Mempool full? Long transaction times + fees x10!

[nutildah]

So there you have it. Not only they openly declare their intention to spam, they also challenge the developers...

LOL, that's not what they said at all.

This has been doable since 2015 via Counterparty; the whole "on-chain data" craze only became a thing recently. This is a Counterparty Broadcast of a tiny image file, about 9.5kb, from Aug 2015:

https://xchain.io/tx/299585

This is what it looks like when you decode it (also magnified):



It uses 172 outputs. Nobody cared about it at the time, but the person behind it is now widely considered one of the pioneers of NFTs as we know them. Also because he made OLGA, the first 1/1 Counterparty token (thus a non-fungible token, or NFT).

https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA

[1714914303]

1714914303

[1714914303]

1714914303

[1714914303]

1714914303

[1714914303]

1714914303

[1714914303]

1714914303

[larry_vw_1955]

It uses 172 outputs. Nobody cared about it at the time, but the person behind it is now widely considered one of the pioneers of NFTs as we know them. Also because he made OLGA, the first 1/1 Counterparty token (thus a non-fungible token, or NFT).

https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA

so they sent two cents to like 173 different addresses and then later on they transferred those same two cents back to one of the original funding addresses. imagine that. sending $0.02 worth of bitcoin 173 times not once but twice...

[nutildah]

so they sent two cents to like 173 different addresses and then later on they transferred those same two cents back to one of the original funding addresses.

Actually they are unspendable, they just sit there for eternity. And it was actually less than 2 cents at the time. Nowadays it would be a fairly expensive operation.

The saving grace about Stamps is the stampers are forced to pay more of a "fair" fee as it does not rely on taking advantage of the witness data discount.

[larry_vw_1955]

Actually they are unspendable, they just sit there for eternity.

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/m-0fd46773b2543ccb2ae663ff13fdfb71

Balance
0BTC
0USD
Total received
0.000078BTC
0.02USD
Total spent
0.000078BTC
0.09USD


not for this one  

The saving grace about Stamps is the stampers are forced to pay more of a "fair" fee as it does not rely on taking advantage of the witness data discount.

and its unprunable and sits in the utxo set forever?  hopefully that doesn't contribute to utxo set bloat. but i guess we'll see.

since stamps is more proof of ownership than ordinals, i wonder how they get "transferred". maybe a new copy of the monkey gets made and stuck in someone else's address? now there's 2 monkeys taking up space a new monkey on every new sale. blockchain bloat might be an issue if that was the case but it seems these stamps nfts are very small images.

[nutildah]

not for this one  

Oh yeah, you're right, wonder how he did that. He must have swept all of them somehow... don't understand how since its not a real bitcoin address.

since stamps is more proof of ownership than ordinals, i wonder how they get "transferred". maybe a new copy of the monkey gets made and stuck in someone else's address? now there's 2 monkeys taking up space a new monkey on every new sale.

No, just like Ordinals, the "inscription" only happens one time. They use Counterparty, which is a protocol for Bitcoin token transfer. Unlike Ordinals, sats aren't moved around during token transfer (or other processes: issuance, dividend, supply creation, supply locking, destructions, etc)... its all just encoded data in non-standard transactions.

[franky1]

not for this one  

Oh yeah, you're right, wonder how he did that. He must have swept all of them somehow... don't understand how since its not a real bitcoin address.

its an old style multisig address thats how

m-0fd46773b2543ccb2ae663ff13fdfb71 translates to 4E6wXFuMixFc8LU8n5eUUG1FPY71BHZRfy
or splits to:
12niGJ1B66V668fTmgNF1gLhvH94VfabW1
18MXco4a3y8eLFcpsqV6ASpqjUxeVVEGg1
1HbJtt8hm7TGd2DhHvxuw4BRdZsd2iuxYp

you just then need to sign by using the keys (EG a 1-of-3 using the key of 1hbJtt8hm address)

and yes all the 173 multisigs have the 1hbJtt8hm in them so its easy to sign a multisig

and if you take the tx back by one taint. you will see the creator funded those multisigs using the 1hbJtt8hm address using normal legacy spend of that address so he has control of the key for the 1hbJtt8hm address to then use as a signer for the multisigs that have the address as part of the combined multisig

[larry_vw_1955]

its an old style multisig address thats how

yeah i did notice that the 1hb address funded all those 173 strange looking addresses and then apparently they got reconsolidated back into that address. never heard of "old style" multisig addresses and i even googled "m- bitcoin address" but i couldn't seem to find anything. so you're smarter than google franky!  

No, just like Ordinals, the "inscription" only happens one time. They use Counterparty, which is a protocol for Bitcoin token transfer. Unlike Ordinals, sats aren't moved around during token transfer (or other processes: issuance, dividend, supply creation, supply locking, destructions, etc)... its all just encoded data in non-standard transactions.

ok. that sounds kind of complicated but as long as it's not creating duplicate monkeys everytime a sale gets made i guess that's the important thing. because to have 100 monkey pics of the same monkey just because it had been sold 100 times during its existence would not be ideal. 

[nutildah]

ok. that sounds kind of complicated but as long as it's not creating duplicate monkeys everytime a sale gets made i guess that's the important thing. because to have 100 monkey pics of the same monkey just because it had been sold 100 times during its existence would not be ideal. 

OK well that's never been the case in any sort of NFT protocol ever, on any blockchain. So you can relax because that's not what's happening. What we are seeing is people inscribing the same image over and over, don't understand the purpose of that, but it can't be stopped (for now).

There was an idea for a protocol that floated around for a while that involved using signatures to prove ownership of IPFS IDs and the ID was transferred in each transaction, but that's hardly the same thing as recreating image data in each transaction.

[franky1]

its an old style multisig address thats how

yeah i did notice that the 1hb address funded all those 173 strange looking addresses and then apparently they got reconsolidated back into that address. never heard of "old style" multisig addresses and i even googled "m- bitcoin address" but i couldn't seem to find anything. so you're smarter than google franky!  

m- is "strange" because its the explorer software putting the "m-" prefix. other explorers would translate it to a "4 prefix" which is less strange and pre-dates by a few months the "3" multisig prefix which became the common multisig
its not me being smart. its instead just knowing more about bitcoin and certain people on this forum using poorly expressive explorers, thus they are prevented from knowing more..


yep even blockchain.info became lame when their "more details" feature just became a lame json expression of a transaction which does not convert raw binary tx data to hex or into proper readable information (their json details put "null" into some of the json results(facepalm)). explorers are better when they know of all key formats and also read the binery/hex better to express the results in human readable form better (for those that dont want to parse binary/hex data via their full node and convert the manual way)

some other explorers do express tx data better. so its just a case of people finding a explorer that fits their needs

There was an idea for a protocol that floated around for a while that involved using signatures to prove ownership of IPFS IDs and the ID was transferred in each transaction, but that's hardly the same thing as recreating image data in each transaction.

well having a dead meme stored somewhere.. but have a hash of the dead meme store. where the HASH is the thing that then moves instead of the meme itself, can show proof of transfer without the major bloat, because if only the hash moves to only one output which moves to only one child and grandchild tx. then becomes a proof of transfer without the main bloat of moving whole files

as for "signature" well a base signature cannot be bruted to include the hash of file. but the "script" that explains how the signature is processed EG showing a 1 of 2 multisig where 1 is the signing key and 2 is the hash. would include the hash in the script process to signing proof. thus the hash would be in the blockchain, which then shows a taint path each time its spent


EG if you know the file hash. you choose a key you want as part of a multisig. and join the hash and key to create a multisig you then spend to that multisig to get the multisig into the blockchain. then when spending from it. each buyer gives you their receiver key. the seller joins the buyers receiver key with the file hash to give the file hash to the receiver. where the receiver can spend using 1 of 2 signing process. and they do this when its time for them to pass the hash to the next person by doing the same thing combining the net buyers key to the hash to create a multisig.

the file itself does not need to be in a bitcoin blockchain as long as bitcoin registers the ownership transfer

ofcourse bitcoin does not have any locks to ensure the original owners cant just later put a hash into another recipient and claim the first one is wrong(ordinals cant prove anyone ever took ownership, so even easier for ordinals to scam people ). but thats where legally the timestamp comes into play.. first sight  of hash wins and its that chain of hashes that are the default path. because there is a clear seen path of hashes per spend


as for worries of UTXO bloat
utxoset does not store all keys of a multisig. so even if a multisig is 1 of 1 1of 2 or x of 15 the utxoset just saves the same length of output

yes spending a mutlisig utxo uses more data on the blockchain rather than a legacy address. but a 1 of 2 needing 2 key lengths + 1 sig is less bloaty then then transfering whole files

unlike ordinals that do not have a chain of hashes of the file or the file itself thus are nothing like any method of NFT as they miss out on anything that can be considered as proof of ownership/transfer

[serveria.com]

"Bitcoin stamps" joins the spam fest...

So there you have it. Not only they openly declare their intention to spam, they also challenge the developers...

i wouldn't worry about "stamps". no one is going to want to pay the huge fees to store any reasonable image on that crap. only thing you'll see there is pixellated junk. but yeah they want their monkeys being stored in the utxo set. how nice.  

i guess P2SH wasn't so great after all though...

funny how all this is supposed to be decentralized yet these bitcoin nft projects rely on .io websites or .com websites to showcase all the monkeys and if those websites went away, people would probably stop using them

Then we need to ddos the sh*t out them!   Let's start a new trend: visit a website http://retardeddickbuttmonkeynftlover and get a unique, super rare and valuable monkey pic from me!   That would give them a dose of their own medicine!  

[larry_vw_1955]

m- is "strange" because its the explorer software putting the "m-" prefix. other explorers would translate it to a "4 prefix" which is less strange and pre-dates by a few months the "3" multisig prefix which became the common multisig

i'd say this 4 prefix is an undocumented feature of bitcoin. i couldn't seem find much information on it. strange. but yet you know alot about it. 

OK well that's never been the case in any sort of NFT protocol ever, on any blockchain. So you can relax because that's not what's happening.

hopefully not.

What we are seeing is people inscribing the same image over and over, don't understand the purpose of that, but it can't be stopped (for now).

how would you ever be able to stop it though? not like bitcoin is going to ever have some type of content matching system that deals with ordinals or any other "nft" implementation. as i've mentioned in the past, the only thing gives ordinals any value is their inscription number because anyone can come along and reupload the same exact content but their number will be larger. whether you believe in the "i came first so i'm more valuable" idea, well that's another story.

[franky1]

m- is "strange" because its the explorer software putting the "m-" prefix. other explorers would translate it to a "4 prefix" which is less strange and pre-dates by a few months the "3" multisig prefix which became the common multisig

i'd say this 4 prefix is an undocumented feature of bitcoin. i couldn't seem find much information on it. strange. but yet you know alot about it.  

it was called P2MS and was first used in january 2012. but due to a few flaws, people went with P2SH instead by april 2012

people still used p2ms now and again over the years. but most just used P2SH

years before devs messed around with where sigscripts sits in raw tx data. sigscripts(aka witnesses as they want to call them now) only had 200byte then 500byte limits back in those days. and now we are stuck with them being upto 3999000byte and the bloat due to that silly decision is having impacts on many parts of bitcoin. including mempools and fee pressure

What we are seeing is people inscribing the same image over and over, don't understand the purpose of that, but it can't be stopped (for now).

how would you ever be able to stop it though? not like bitcoin is going to ever have some type of content matching system that deals with ordinals or any other "nft" implementation.

the answer is simple as of block 7XX,XXX limit the script lengths. thus reject bloaty transactions altogether

as i've mentioned in the past, the only thing gives ordinals any value is their inscription number because anyone can come along and reupload the same exact content but their number will be larger.

ordinals dont have value due to that..
yes the utxo of blockreward might have a special number. but once its spent. that number is actually lost due due to logic and bitcoins monetary policy, ''first sats"get spent. meaning because mining pools take a cut of value. and they record their income FIRST in the coinbase tx technically the mining pools get first sats back into the block reward and any underlying tx listed in a block is secondary thus not receipt of a first sat

whether you believe in the "i came first so i'm more valuable" idea, well that's another story.

yep a story for patent/copyright attorneys to debate in a court room with a suspected infringer

[nutildah]

yes the utxo of blockreward might have a special number. but once its spent. that number is actually lost due due to logic and bitcoins monetary policy, ''first sats"get spent. meaning because mining pools take a cut of value. and they record their income FIRST in the coinbase tx technically the mining pools get first sats back into the block reward and any underlying tx listed in a block is secondary thus not receipt of a first sat

Once again, the Ordinals protocol does not care about your personal interpretation of things. Transfer occurs according to a rigid set of rules and the rules exist without your permission. It cares about "franky1's bitcoin monetary policy" as much as it does your definition of an NFT, which is not at all.

I already went over this with you in the another thread where you ignored my detailed explanation of an ordinal transfer in action. You misunderstood how it worked, I explained it to you, and then you ignored the explanation.

I honestly don't understand why you enjoy fighting logic so much but I will continue to correct your misinformation for the sake of others.

[franky1]

nutty its not franky policy at all

its actually bitcoin policy..
the blockchain data (real stuff) does not care about ordinals idea's .. and ordinals ideas are not even proven by just looking at blockdata.

you seem too tied into the adoration of ordinals for you to pretend you are not involved you sound like you are financially incentivised to keep the ordinal dream alive.

casey does not have hard rules because those hard rules have no data foundation to strengthen/solidify the rules
they are just dreams casey made up to call certain outputs whatever he likes but if you ignore his dream and just look at the real world data and see that his dreams dont match reality. you will realise you are in dreamland

dreams can change without impacting the real world... and so can caseys idea.. get it yet

standard economic policy. real world data.. logic. all debunk caseys dreams..
yet your diatribe of kiss-assery to adore casey is not proof that his idea actually has value.. all i see is that your a kiss ass loyalist trying to scam people for value of things that are not as worth as much as you pretend they are.


as for you pretending in another topic that you debunked me with your detailed example of how it all works

as sats move on a First In, First Out basis per Ordinals Theory.

Let's follow the sat from the block from which it was mined, with the output destination for each tx:

https://www.blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/1d6cee0a930e327eacf74fae751613665091f5ecead34317510593c861e446cd - 1CK6KHY6MHgYvmRQ4PAafKYDrg1ejbH1cE (block reward)
to
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20b - 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og

well going by your own example.. that 128tAax address is not even the FIRST OUTPUT of the spending of the blockreward

thus you debunked yourself with your own example in the first transfer

and also.. even if all decendant transactions had taint of first output(which they dont)
you are also still ignoring that when making a transaction you are giving a tx fee to a mining pool and giving the REMAINDER to destinations. meaning mining pool gets first cut of a spend
and heaven forbid should you dare read blockdata. mining pools receive their tx fees at the top of a block far before the list of transactions showing the destinations of where remainder funds go
so again math, logic. data. common sense. prevail to debunk you in many ways. and thats not franky policy its just real world stuff

stop kissing ass to someone with a bad idea just because it makes you money. and then stop pretending your not financially involved or profiting from the crap idea

[nutildah]

wut

nothing you say makes any sense... when you repeat the same misinformed nonsense ad nauseum, all you're doing is demonstrating that you have no desire to learn or research

the system works perfectly as is, there's no reason for it to change. just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean it doesn't work.

nobody seems to have any problems with how it works except for you and whoever you can convince that your nonsense has any merit.


Edit to address franky1's edit:

franky: the first input in this transaction is for 5 BTC. It thus includes the BTC from 128tA...

you are also still ignoring that when making a transaction you are giving a tx fee to a mining pool and giving the REMAINDER to destinations. meaning mining pool gets first cut of a spend

This is according to franky1's rules for how Ordinals should work, which again, nobody cares about.

stop kissing ass to someone with a bad idea just because it makes you money. and then stop pretending your not financially involved or profiting from the crap idea

I'm not pretending anything. I've never purchased or inscribed a single Ordinal, as I've told you for the 4th time now. I'm just countering your misinformative bullshit.

[BlackHatCoiner]

how would you ever be able to stop it though?

But with "true consensus" of course! Didn't you know it? franky1 is the father of true consensus, which consists of various notions, like Bitcoin being not censorship-resistant, miners and users going along with franky1 explicitly*, developers needing permission from franky1 to code, etc. One solution he must have thought of is: rising the costs for such transactions, or even better: invalidating them altogether!

* btw, soft forks forbidden, they are an act of rape, as he calls

[franky1]

how would you ever be able to stop it though?

But with "true consensus" of course! Didn't you know it? franky1 is the father of true consensus, which consists of various notions, like Bitcoin being not censorship-resistant, miners and users going along with franky1 explicitly*, developers needing permission from franky1 to code, etc. One solution he must have thought of is: rising the costs for such transactions, or even better: invalidating them altogether!

* btw, soft forks forbidden, they are an act of rape, as he calls

inserting things without consent... just because you dont like how frank i have to be to get real world concepts into your head does not mean that you have to cry that i am using bad words. instead understand the concept.
its funny how you care more about how i say things rather then whats being said. if you cant understand the idea of consensus (consent of the masses)
if you cant understand why bitcoin was made. how it was made and the structures that were in place to make bitcoin work beautifully initially.
if you cant understand what bitcoin actually does and how..
 and instead you just wanna insert your worms in any hole you can find no matter how it affects others.. thats your problem

i do laugh that you pretend real world data does not exist even though millions can read it. and you pretend its just me.. you really are ignorant to real life and common sense.

just admit your sales pitches have failed and stop trying to act like your dreams are real even when real world data can prove otherwise

i fully understand that you as sponsored promoters doing this for income do not want to or are not willing to read real world data.. and i do know and fully understand you only want to kiss each others ass and be an echo chamber thinking that if you hear an echo of your dreams that must mean the dream is real... but thats not how the real world works

maybe one day you will wake up and realise where you have gone wrong in your manifestations of your warped reality. and maybe oneday you might just get caught in your own traps of careless disregard for others
either way. your dreams wont continue forever. so be prepared

[worldofcoins]

Something is brewing in the Bitcoin world? For the last 2-3 days I can I witness slow transactions and huge fees. I got used to 1sat/byte transactions and they always get through so I sent a couple of sats to myself but you can't imagine how surprised I was when I saw my tx is ~75mb from tip! My wallet suggested a fee of 10sat/bytes! So, what's going on? Is this connected with that ordinals mumbo-jumbo? 

Yes, there has been a recent spike in transaction fees and slower processing times on the Bitcoin network. This is due to a combination of factors, including increased demand for Bitcoin transactions, changes in the mining difficulty and hash rate of the web, and other market and economic factors. It's always a good idea to stay up-to-date on the latest developments and trends in the Bitcoin world and to be prepared for potential changes and fluctuations in the network.

[larry_vw_1955]

ordinals dont have value due to that..

well, i'm not saying i think they have any value at all but apparently some people are willing to pay higher if the inscription number is a low one like under 100,000 and even more if it's under 1000. not that i think it has any value but some people must think that way. whether that makes any sense or not i guess it doesn't matter. all that matters is if someone thinks it makes sense. but at some point seems like someone is going to buy at the top. 

whether you believe in the "i came first so i'm more valuable" idea, well that's another story.

yep a story for patent/copyright attorneys to debate in a court room with a suspected infringer

how do you take someone to court if all you know is their bitcoin address? and their monkey on the blockchain...

[Artemis3]

With the ample breath we got this past week when they stopped, and now with their return, i think it has been sufficiently demonstrated how much have power they have to sabotage Bitcoin. It can only get worse with more spammers joining. And when an actual tx traffic surge comes (for example some exchange moving things around from cold wallets, etc) combine it with the spammers and...