On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[franky1]

The idea is interesting, but I do not quite understand the logic. Even if some dishonest mining pool manager artificially inflates the price of transactions, he has no guarantees that it is his pool that will catch the next block, which means there is a fairly high probability that his overpriced commission will go to another pool and he will simply lose his money. Or am I not understanding something?

first of all a pool manager does not need to pre-relay his zero confirm tx to the network. he can just make a tx and keep it for his own block template. and if the next block is not solved by him he just puts the same unbroadcast tx into the next template.. thus other pools dont steal the tx and take the fee

second of all there are a few pools doing this so they are collaborating.. its not like its just one pool spamming fee's, they all suddenly want to push fee's up to extremes. which for the last decade they did not show any great greed to want to resort to these tactics.. but all of a sudden now they are in greed season. and no
individual users with home asics dont have a say in which transactions are added so its not miners demands. its pool manager greed/effect

thirdly some are broadcasting transactions pre confirm to each other.. or the spammers are sponsoring several pools and whomever gets added first wins..  so i doubt they care much about losing some tx to some other pool. after all if the main top pools are doing it they end up passing each other funds so it ends up equalling out... and are probably being funded by idiot a-holes to spam the network

[be.open]

The idea is interesting, but I do not quite understand the logic. Even if some dishonest mining pool manager artificially inflates the price of transactions, he has no guarantees that it is his pool that will catch the next block, which means there is a fairly high probability that his overpriced commission will go to another pool and he will simply lose his money. Or am I not understanding something?

first of all a pool manager does not need to pre-relay his zero confirm tx to the network. he can just make a tx and keep it for his own block template. and if the next block is not solved by him he just puts the same unbroadcast tx into the next template.. thus other pools dont steal the tx and take the fee

second of all there are a few pools doing this so they are collaborating.. its not like its just one pool spamming fee's, they all suddenly want to push fee's up to extremes. which for the last decade they did not show any great greed to want to resort to these tactics.. but all of a sudden now they are in greed season. and no
individual users with home asics dont have a say in which transactions are added so its not miners demands. its pool manager greed/effect

thirdly some are broadcasting transactions pre confirm to each other.. or the spammers are sponsoring several pools and whomever gets added first wins..  so i doubt they care much about losing some tx to some other pool. after all if the main top pools are doing it they end up passing each other funds so it ends up equalling out... and are probably being funded by idiot a-holes to spam the network

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but yours is quite interesting and I would take it much more lightly if a few previous conspiracy theories that I also found interesting didn't prove to be true. Thank you.

In general, the problem of malicious cooperation of managers of large pools is quite serious. It seems that Satoshi believed that malicious cooperation was not profitable because they were too financially interested in the overall success of bitcoin as a commercial enterprise to deliberately try to discredit it. But I believe that this is not a strong enough argument, because pool owners can receive material or non-material incentives from third parties that may outweigh their possible losses from actions aimed at discrediting Bitcoin.

[franky1]

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/ac31a3efd777adb5724b862ad88e43824c44fd54d20af5f44d8d6c26185a9fe5
shows one wallet manager can control funds of binance pool. antpool. btc.com pool and a few other unknown pools

there is an m4 mining pool that is known. but there are another batch of unknowns putting funds into and out of the m4 pool

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/4461fa9c2cc7345e8e5dd66610254e3fe2a77718639ae487fc1c049007733e43

most of the truly stupidly high tx fee's are transactions that begin and end back with pools with not much taint hopping inbetween to suggest its random individuals using bitcoin normally

[Wind_FURY]

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.

It doesn't change the fact that it has become very inconvenient for the rest of the participants. Because they merely wanted to make a profit? Blockstream's Liquid Network is better for what they're trying to do because it will give them lower fees, and a higher transaction throughput. More savings = more profit.

But it's not their fault, they simply don't know. I believe Blockstream should start marketing and let developers and users know that they can also build their network of dick pics in Liquid. It's probably the same situation when developers built Ethereum off-chain layers which has seen increased usage.

I think it is useless to appeal to the voice of reason when there are an abnormally large number of idiots in the market (in the sense of non-professional players). This seems to be a sure sign that we are now in the vicinity of the local maximum of the bitcoin market price and a crushing collapse will soon follow. Please do not take this as investment advice.

The good news is that after the crash, fee prices will be low again, without any soft fork.

It's not an appeal. It's merely economics and market efficiency. It's either they run out of money first before finding better solutions, or find the solution before they run out of money. Because from a technical standpoint, "BRC-20" is a stupid solution to having "fungible tokens". Use Liquid, or Counterparty.

Also how about sheer financial incentive? Right now there are blocks being mined with fee rewards per block that are higher than the 6.25 fixed block reward. While I doubt it's sustainable long-term

those fee's are not really from that many independent individuals . they are the same groups as the mining pool managers. basically making high fee's to pay themselves back.. thus not much loss is incurred when producing high fee transactions becasue they are the sender and receiver of fee's

Not sure I follow your point here. It seems that most of the high transaction fees are from "BRC20" inscriptions

no

the 'first sat' spam (ordinal v1) caused fee mania in february
the memes spam (ordinal v2) took up alot of data and fee mania in march
the brc json (ordinal v3) spam is only about 60bytes, yet caused fee mania in april due to just alot of tx's, not alot of content

The BRC-MEME is confusing. How do users validate their BRC-20 token balance? Get information from an off-chain indexer, a third party, that's running the software that read and interpret the data? Merely running a Bitcoin node won't do it?

Or what if I want to buy 100 BRC-20 tokens but the available amounts are 10, 50, 200, 500? It's a very laughable system.

[Abiky]

Remember when Bitcoin could still be used to pay and be paid with? Those were the days...

I'm afraid those days are over. With Bitcoin getting spammed like crazy with Ordinals transactions, fees will only get worse over time. Not even the LN will do any help (it requires an on-chain TX to open/close a channel, after all). Either the majortiy pays a low fee, or developers increase on-chain TX capacity to solve this dilemma.

Until then, we'll have no choice but to pay a high fee for each BTC transaction. There always the option of using an alternative cryptocurrency with low fees such as LTC and TRX. The NFT hype won't last forever, so BTC network fees should decline sooner or later. Just my opinion

[BlackHatCoiner]

individual users with home asics dont have a say in which transactions are added so its not miners demands. its pool manager greed/effect

Miners' demands are analogous to the profit. It really doesn't hold water for a pool manager to not want profit, so he sort of follows what miners want as well.

Well, do it if you can - why scream then?

Because he can't. There is no manner to prevent Ordinals without forking yourself off the Bitcoin network, and setting up a censorship susceptible copy. You can however prevent them from entering your mempool, which can already be done with a few filters on Core. That is acceptable, but it's not prevention. Ordinal users can still broadcast them to miners, and at that point it would only make your node's fee rates be inaccurate.

[franky1]

individual users with home asics dont have a say in which transactions are added so its not miners demands. its pool manager greed/effect

Miners' demands are analogous to the profit. It really doesn't hold water for a pool manager to not want profit, so he sort of follows what miners want as well.

miners 'wants' dont come into it
for decade most pools just gave shares of the block reward to miners(not fees).. and miners then demand value on the spot market by refusing to sell at less than their cost.. miners desires come from the spot market speculation. not from choosing transactions.. asics do not choose the transactions!

pool managers kept the fee total, pool managers choose the transactions

thus pool managers choose the transactions and take the fee's and miners have nothing to do with transaction choosing

[Wind_FURY]

Remember when Bitcoin could still be used to pay and be paid with? Those were the days...

I'm afraid those days are over. With Bitcoin getting spammed like crazy with Ordinals transactions, fees will only get worse over time. Not even the LN will do any help (it requires an on-chain TX to open/close a channel, after all). Either the majortiy pays a low fee, or developers increase on-chain TX capacity to solve this dilemma.

Ser, with all due respect, that won't solve the problem. Because increasing the block size limit will just make the attack vector through Ordinals bigger. You know what they will do? Inscribe high definition videos of their dicks and doing farts, instead of just static dick pics and fart sounds.

 

Until then, we'll have no choice but to pay a high fee for each BTC transaction. There always the option of using an alternative cryptocurrency with low fees such as LTC and TRX. The NFT hype won't last forever, so BTC network fees should decline sooner or later. Just my opinion

Or the Lightning Network for those people like us who want to use Bitcoin.

[franky1]

Or the Lightning Network for those people like us who want to use Bitcoin.

you do realise that more individuals are avoiding lightning and instead using other subnetworks that peg to bitcoin for there transactions already

realise many have used lightning for a bit and realised its flaws and moved on.

the lightning network has less liquidity than other subnetworks bridges. plus most of the liquidity on lightning is locked as reserves of services rather than individuals..

LN cannot handle regular peoples bitcoin transaction value. it fails with amounts less than a months wage. plus there are many ways partners and routing path participants can steal and use up peoples value. it just doesnt do what bitcoin does so people dont use it apart from the same shameless promoters that try to talk about it all day

[Artemis3]

But there is still hope...

[franky1]

But there is still hope...

that particular thing is not a fix. thats just a zero-confirm tx relay filter. it doesnt stop ordinal scum from their current process of just pushtx their zero confirms directly to mining pools and evading he network relay of pre-confirm
a real fix is to set rules for opcodes where contents of witness that use opcodes need to actually fit the rules. EG signatures that actually associate and validate to the spending inputs

whereby if blocks put tx with random data that does not fit rules get their blocks rejected. thus they stop putting random crap tx into their blocks

[Abiky]

Ser, with all due respect, that won't solve the problem. Because increasing the block size limit will just make the attack vector through Ordinals bigger. You know what they will do? Inscribe high definition videos of their dicks and doing farts, instead of just static dick pics and fart sounds.

Good point. It would only benefit the attacker most by giving it more room to spam the network with Ordinals inscriptions. I don't think high fees will last for long, especially when spammers will lose more money than what they'll earn in the long run. Miners will enjoy the profits albeit for a short period of time.

Considering that the LN is far from being a perfect solution for scaling Bitcoin, our only choice would be to switch to an altcoin with lower fees for complete peace of mind. Let's all hope this nightmare ends soon, so Bitcoin can get back to business. Just my opinion

[larry_vw_1955]

LN cannot handle regular peoples bitcoin transaction value. it fails with amounts less than a months wage. plus there are many ways partners and routing path participants can steal and use up peoples value. it just doesnt do what bitcoin does so people dont use it apart from the same shameless promoters that try to talk about it all day

i think the problem is some people have "lightning network" as a built in copy/paste macro on their computer. anytime someone has a complaint or issue with bitcoin, they just hit that macro key. glad to see someone helping them get their macro key fixed. so it doesn't just spit out the same overused phrase again and again...

[franky1]

LN cannot handle regular peoples bitcoin transaction value. it fails with amounts less than a months wage. plus there are many ways partners and routing path participants can steal and use up peoples value. it just doesnt do what bitcoin does so people dont use it apart from the same shameless promoters that try to talk about it all day

i think the problem is some people have "lightning network" as a built in copy/paste macro on their computer. anytime someone has a complaint or issue with bitcoin, they just hit that macro key. glad to see someone helping them get their macro key fixed. so it doesn't just spit out the same overused phrase again and again...

it does feel like that. but its actually kiss ass hoping for a pay day. people with sig campaigns and promoters are paid to post crap. they end up saying crap to cause drama so they can reply in "relevant" replies and get more post counts up. they dont care about content they just care about post count

after all if they cant cause any controversy/debate to talk about they cant talk as much. because of their narrow minded opinion/knowledge

you notice its the same group of people not wanting bitcoin fixed. telling fullnoders to deactivate features and not be full noders. not wanting bitcoin exploits fixed, wanting fee's to rise where actual bitcoiners stop spending.. all to advertised some other network/scheme which these promoters are financially motivated to mention/post about

the whole sounding like each other is just bad training on their part. being dumb and docile to just reiterate what they heard without thinking about if it actually means anything

[tread93]

At first I thought the project was cool, although I noticed a lot of folks hated the ideas of btc having NFTs. I now don't like it as much seeing as it could lead to increasing volatility due to the higher fees these are ushering in. Just keep the NFTs on ETH, that was working out fine no need to muddy up the waters for BTC IMO

[franky1]

At first I thought the project was cool, although I noticed a lot of folks hated the ideas of btc having NFTs. I now don't like it as much seeing as it could lead to increasing volatility due to the higher fees these are ushering in. Just keep the NFTs on ETH, that was working out fine no need to muddy up the waters for BTC IMO

ordinals are not even functional NFT. so stop describing them as such.. its just dead weight junk data

[nutildah]

ordinals are not even functional NFT. so stop describing them as such.. its just dead weight junk data

They have all the properties required to meet the basic definition of Non-Fungible Token:

 - They reside on the blockchain.
 - They are 1-of-1 units of account with properties defined by a protocol.
 - They can be transferred from address to address.
 - Perhaps most importantly, there is a market for them whose participants designate them as NFTs.

Other blockchain artifacts commonly referred to as "NFTs" include:

 - Namecoin Names / IDs
 - Fungible tokens on Counterparty & similar platforms

[NotATether]

Ordisrespector

We can run this fork and kick the spam out of our nodes.

This is the preferred solution but it should not be distributed as a Bitcoin Core fork, it is already 35 commits behind master. Instead the patch file needs to be uploaded to Github Gists and periodically updated for each Bitcoin Core version.

Then people who want to use the spam filter clone Bitcoin Core source and apply the patch, then build normally.

[franky1]

ordinals are not even functional NFT. so stop describing them as such.. its just dead weight junk data

They have all the properties required to meet the basic definition of Non-Fungible Token:

 - They reside on the blockchain.
 - They are 1-of-1 units of account with properties defined by a protocol.
 - They can be transferred from address to address.
 - Perhaps most importantly, there is a market for them whose participants designate them as NFTs.

Other blockchain artifacts commonly referred to as "NFTs" include:

 - Namecoin Names / IDs
 - Fungible tokens on Counterparty & similar platforms

namecoin and counterparty are different to ordinals IN MANY WAYS

as for ordinals transfer. look at the blockchain data. take a real hard look
no  where in the ordinal data (the stuff in witness) does it actually state to link to only one output
the GUI interface of caseys explorers does the linking but thats something he can change. meaning the transfers are not LOCKED to an output. they are assumed by just GUI interfaces.

bitcoins yep real bitcoins lock inputs to outputs by many mechanisms.

learn the difference

ill make it simple
lets take any bitcoin explorer
no bitcoin explorer can change the destination of btc from a transaction when confirmed

but caseys explorer can change which output a witness bloat of data is presumed to follow
want to know why he chose the word THEORY instead of proof.. yep realise he called it theory instead of proof for a reason

funny part is there are actual ways/functions HE COULD use to create locked proofs. but he has not used them.

so take your eyes off the gaze of his ass while trying to pucker up your lips in admiration. and instead look at the block content and lack of proof/security of transfer of the actual block data.

in short dont take his words as gospel actually check and verify the claims
go look at the blockdata without the kiss ass mindset

[nutildah]

as for ordinals transfer. look at the blockchain data. take a real hard look
no  where in the winess area where a ordinal sits does to link to only one output
the GUI interface of caseys explorers does the linking but thats something he can change. meaning the transfers are not LOCKED to an output. they are assumed by just GUI interfaces

We've been over this several times before. There doesn't need to be a "link" in the witness area for the system to function. The inscription is assigned to the ordinal during the minting process via the rules of the protocol. It's almost the same way images are attached to Ethereum or Counterparty NFTs. The main difference is the image data for Ordinals NFTs is stored in the blockchain itself.

There's no reason for Casey to change the system, and has already been explained in this thread several times, if he suddenly decided to change the rules it would be very unpopular among inscribers and market participants. They would simply fork the project and revert to the old way of doing things.

Counterparty has two main devs. They make changes to the protocol on occasion. While some consensus is involved, some of the changes are not necessarily popular, but that's the way it goes. The reason why they don't break the system by making stupid changes is because they are heavily invested in its success, as Casey is with Ordinals.