On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[d5000]

The problem I see here is: The whole Ordinals hype distorts the incentive structures.

Normally, for meme tokens you should go for the cheapest option (i.e. the one which uses the smallest amount of blockchain space). I think currently (if you really, really insist to use the BTC blockchain for that) that should be something Lightning-enabled like RGB or Taro. But BRC-20 is probably even less efficient with space than the oldest coloured coin protocols, like EPOBC.

But people don't care ... as Ordinals started the hype, everybody and their grandpa is now trying to create the ultimative meme tokens with the silliest of all token protocols (but it's Ordinals! that's cool now!) and get rich quick.

The problem is thus not "that the godly right to transact cheaply" is broken. The problem is that the whole incentive structure is vulnerable to disruptions due to purely speculative fads which do not provide even something better technically (i.e. incentives for a better token protocol).

Fads come and go, but there should be mechanisms to limit their impact. As I wrote in other related threads, I'd not go for censorship of certain kinds of transactions, but for things like sidechains (I proposed a decentralized Stacks fork) allowing to reduce fees in those circumstances and to let speculators and "normal users" happily coexist. If any fad disrupts fees, then you could simply move the coins you need in the short- to mid time to the sidechain, and then the Ordinals hypebois can do what they want, you'll transact cheaply anyway - and when they're finally broke as the fad waned, then you can move them back. (Lightning of course works, too, but it requires much more technical expertise if you don't use a provider.)

[bbc.reporter]

> doesn't understand how system works
> tried to apply own rules to system they don't understand
> "See? It doesn't work!!!"

Meanwhile actual users of said system are perfectly content with it.

Its funny you haven't realized crying "OooDinALs aTTaCk!!!1" for the 65th time will have zilch effect on the issue.

If we are being honest, I reckon not much people in this forum have used it or know how this really works to have the right to teach anyone what to think about it or judge it.

In any case, for the people who do not know anything about Ordinals, there are resources on the internet that might be helpful to learn more about this first and argue about it later hehehe.

https://docs.ordinals.com/

https://domo-2.gitbook.io/brc-20-experiment/

https://brc-20.io/

[BenCodie]

There is one valid use-case that I am sure will one day be embraced by Ordinals - music.

This is why I keep saying that it is wrong to argue about the type of the content being injected into the blockchain using the Ordinals Attack. You can always find a content that is useful. But that doesn't make this any less of an exploit.

The only thing that matters is that they are injecting arbitrary data into a ledger meant for monetary transfers. This is an abuse of the system no matter what the data is, be it monkey pics, music or cure for cancer.

There are alternative methods and blockchains that are created for this exact purpose which are far more efficient too, and they should be used instead.

I can agree with that. I have said this once before in this thread or another Ordinals thread, as to why Bitcoin did not follow a similar strategy to what Ethereum did. Being, the media and content being uploaded to an external mechanism (in Ethereum's case, IPFS) instead of writing the data directly on-chain.

My only argument against Ordinals being an exploit is that even though there are those who are paying to inject arbitrary data into the chain, it can be further proof that Bitcoin is resistant to attacks. Of course I agree with you that introducing Ordinals was opening that door by the core team themselves rather than the door being opened by an attacker.

My theory is that the change was pushed with the interest of miners...who are receiving a massive amount of profit from the fees being spent on creating Ordinals. I do wonder about how Ordinals will effect Bitcoin in the future and hope that there is a brighter side to this feature that we are currently not seeing.

[khiholangkang]

Because of the ordinal that developed NFT in Bitcoin, many micin tokens entered into the Bitcoin blockchain, one of which was the hype, the meme pepe token made into the BRC-20 ecosystem, although basically it was still in the experimental stage but this would be bad and contradictory. with bitcoin that is meant by Satoshi.
What I am afraid of is in the BRC-20 network or in the blockchain Bitcoin becomes a pile of pictures and garbage tokens.

Sumber

[pooya87]

- There are no tokens being created
- There are no rules or standards being enforced that could be referred to as "BRC20 standard"
- Each bitcoin (and satoshis) are as fungible as before and they have not magically gained any additional value. If anybody is selling them for higher prices, they are scamming people.
- The junk data spammed on the chain can not move or be transferred to someone else.

so anytime someone "buys" some of this fake tokens the seller has to send an update to the bitcoin blockchain by making a new inscription? if that's the case then it seems like bitcoin would be swamped by this brc-20 junk which it seems like it is lately  i haven't seen a single monkey in a long time.  normally that would be good but i'm not sure in this case...

No, that's the thing. These are not tokens, this is all fakery which means they insert some data into the chain and call that a token. That's all. The rest are normal transactions that don't even have the spam data! They just transfer bitcoin just like any other transaction.

For those who think Ordinals are a step too far, where would you draw the line?  Would you like to prevent all non-transactional data from being included?  Or is it just images and other media that you would like blocked?

Bitcoin has a long history of other data being included alongside transactions.  Would any of those examples be considered unacceptable usage by today's standards?

The line is already drawn. It is not about the content, it is all about the purpose.

Any transaction that is not made with the sole purpose of transferring bitcoin (and nothing else) is spam and should be prevented. But we all tolerate other transactions as long as they are done through the defined and accepted methods like using OP_RETURN. This is because these transactions don't harm the system but when anything comes along that is exploiting/abusing the system that's a different story.

After all Bitcoin is not a decentralized cloud storage...

[BlackHatCoiner]

Any transaction that is not made with the sole purpose of transferring bitcoin (and nothing else) is spam and should be prevented.

Are colored coins spam, in that case? Such transactions don't just transfer bitcoin solely. Is OP_RETURN spam since it creates another purpose for the transaction? What about transactions that create an output to the same destination as the input? In practice they don't move bitcoins at all, but the protocol understands this as transaction. Unless we count mining fees as part of the transaction, which in that case would make every Ordinal transaction a "real" one.

For the millionth time, every transaction byte should be seen as equal with any other given that it follows the protocol rules.

[NotATether]

Somebody on Twitter just broke Ordinals:

Ordinals are dead and were flawed from the start: https://twitter.com/super_testnet/status/1654212346171064328 tell your friends.

If this is to be believed, then that should make the dispute obsolete. Now anyway, I believe everybody here is unanimous about BRC20 tokens being a pile of hot garbage.

[Wind_FURY]

The problem I see here is: The whole Ordinals hype distorts the incentive structures.

Normally, for meme tokens you should go for the cheapest option (i.e. the one which uses the smallest amount of blockchain space). I think currently (if you really, really insist to use the BTC blockchain for that) that should be something Lightning-enabled like RGB or Taro. But BRC-20 is probably even less efficient with space than the oldest coloured coin protocols, like EPOBC.

I believe not. Nothing has been "distorted" because the users who want to pay more to use Bitcoin, are paying more because of the security assurances. But I heard that using Ethereum is more expensive and sometimes has fees that surge to $50.00 - $80.00 per transaction, and it has less security/settlement assurances. That's not "cheap", and a $50.00 transaction fee in Bitcoin is cheaper than a $50.00 fee in Ethereum.

[franky1]

Any transaction that is not made with the sole purpose of transferring bitcoin (and nothing else) is spam and should be prevented.

Are colored coins spam, in that case? Such transactions don't just transfer bitcoin solely. Is OP_RETURN spam since it creates another purpose for the transaction? What about transactions that create an output to the same destination as the input? In practice they don't move bitcoins at all, but the protocol understands this as transaction. Unless we count mining fees as part of the transaction, which in that case would make every Ordinal transaction a "real" one.

For the millionth time, every transaction byte should be seen as equal with any other given that it follows the protocol rules.

blackhatcoiner. you are just echoing your forum wife.. for once please try to have an opinion of your own

EG realise the very odd/rare opreturn tx over the first decade did not affect the network, it rarely happened it didnt cause fee attacks fee wars, nor clog up the blockchain to any large extent..

but this ordinals crap of v1 v2 v3 DO affect other users. do affect fees do affect the network
can you learn the difference between the scenarios

also opreturn ascii art was not trying to be a NFT
also opreturn junk data wasnt trying to be a ICO coin


its like the occasional random email about some promotion is ignorable. but when you receive many junk emails about the some SCAMMY promotion it becomes.... SPAM

get it yet

The problem I see here is: The whole Ordinals hype distorts the incentive structures.

Normally, for meme tokens you should go for the cheapest option (i.e. the one which uses the smallest amount of blockchain space). I think currently (if you really, really insist to use the BTC blockchain for that) that should be something Lightning-enabled like RGB or Taro. But BRC-20 is probably even less efficient with space than the oldest coloured coin protocols, like EPOBC.

I believe not. Nothing has been "distorted" because the users who want to pay more to use Bitcoin, are paying more because of the security assurances. But I heard that using Ethereum is more expensive and sometimes has fees that surge to $50.00 - $80.00 per transaction, and it has less security/settlement assurances. That's not "cheap", and a $50.00 transaction fee in Bitcoin is cheaper than a $50.00 fee in Ethereum.

ethereum is pretending to be a popular network offering more functionality. but when you check the market prices of ethereum. they do not have their own market discovery (random prices of spot market) instead 99.98% of the time the ethereum market is just shadow tracing bitcoin. because ethereum ha not wider community of independant price discovery
ethereum tx fee are high becasue people are not just moving eth. they are creating ICO's and $50 is cheap for the scammers trying to create a ICO which they want to value at billions

trying to suggest bitcoin fees should rise because stupid other network has high fee's is not a good idea/reason
think about all the countries around the world where $2 a tx is more then a whole days wage

thing about your own silly scripts your forum mother passes you. she loves telling you that its ok for monkey pics to take up the space of 2000 payments. but not pay the fee of 2000 payments
yet then say that people that want to use bitcoin for actual bitcoin usage. your forum-mom wants to tell you everyone else has to pay more to let the monkey pics remain

and now the game is to not stop the json junk but everyone else has to pay more. due to 50% of blocks filled with their crap

what you are not realising is your forum mom wants people to use other networks, he is not a bitcoiner. she is a sell out to whomever will sponsor her. she for years has not liked people using bitcoin, she has even said years ago how she didnt want to see "coffee" value purchases seen in bitcoin.(days wage for the unbanked)

raising fee's and delaying transactions by allowing junk makes people become peed off with bitcoin and move to other networks. EG africa and asia will end up using other networks and avoiding bitcoin.. your forum mom wants this to happen. she doesnt want people, especially the unbanked using bitcoin for bitcoin use.

if you keep following your forum mom/dads scripts you are just as bad as them. you start becoming an altnetter advocating and advertising other networks

[serjent05]

Somebody on Twitter just broke Ordinals:

Ordinals are dead and were flawed from the start: https://twitter.com/super_testnet/status/1654212346171064328 tell your friends.

If this is to be believed, then that should make the dispute obsolete. Now anyway, I believe everybody here is unanimous about BRC20 tokens being a pile of hot garbage.

I so love to see the tweet happen.  Ordinals bring so many problems on ordinary users.  They said they are a good project because they add more rewards to the miners but the problem is Bitcoin community isn't just miners.  I agree miners keep the network secure and flowing but users are the ones keeping the economy alive.  Without them miners can't sell their mined Bitcoins.  It should be balanced out and kill any application that gives more harm than good to the Bitcoin network.

[d5000]

I believe not. Nothing has been "distorted" because the users who want to pay more to use Bitcoin, are paying more because of the security assurances.  But I heard that using Ethereum is more expensive [...]

Well, you're of course right that Bitcoin and Ethereum are the safest blockchains, and in Ethereum the cost/security equation is worse, but I actually pointed to some Bitcoin-based alternatives which would be more accepted by even the "maxi" community (OP_RETURN based tokens, Taro ...).

But I believe the cause of the distortion is related neither with "security" nor "cost". The distorsion comes from the high prices the Ordinals fans mean to be able to reach with their speculative action. Even if only a tiny minority of early adopters will actually really earn money with these BRC-20 memecoins, a lot more think they could make it, and thus pay these enormous fees (Seriously, who wants to own a coin called "DICK", a 10-year-old kid? Is that really a "public" they should direct their marketing efforts to, so much money to make with kids?). Thus the high expected prices weaken the disuasive power high fees otherweise have.

Eventually the BRC-20 users will conclude that it's not worth anymore to transact that much with Ordinals derivatives, at least at this level. But they will have congested the network for weeks (maybe months) and that's not exactly good for other BTC use cases, it even may drive some businesses out of BTC.

This could happen again every year or so with another fad or hype, be it memecoins, NFTs, new kinds of DeFi, derivatives etc.. And Bitcoin with decentralized sidechains and a highly liquid LN would be better prepared to deal with that.

[larry_vw_1955]

but this ordinals crap of v1 v2 v3 DO affect other users. do affect fees do affect the network
can you learn the difference between the scenarios

also opreturn ascii art was not trying to be a NFT
also opreturn junk data wasnt trying to be a ICO coin
-

what do you think now franky? https://twitter.com/super_testnet/status/1654212346171064328
looks like casey's software had a little bug in it that allowed someone to inscribe a satoshi that didn't even belong to them or something...
i'm sure he's hard at work coming up with a fix so people can trust that their monkeys will have static inscription numbers. after all, that's important right?

[franky1]

the twitter user super_testnet thing is about making a transaction with no satoshi input and no satoshi output. thus the inscriptions are not linked to any satoshi's at all. putting the inscription count off compared to how many are inscribed to satoshis(caseys ordinals policy(failed idea) is to be attached to satoshis)

but as shown in many examples in this topic. there are many inscriptions that dont link to intended satoshis anyway
its more of a show that caseys projects are broke and dont fit his own rules. firstly by not linking to expected/promoted satoshis(the fail thats been around all along).. but now also not linked to any satoshis at all

casey could fix it as its more of a explorer count error by counting inscriptions to non sats. (fix: his explorer can ignore non sat tx), but he would be fixing a scam thats broke by other fails. so if its broke beyond repair from the beginning via many problems of math/logic/economics, any fix is just trying to make turds shiny by only counting certain turds

..
another thing to think about is that we are now seeing transactions not even transacting satoshis. and just dumb memes/json/data/text in dead weight area of witnesses

so now super_testnet's transactions would become spam by injecting alot of transactions with no sat transfer at all

also super_testnet is trying to get people to set it up by making three transactions to set up a 'off by one' spam
first one its to fund a utxo with 10ksat. second is to create the zero sat output which makes the fee of second transaction 10ksat. (~90sat/byte) third transaction is to spend the zero sat utxo to another zero sat output with a inscription inside it

the thing is that the second setup transaction of 10ksat fee then pushes the average tx fee up if lots of idiots spam this scheme
you may have noticed this week the average fee's went from <$3 to >$9

[Wind_FURY]

I believe not. Nothing has been "distorted" because the users who want to pay more to use Bitcoin, are paying more because of the security assurances.  But I heard that using Ethereum is more expensive [...]

Well, you're of course right that Bitcoin and Ethereum are the safest blockchains, and in Ethereum the cost/security equation is worse, but I actually pointed to some Bitcoin-based alternatives which would be more accepted by even the "maxi" community (OP_RETURN based tokens, Taro ...).

I just want to be clear that POS is broken, selling broken security assumptions. Their core developers threw the best part of their network, the Proof Of Work.

But I believe the cause of the distortion is related neither with "security" nor "cost". The distorsion comes from the high prices the Ordinals fans mean to be able to reach with their speculative action. Even if only a tiny minority of early adopters will actually really earn money with these BRC-20 memecoins, a lot more think they could make it, and thus pay these enormous fees (Seriously, who wants to own a coin called "DICK", a 10-year-old kid? Is that really a "public" they should direct their marketing efforts to, so much money to make with kids?). Thus the high expected prices weaken the disuasive power high fees otherweise have.

Eventually the BRC-20 users will conclude that it's not worth anymore to transact that much with Ordinals derivatives, at least at this level. But they will have congested the network for weeks (maybe months) and that's not exactly good for other BTC use cases, it even may drive some businesses out of BTC.

This could happen again every year or so with another fad or hype, be it memecoins, NFTs, new kinds of DeFi, derivatives etc.. And Bitcoin with decentralized sidechains and a highly liquid LN would be better prepared to deal with that.

OK, it's "distorted" caused by many unsustainable ponzi schemes that operate in the Bitcoin network that's making fees surge temporarily? It's that the point you're making? What's the difference between that and the varying demand for onchain, censorship-resistant transactions? During months of high demand, should that also be considered "distorted" too?

[NotATether]

the thing is that the second setup transaction of 10ksat fee then pushes the average tx fee up if lots of idiots spam this scheme
you may have noticed this week the average fee's went from <$3 to >$9

Wasting money by denial-of-service... by no means, is that new to us at all. It's going to cool down eventually, because blokes will either run out of money or realize that throwing away mountains of several million satoshis is literally throwing their money down a sinkhole never to return again.

[be.open]

the thing is that the second setup transaction of 10ksat fee then pushes the average tx fee up if lots of idiots spam this scheme
you may have noticed this week the average fee's went from <$3 to >$9

Wasting money by denial-of-service... by no means, is that new to us at all. It's going to cool down eventually, because blokes will either run out of money or realize that throwing away mountains of several million satoshis is literally throwing their money down a sinkhole never to return again.

I don't understand what the problem is here either. If the transaction is confirmed and included in the blockchain, then it is correct, and if it was rejected, then it is not correct, that's all. Attempts to impose any other criteria for the correct use of bitcoin are laughable.

[Wind_FURY]

the thing is that the second setup transaction of 10ksat fee then pushes the average tx fee up if lots of idiots spam this scheme
you may have noticed this week the average fee's went from <$3 to >$9

Wasting money by denial-of-service... by no means, is that new to us at all. It's going to cool down eventually, because blokes will either run out of money or realize that throwing away mountains of several million satoshis is literally throwing their money down a sinkhole never to return again.

But that's the "problem" with Ordinals, some of those being built, and communities formed, might be incentived to keep "spamming" the blockchain because some users found out that dick pics/fart sounds are valuable, and they could make profit from them. It's not a real problem by itself, but it's definitely an inconvenience for users who want to use Bitcoin for financial transactions.

[be.open]

But that's the "problem" with Ordinals, some of those being built, and communities formed, might be incentived to keep "spamming" the blockchain because some users found out that dick pics/fart sounds are valuable, and they could make profit from them. It's not a real problem by itself, but it's definitely an inconvenience for users who want to use Bitcoin for financial transactions.

For a user who sends a dick pics or fart sound hoping to make a profit, this is also a financial transaction. And he paid the current actual price for its inclusion in the blockchain. This use case of the bitcoin network seems unusual to you, but this does not make it wrong. Don't worry, bitcoin has already proven itself anti-fragile enough not to break at the sound of a fart.

[Artemis3]

This is looking plain horrible:



See the blue disappear? Next it will be green, next yellow... You can check in that legend what is the price of those transactions...


Who is blocking who from doing normal bitcoin transactions? Are the devs still going to do nothing and allow this hostile takeover like nothing is going on?

Yes Bitcoin is for bitcoin, not spam. Doing nothing concedes the project to altcoiners and their centralized interests. Make it hard for spam, find the way, i know you can, but don't let this exploit grow more and more until its too late to do anything and the normal people (not spammers) are forced to emigrate to some shady altcoin, precisely their goal...

[dragonvslinux]

This is looking plain horrible:



See the blue disappear? Next it will be green, next yellow... You can check in that legend what is the price of those transactions...


Who is blocking who from doing normal bitcoin transactions? Are the devs still going to do nothing and allow this hostile takeover like nothing is going on?

Looks good to me. Hopefully will encourage more adoption of Lightning network or other layer 2 solutions with increasing cost of mainnet transactions.

Yes Bitcoin is for bitcoin, not spam.

Reality is that Bitcoin is a free market. As long as someone is willing to pay the satoshis for a transaction, they are as entitled as everyone else to it. Spam or not.

Doing nothing concedes the project to altcoiners and their centralized interests.

Actually the opposite is true. Doing nothing is in line with the consensus created over a decade ago, whether you like it or not.

Make it hard for spam, find the way, i know you can

You mean like censor transactions? That sounds like a centralised solution to me.