On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[ABCbits]

But in first place, who would bother implement such feature? Even if someone decide to implement it and make PR request, would it be accepted by maintainer of certain full node software?

The "make OP_RETURN completely ignorable" (=not even necessary for block validation) part would have to be of course a BIP.

You can make BIP first, but Bitcoin Core or other full node software doesn't have to implement such feature.

If I remember it well, some altcoins like NXT have/had(?) such a feature.

I don't know about NXT, but centralized cryptocurrency might have such feature.

The notify-and-take-down system however could be a separate software using Bitcoin Core's RPC interface, which could be provided by third-party developers; most likely simple Python scripts would be enough. The only thing Bitcoin Core would have to provide is a command like "delete OP_RETURN data from transaction X", and that would have to be part of the BIP.

I understand your explanation. But full node operator is unlikely to use such feature and feature specific for Bitcoin Core doesn't need BIP.

"Destructive" attackers wanting to "poison" the blockchain would for sure go for another methods: if Taproot is restricted, then use (as I already wrote) methods like fake addresses and amounts.

That's possible, but don't forget it's more expensive since they doesn't get witness "discount".

[DooMAD]

heres another mind fart to think about

censorship is resistance of something.
resisting resistance..

how do you resist resistance if your not ultimately resisting.

by saying that there should be no rules to limit data. is then censoring those that want efficiency and rules

enjoy the conundrum

You sound like the bigots who moan about people being intolerant of intolerance.   

You can resist what you like, but if you want to be a part of this network, then you agree to all our inefficiency.

Go censor yourself if you don't like it.  It's your call.

[franky1]

^
the guy that says he wants to resist censorship is the one that is trying every tactic possible to do censoring

doomad learn about consensus. its where rules are agreed to before changing. not where rules are made and people then have to accept blindly be be left out

YOUR MAIN MISSION is censorship
telling people to shut up and go away.

you slogan of if you dont like the new rules slid in without consent f**k off.. is censorship to the extreme

[d5000]

You can make BIP first, but Bitcoin Core or other full node software doesn't have to implement such feature.

Of course this is only one possible solution to the "data spam" problem, there may be many others. I'd only thought a bit about this and technically it should be possible, and it was funny that the Wired article proposed that too.

According to recent discussions about Ordinals in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, there seems to be some support to make OP_RETURN more attractive to discourage the "misuse" of the Taproot data storage features. So it is possible such a BIP could get support.

centralized cryptocurrency might have such feature.

The "make OP_RETURN completely ignorable" feature would not need any centralized elements. Not even a hypothetical "notify and take down" system would need that, although of course those who do the "notifications" need to be trusted from the full node operators.

But full node operator is unlikely to use such feature

Why? I guess node operators located in countries with strict legislation on illegal content, fearing legal action, would like to use that.

and feature specific for Bitcoin Core doesn't need BIP.

It would be a protocol change, because currently OP_RETURN messages cannot (afaik) be completely ignored, they can only be pruned once validation of the block where they're located has been done. So it would need a BIP. Bitcoin Core as the reference implementation would be the first to have to support it. (Don't really get what you mean here.)

That's possible, but don't forget it's more expensive since they doesn't get witness "discount".

Somebody who can expect enormous profits shorting the price down can afford that, even if he had to pay 100 times the Taproot fee.

By the way, there seem to be currently significantly less inscriptions than last week. However, the average size has risen a bit, so the impact on block size (while smaller than before) is still quite high.

[franky1]

According to recent discussions about Ordinals in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, there seems to be some support to make OP_RETURN more attractive to discourage the "misuse" of the Taproot data storage features. So it is possible such a BIP could get support.
..
The "make OP_RETURN completely ignorable" feature would not need any centralized elements. Not even a hypothetical "notify and take down" system would need that, although of course those who do the "notifications" need to be trusted from the full node operators.
,,,
It would be a protocol change, because currently OP_RETURN messages cannot (afaik) be completely ignored, they can only be pruned once validation of the block where they're located has been done. So it would need a BIP. Bitcoin Core as the reference implementation would be the first to have to support it. (Don't really get what you mean here.)

nodes that prune are declared as fool nodes not full nodes
because the full blockchain data and verification system are for full nodes. emphasis on the full

other nodes that switch off services like archiving full data and ignoring certain tx formats by just saying they are valid(unchecked) thus not going to cause a block rejection if included, are the fool nodes

there is no point having this bypass system yet again, where a true full node has to keep the data so that it can seed it to leachers
where the "ignore" / bypass is just for individuals fool node to decide about putting their node into limp/fool mode of not being part of the network security(of decentralising the full data set and supplying full verified data to others) and instead used just for that persons own individual wallet features

..
in short. it still ends up true full nodes dont ignore op return and still maintain and contain it

[larry_vw_1955]

there is no point having this bypass system yet again, where a true full node has to keep the data so that it can seed it to leachers
where the "ignore" / bypass is just for individuals fool node to decide about putting their node into limp/fool mode of not being part of the network security(of decentralising the full data set and supplying full verified data to others) and instead used just for that persons own individual wallet features

maybe full nodes need some type of financial incentive to serve data. miners require one for their services. 

[pooya87]

and supplying full verified data to others

Being a full node has never been about "supplying" the data to others, it has always been about fully verifying everything for yourself. Although since the P2P protocol is a two way street they do also provide the fully verified data to others.

[franky1]

and supplying full verified data to others

Being a full node has never been about "supplying" the data to others, it has always been about fully verifying everything for yourself. Although since the P2P protocol is a two way street they do also provide the fully verified data to others.

understand the word FULL
then understand when you turn off services you are less than full

its that simple.

oh and you do realise that the whole point of blockchains is about a distributed ledger, a decentralised network. a peer to peer network.. all meaning sharing and giving out data to others

its that simple

you are confusing yourself with a centralised closed system.. which is not what the bitcoin network is about.

[larry_vw_1955]

oh and you do realise that the whole point of blockchains is about a distributed ledger, a decentralised network. a peer to peer network.. all meaning sharing and giving out data to others

that was the intention is to share and give out for free but you can only do that for so long until they eat up your bandwidth. seems to me that at some point bitcoin is going to need some fee mechanism to compensate people that share that data. 

[franky1]

oh and you do realise that the whole point of blockchains is about a distributed ledger, a decentralised network. a peer to peer network.. all meaning sharing and giving out data to others

that was the intention is to share and give out for free but you can only do that for so long until they eat up your bandwidth. seems to me that at some point bitcoin is going to need some fee mechanism to compensate people that share that data.  

then if you are worried about bandwidth. there are features to change how many peers you connect to (adjust bandwidth usage). and lots of other features too..  but accept that you by changing settings are reducing the services your node offers. meaning that the "full" aspect is reduced.. (pretty common sense really)
and the more features you switch off, which affect the availability of peer- 2 peer networking of certain things. the less you are a full node

nothing wrong with wanting to use the software just for personal use with certain things switched off. but just accept thats what you chose to do and not be pretending you remain a full node

EG if you choose headers only. then you are a lite node
nothing wrong with it. but just know that your not then part of the network security structure and simply just a network user

there is reasons why nodes announce their 'service bits'

[darkangel11]

IMO NFTs suck. They're useless garbage that people are pumping to save high price sales in their history and cheat others. A great example of useless crap is Jack's first tweet.
That said, we can't stop ordinals because we'd have to censor the network, make it more centralized. Ultimately people decide what they want bitcoin to be and if the majority wants to upload their stuff to the network, that's what's going to happen. Trying to stop them would be worse. We don't need another drama like the one Roger Ver was inciting in 2018.

[franky1]

seems the propaganda machine is on full tilt

"censor the network"
sorry idiots but the network is made of rules. it pretend people from throwing in:
already spent UTXO transactions
other network tx formats such as litecoin, ethereum, blah blah blah
random data of no format at all
coin spends more then source utxo had
transactions that try to include 20trillion btc
transactions that.. [insert a billion possibilities]
it DID used to stop putting stupid memes in

sliding in a new format without majority readiness(soft) is a risky thing to play with
then saying "we cant remove, undo, stop it due to politics" is another risk

we actually can stop data thats not deemed as bitcoin payment data. without a re-org, without affecting existing immutable blocks. by just making a certain format conform to its promise of "one signature length" and thus no more future bloat memes

[pooya87]

understand the word FULL

You are just giving your personal interpretation of "Full Nodes".

That said, we can't stop ordinals because we'd have to censor the network, make it more centralized. Ultimately people decide what they want bitcoin to be and if the majority wants to upload their stuff to the network, that's what's going to happen.

Satoshi didn't invent Bitcoin to see what it turns into in the future and say "what the heck, it turned into a cloud storage that died afterwards". We also didn't adopt bitcoin thinking it can turn into a shitcoin by letting people who don't even run full nodes themselves upload garbage to other people's computers!

[franky1]

understand the word FULL

You are just giving your personal interpretation of "Full Nodes".

get a dictionary then
"not lacking or omitting anything; complete."

if a node is not storing the full blockchain. its not FULL
if a node is not fully verifying all of the data it receives its not FULL
if its not offering the full services available its not FULL

its common sense. stuff you can learn by actually understanding what FULL means in any scenario/product/service aka real life

heck go to a masseuse and ask for a full body massage.
if they only rub your toe.. that is not a full body massage

[DooMAD]

understand the word FULL

You are just giving your personal interpretation of "Full Nodes".

get a dictionary then
"not lacking or omitting anything; complete."

if a node is not storing the full blockchain. its not FULL
if a node is not fully verifying all of the data it receives its not FULL
if its not offering the full services available its not FULL

its common sense. stuff you can learn by actually understanding what FULL means in any scenario/product/service aka real life

Most vehicles have one fuel tank.  If you fill that tank, it's FULL.
Some vehicle have two fuel tanks.  If you fill both tanks, it's FULL.

The vehicle with two full tanks doesn't magically make the vehicle with one tank less full.  Both are at the capacity they are designed to hold.

It's common sense, when you aren't trying to redefine what FULL means because you're a goddamn sociopath.

[franky1]

^                                                                            ^
someone definitely needs his first ever full body massage

its funny because things like pruning did not exist when the term full was first used thus pruning alters the node usage case thus pruning is part of fool node status not full node

he is the type of guy that wants to pretend pruning was around from the start and thus all nodes were always pruning thus the top level of utility was always prune mode

its also funny that the guy above has been around for enough years to learn about bitcoin. and learn about the service bits announcement to peers to tell a peer how full their status is. .. its a pitty that he never takes the time to learn about bitcoin

last laugh is when he pretends lowly old me is the one changing the terminology. when actual fact is im reminding people what the terminology always has been before his buddys wanted things changed

final point
when the blockchain is the fuel but you only want to fill your tank with 288blocks of 778000
you are only filling the tank with 0.037% of fuel

you wont get anywhere thinking you have a full tank , when reality is your tank only has 0.037% of fuel

[DooMAD]

its funny because things like pruning did not exist when the term full was first used thus pruning alters the node usage case thus pruning is part of fool node status not full node

Fair enough.  Normally you're bitching about SegWit, but apparently today it's pruning.  Forgive me for not keeping up with all the things you despise about Bitcoin.  If you don't want to call pruned nodes full, that's up to you, but don't expect others to obey your arbitrary standards.


//EDIT:

you only get triggered by certain topics

You get triggered by Bitcoin itself.  


//EDIT2:

last funny..
doomad loved that someone abused a flaw to add in bloat.. using the soft method
but dare anyone use the same soft method to fix the flaw and doomad comes out screaming telling people what to do and telling them to get off the network, to leave it be

his old mantra was "conservatism" until things went soft and let anything in.
now its "censorship resisting" until someone wants to change something without censorship

seems he only likes it when certain people change certain things without network consent

but it is funny seeing how his motives and narratives change to fit whatever latest scheme he wants to promote.. shameful, but funny

Wrong as usual.  I'm encouraging you, once again, to release some code.  Build it.  Share it.  Show us how it's done.  It's your inalienable right.  Use it.

Someone might even choose to run it.  But you'll never know unless you try.

[franky1]

it is funny when doomad saying pruning is full.. but then and goes and calls a node with pruning a "pruned node" and not a full node. seems even he cant escape the common sense that using different levels of core features/flaws redefines the node status needing to give it a different status/title

i talk about alot of things. you only get triggered by certain topics because they are the things that are paying your income to support your narrative you are made to sell.

either you are a paid snake oil salesman made to say stupid stuff... or you genuinely do earn the idiot title..
..your choice.
snake oil salesman.. or idiot

because your narratives are stupid, they dont even come close to common sense let alone fact.
the version of events i talk about can be backed up by code, blockdata.

so take some time and try just for once. to learn about bitcoin.

last funny..
doomad loved that someone abused a flaw to add in bloat.. using the soft method
but dare anyone use the same soft method to fix the flaw and doomad comes out screaming telling people what to do and telling them to get off the network, to leave it be

his old mantra was "conservatism" until things went soft and let anything in.
now its "censorship resisting" until someone wants to change something without censorship

seems he only likes it when certain people change certain things without network consent

but it is funny seeing how his motives and narratives change to fit whatever latest scheme he wants to promote.. shameful, but funny

[darkangel11]

That said, we can't stop ordinals because we'd have to censor the network, make it more centralized. Ultimately people decide what they want bitcoin to be and if the majority wants to upload their stuff to the network, that's what's going to happen.

Satoshi didn't invent Bitcoin to see what it turns into in the future and say "what the heck, it turned into a cloud storage that died afterwards". We also didn't adopt bitcoin thinking it can turn into a shitcoin by letting people who don't even run full nodes themselves upload garbage to other people's computers!

The bitcoin we're using now is not exactly the same bitcoin that it was in 2009. First there was no block limit, then 1MB, now it's up to 4 with an additional minimum size limit. I'm a maximalist at heart, but I'm not a purist. We do have consensus after all and bitcoin can be upgraded and updated.
As for full nodes, do they change anything when it comes to uploading? If We had a requirement that they have to run a node to upload garbage, you'd still be against it.

What if some knowledge starts being censored and by uploading it to the blockchain people will still be able to distribute it, the way you can get manuals on how to 3d print weapons, or mix chemicals to get drugs and explosives? I know that the answer to this is "but what if they upload child porn or doxxed data?", but then we're going into "what is freedom?" debate.

The problem of ordinals is so difficult because your freedom ends when it starts to threaten others and make their lives more difficult. If you upload useful data, it's fine, but if you upload something that makes the network sluggish and bloats it so that others have to buy more and more storage, they are not going to applaud you.

[franky1]

What if some knowledge starts being censored and by uploading it to the blockchain people will still be able to distribute it, the way you can get manuals on how to 3d print weapons, or mix chemicals to get drugs and explosives? I know that the answer to this is "but what if they upload child porn or doxxed data?", but then we're going into "what is freedom?" debate.

The problem of ordinals is so difficult because your freedom ends when it starts to threaten others and make their lives more difficult. If you upload useful data, it's fine, but if you upload something that makes the network sluggish and bloats it so that others have to buy more and more storage, they are not going to applaud you.

bitcoin is not a knowledge library like wiki .. its not wiki. its a financial network for making p2p payments of units called satoshis which come in 100,000,000 sat batches called btc

if you want a wiki knowledge library blockchain you can make your own

trying to suggest bitcoin should be a knowledge library wiki blockchain and if people want to make payments they should use alternative sub-networks is a stupid and absolute idiot bait and switch game of foolish twits that hate bitcoin and want to promote their adoration of people that want to break bitcoin

as for meme crap data
well
something that has not been done yet (hopefully wont happen if the "upto4mb" taproot tx witness space per tx is swapped out for logically acceptable and promised "upto 80bytes")

is that people can instead of putting in meme bloat. can put in
(human readable translated for this post)

twitidiot12345 (1000dumbpoints) -> twitidiot54321 (1000dumbpoints)

where its hashed with a txid and signed with some new keypair(i used twit idiot instead of public keys for posts demo translation)

 where by the 'witness data' then includes a new currency system for idiots to then have their own twit-idiot tokens
thus having a idiot transaction WITHIN a taproot transaction

UTXOset database in their idiot nodes referencing twit-idiot utxoset within btc-UTXOset to then transact sub tokens of twit-idiot dumbpoint tokens within the bitcoin network