satoshi Dice. This was an online casino where all transactions were done on-chain, i.e. you sent BTC to the casino's address and according to a certain probability they sent back a multiple amount of the amount or nothing. These tx were completely standard "financial" transactions, but at a certain moment, Satoshi Dice transactions were outnumbering all "serious" transactions, and thus the first "spam discussion" was born.

Something like that could happen again with a different model, i.e. a craze based on purely "financial" transactions. How would you deal with that?

I am actually not completely against making exceptionally big (>> 1 kB) Taproot transactions non-standard. But the Taproot bashing is really tiring!

There are simply lots of spam vectors, and not all can't be tackled with that "fix bug (?)" strategy. It's better to improve Layer 2 support to enable Bitcoin to "breathe" with demand, and then no spam attack will be successful anymore. Enabling the necessary opcodes to improve Lightning (SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT) and enable rollups and sidechains would be a better idea, I think.

[DooMAD]

Its like we have a gate in the wall open but how me know when they enter the city we can win we dont close that gate. Totally stupid, close the gate and you dont have to battle.

Then they can just use a different gate.  Like the one you use, for example.  Clearly we should just brick over all the gates, so no one can get in or out.  Wouldn't that be great?    

How many different ways do I have to say it?  Why do you so many of you not seem to comprehend the consequences of what you are asking for?  You're not asking for a "fix", you're asking to destroy everything.

You start asking for ways to block others, then others (like governments) might start to look for ways to block you.  The easier you make it to block stuff you don't like, the easier it is for governments to block stuff they don't like and the faster Bitcoin dies.  

If you ask devs to become the judge, jury and executioner, that creates a weakness in Bitcoin that can be exploited in ways far worse than a few silly pictures and a bit of congestion.  

[BlackHatCoiner]

Until tomorrow the next spammer decides otherwise.

What if I told you that your transactions are complete trash to my disk space? They're not very different to Ordinals from my perspective. I haven't made them, I don't earn a 'toshi by keeping them, and I even have to be more generous with my fee rate because of them. May I propose similar to you, or shall we accept that freedom is more important than a bunch of extra data chunks?

[serveria.com]

Until tomorrow the next spammer decides otherwise.

What if I told you that your transactions are complete trash to my disk space? They're not very different to Ordinals from my perspective. I haven't made them, I don't earn a 'toshi by keeping them, and I even have to be more generous with my fee rate because of them. May I propose similar to you, or shall we accept that freedom is more important than a bunch of extra data chunks?

I bet Artemis3 in his entire lifetime won't produce the number of transactions a bunch of retarded ordinalists produce in a single day. If you don't see the difference between the amounts of transactions I question your sanity.

[dragonvslinux]

probably it's going to be shut down by the developers. they have common sense. anyone with any common sense knows that this is unsustainable and bitcoin can't be everything to everyone.

It's a widely accepted fact that blockchains are not efficient.  The reason we use one is because it guarantees that no one can prevent us from transacting.  And now you proclaim that it's "common sense" to prevent people from transacting on a blockchain?  Sounds like the opposite of sense to me.

Actually, to play devils advocate here, there are blockchains that are much more efficient - but they are much less reliable and/or secure. If anything there is a correlation between a blockchain's efficiency and how it's unreliable, less secure and more centralised. Look at Solana for example, it's extremely efficient while also being completely unreliable (has "shut down" many times) as well as very centralised. These days Ethereum is more or less in the middle, it's relatively secure (even though still quite centralised) and relatively efficient, somewhere in-between Bitcoin and Solana for example. You can even look at other proof of chain blockchains such as Litecoin and Dogecoin, sure they are also very cheap, but they are secured by much less hash rate and theoretically remain vulnerable to 51% attacks.

In summary Bitcoin is for sure one of the least efficient blockchains and that's exactly what makes it one of the most reliable, secure and decentralised. If you want to use efficient and cheap blockchains then you get what you pay for. Cheap = unreliable and far from secure either. I could even argue that Lightning comes into to this category of cheap, but this is besides the point. If you want to play around with shitcoins and the like then use a cheaper blockchain, but if you actually want to hold your wealth or live savings in the most reliable and secure chain then chose Bitcoin. Then the $10 or $30 transaction fee won't concern you.

[BlackHatCoiner]

If you don't see the difference between the amounts of transactions I question your sanity.

So if someone does make transactions more frequently than Artemis, it is justified to censor them. Lol. Just lol. Principles threw out the window.