ㅤ

[jokers10]

You are spitting facts.
The only way to fight this nonsense would be to just not send any BTC anywhere and HODL. Unfortunately we will receive less BTC because of the high transaction fees, which is bad, but whatever. Just stay in a safe place until the storm goes away and this ordinals trend/hype slowly dies. The BTC miners obviously want this BRC-20 protocol, because they make more money from the higher transaction fees. I don't know how are we going to hardfork Bitcoin Core and kick out all the BRC-20 supporters. Maybe some of the Bitcoin Core developers must step in and express their opinions about this problem.

Hodl is never a solution, it is just a way to wait out the problem. If not stupid pictures then something else will happen — like stompix said about possibility of 100 millions of Indians to start using bitcoin for small payments. Scalability problem can't be solved by not making transactions. Even increasing a block size will be a temporary solution as we need billions transactions a day to compete with main centralized payment-processing services. If devs will not find a reasonable way to solve a scalability problem we will face the same situations again and again and bitcoin will not become a real mass payment system.

[tbct_mt2]

Hodl is never a solution, it is just a way to wait out the problem. If not stupid pictures then something else will happen — like stompix said about possibility of 100 millions of Indians to start using bitcoin for small payments. Scalability problem can't be solved by not making transactions.

The blockchain is created for Peer to Peer transactions so stop making transactions sounds very weird idea. So will the Bitcoin blockchain need to exist either?

Even increasing a block size will be a temporary solution as we need billions transactions a day to compete with main centralized payment-processing services. If devs will not find a reasonable way to solve a scalability problem we will face the same situations again and again and bitcoin will not become a real mass payment system.

It is true that if Bitcoin adoption becomes bigger and bigger which I believe will happen, blocksize must be increased and increased again. I don't know that why in 2017, people only decided to increase it to 4MB maximally for a block (1MB Witness, 3MB Non-Witness data)?

Why don't increase it to like 100 MB/ block?

Does block size increase will bring some technical problems to miners and nodes? Like they have to upgrades their resources.

[be.open]

How do you imagine it in terms of implementation? It should be some kind of open letter from the developers in the style of "dear miners, these records for the number of transactions are not at all the adoption that we all dreamed of, please vote for our changes so that you can earn less, and we can send transactions again with low commission"?

A soft fork basically, but yeah you're on the spot. It's going to have a footnote at the end though:

"Please be advised that your failure to agree to these changes by 1 November 2023 will result in a User Activated Soft Fork getting deployed to forcibly resolve the issue."

It worked for Segwit, it nearly scared them to death that time.

Looks quite decentralized and resistant to censorship. Abusing such methods is a good way to turn bitcoin into a comfortable sofa dog.

[Similificator]

I must admit, this is truly troubling. While we do not see too much problem with the fees right now, I can already imagine how big of a problem the fees will be in the future when another bull run happens and we reach new ATHs. I am not against NFTs but for it to be stuffed on bitcoin when there are dozens of other options for NFTs and is affecting the function and the main purpose of bitcoin, it just doesn't seem right.

Yes, it may have a small impact in increasing mass adoption due to the increase of popularity of NFTs nowadays but in my opinion, it isn't worth all the trouble that it causes to Bitcoin. What use is there even for popularity if we can't even use Bitcoin the way we wanted to or envisioned to when we first started jumping into this industry? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Z-tight]

Why don't increase it to like 100 MB/ block?

The network is decentralized and based on consensus mechanism, so it is not in the hands of anyone to just increase the block size limit, there has to be consensus within the community, and it is always hard to get everyone to agree on an upgrade, it would either lead to a soft or hard fork.

Does block size increase will bring some technical problems to miners and nodes? Like they have to upgrades their resources.

I did a small research on this question when ordinal spam became a problem, though i was not satisfied with the result, but i found out there are BTC developers who support smaller block size, while there are some who support bigger block size, but one point i found interesting in support of people who support smaller block size is that an increase in the block size will reduce the tx fees that miners earn from transactions. If the block size is too big, i don't have to pay too much because there is no competition for blocks, and it may be a problem once block rewards are no more and the network has to depend on only tx fees, so if miners are not incentivized to continue mininig, it can disrupt the security of the network. I am also eager to learn more about this from more technical users like o_e_l_e_o, pooya87 and others.

[NotATether]

I did a small research on this question when ordinal spam became a problem, though i was not satisfied with the result, but i found out there are BTC developers who support smaller block size, while there are some who support bigger block size, but one point i found interesting in support of people who support smaller block size is that an increase in the block size will reduce the tx fees that miners earn from transactions. If the block size is too big, i don't have to pay too much because there is no competition for blocks, and it may be a problem once block rewards are no more and the network has to depend on only tx fees, so if miners are not incentivized to continue mininig, it can disrupt the security of the network. I am also eager to learn more about this from more technical users like o_e_l_e_o, pooya87 and others.

You are referring to the blocksize wars of 2017 and that ended up in the big blockers going to Bitcoin Cash and the small blockers staying here, and also a marginal increase in block capacity by using segwit.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I am also eager to learn more about this from more technical users like o_e_l_e_o, pooya87 and others.

Larger blocks increase centralization.

Let's say you and I are both miners, both working to find a block at height 800,000. I successfully mine a block at height 800,000. I broadcast that block to other nodes. Each node which receives my block has to validate the entire block, and then propagate it to other nodes, which also validate it before further propagating it, and so on. The larger the block is, then the longer this process takes. So after I've found block 800,000, I already know it is valid and can immediately start attempting to mine block 800,001. However you are at the other side of the network, so the whole time my block is propagating you know nothing about it and continue to attempt to mine at height 800,000. I have a distinct advantage here since I can attempt to mine at 800,001 for potentially several minutes before you.

Large and well connected mining operations have an advantage over smaller miners here, and not just because of better hardware and connections meaning they can receive and validate blocks more quickly. If a mining pool has 30% of the hashrate then they find 30% of blocks on average, meaning they have a propagation delay disadvantage 70% of the time. If a small miner has only 1% of the hashrate, then they are at a disadvantage 99% of the time. Over time the smaller mining cannot survive, and hashrate becomes more centralized.

There are other considerations too, as larger blocks increase the hardware cost to run a full node (again tending towards centralization), and the longer propagation time as I've outlined above also increases the rate of stale blocks and chain splits.

You can take this to the extreme and look at BSV with its 4 GB blocks, which experiences chain re-orgs of over 100 blocks and has essentially only 2 mining pools.

[stompix]

I broadcast that block to other nodes. Each node which receives my block has to validate the entire block, and then propagate it to other nodes, which also validate it before further propagating it, and so on. The larger the block is, then the longer this process takes.
~
There are other considerations too, as larger blocks increase the hardware cost to run a full node (again tending towards centralization), and the longer propagation time as I've outlined above also increases the rate of stale blocks and chain splits.

So, can you throw some estimates?
For example how much longer it will take for a 4vMB block to propagate through the network compared to a 1vMB?
It might be also interesting to scale this appropriately and with the internet speed difference between 2009 and 2023
Cause I have a feeling hobby miners in remote regions would have had more trouble uploading 1 MB then than 10 MB now....just saying.

Same for the cost of running a full node.
What extra cost would a 4vMB imply over the next 4 years let's say compared to a 1vMB?

Large and well connected mining operations have an advantage over smaller miners here, and not just because of better hardware and connections meaning they can receive and validate blocks more quickly. If a mining pool has 30% of the hashrate then they find 30% of blocks on average, meaning they have a propagation delay disadvantage 70% of the time. If a small miner has only 1% of the hashrate, then they are at a disadvantage 99% of the time. Over time the smaller mining cannot survive, and hashrate becomes more centralized.

That boat has already sailed a decade ago:
https://btc.com/stats/pool

[m2017]

I must admit, this is truly troubling. While we do not see too much problem with the fees right now, I can already imagine how big of a problem the fees will be in the future when another bull run happens and we reach new ATHs. I am not against NFTs but for it to be stuffed on bitcoin when there are dozens of other options for NFTs and is affecting the function and the main purpose of bitcoin, it just doesn't seem right.

Yes, it may have a small impact in increasing mass adoption due to the increase of popularity of NFTs nowadays but in my opinion, it isn't worth all the trouble that it causes to Bitcoin. What use is there even for popularity if we can't even use Bitcoin the way we wanted to or envisioned to when we first started jumping into this industry? It just doesn't make sense to me.

How do we not see problems with commissions? The problems are quite serious, since the whole bitcoin-community is alarmed. Even a binance temporarily suspended BTC withdrawals  due to excessively high fees. And ordinary users will think 10 times whether it is worth doing any actions with bitcoin now, especially with small amounts, if they need to pay a lot for the transaction. So it turns out that despite the workload of the mempool, there are few transactions from real BTC users, and everything else is garbage transactions from Ordinals.

It was impossible to allow this, but this event had already happened and there was a reason to solve this problem. Perhaps this is even for the better, because it will correct this defect and improve bitcoin-network and prevent a similar effect from occurring in the future. I am pleased to see that the community is not indifferent to what happened and as it happens, the problem will push to find a solution to the problem. It remains to wait for all this to stabilize, and now, it turns out, the bitcoin-network is temporarily dead for ordinary users.

I don't think that the congestion in the mempool will contribute to mass adoption. Rather the opposite. This will scare off regular users who are currently unable to use BTC due to expensive fees. It seems to me that for the most part, the activity of real btc users will slow down now, instead of increasing, as you think, thanks to the influx of NFT fans.

[Pity Token]

Rather than create bitcoin cash they should have solved the problem on the original bitcoin. Now it looks like bitcoin is diluted with one that is geared towards low fees for retail, and the original stuck with high fees when it's overloaded. Top 2 marketcap coins suffering from the same problem, wonder how long they will keep the top 2 spots for

[jokers10]

Rather than create bitcoin cash they should have solved the problem on the original bitcoin. Now it looks like bitcoin is diluted with one that is geared towards low fees for retail, and the original stuck with high fees when it's overloaded. Top 2 marketcap coins suffering from the same problem, wonder how long they will keep the top 2 spots for

Ethereum is going to implement sharding so they are on a way of solving a problem of scalability. If it will work we'll see. As for bitcoin, its value is less connected with the amount of possible transactions. "Digital gold" conception can work for a while. Main problem is that we need bitcoin not just for holding, we want bitcoin to be a complete payment system and scalability problem must be solved for that. To stay on the top bitcoin should solve that problem. And I hope we'll see how it will be solved in the near future, at least partly.

[HandcraftedBreads]

Rather than create bitcoin cash they should have solved the problem on the original bitcoin. Now it looks like bitcoin is diluted with one that is geared towards low fees for retail, and the original stuck with high fees when it's overloaded. Top 2 marketcap coins suffering from the same problem, wonder how long they will keep the top 2 spots for

we want bitcoin to be a complete payment system and scalability problem must be solved for that. To stay on the top bitcoin should solve that problem. And I hope we'll see how it will be solved in the near future, at least partly.

One solution, hopefully, the one, is a blockchain that adapts mining difficulty and transaction fee to transaction size, thereby following the dynamics of time dilation according to which for different masses come different perceptions of time. In Bitcoin terms, this would translate to each transaction being associated with its proper confirmation time according to its size in BTC units and based on a central reference.

The main purpose of this solution would be to scale the network of transactions in Bitcoin in the same way the Universe scales the network of interactions between bodies of different masses.

To solve any of Bitcoin's problems we must attune this monetary system to the laws that define how energy behaves in the Universe. We should compare the two systems, understand them by comparison, and apply the rules of the Universe to Bitcoin. And we should also understand that Bitcoin is outstanding and efficient the way it is thanks to Satoshi having based their system on the mechanics of the Universe, either consciously or unconsciously.

To solve Bitcoin's scalability issue, we need to learn how the Universe has solved it for itself. As it seems, It is doing it by associating each plane of observation of change/movement, and therefore, of time, with its proper dilation of the universal timeline. Each dilation has its pulse frequency, that is the rate at which data updates (block creation time), and so a unique, although related to every other dilation, display of relevant data. Then it is needed to identify the agent of this association, of which the base principle is energy’s interaction with spacetime.

In Bitcoin, this would mean creating a multi-plane blockchain that associates masses of monetary energy to proper confirmation times while simultaneously having and constituting a universal chain of reference.

It is similar to what we see when charting a financial asset across multiple timeframes. A financial asset has a single history, yet this history is subdivided into multiple planes of observation by changing the “pulse frequency”, that is the frequency at which a unit of time is being created. Candlesticks, the single temporal units, are blocks; a candle creation is the block creation; a timeframe (plane) is the confirmation time or block creation time; the candle chain in each timeframe is the different translation of the original chain, the asset’s financial history, as the blockchain for each confirmation time (pulse frequency) would be the different translation of the original blockchain, Bitcoin’s history.

The different planes of the blockchain, which would regard different confirmation times, would exist to scale transactions to their proper frequency according to their size. In other words, everyday transactions would be confirmed much more frequently than large transactions, proportionally according to correct mathematical manners. To have different confirmation times we should have different planes of mining difficulty. The grand feat of mind would then be knowing how to distribute the total hash rate across all planes and how to interconnect them while simultaneously representing a universal blockchain.

Blocks must have the same universal block size. In other words, they must appear one across all chains (but differ in the data they represent - just like single units of time on different planes of perception). This is fundamental concerning special relativity, as it seems such a universally fixed capacity is what permits each special observation to be the same if considered in an isolated way. That is, the perception of time is the same for every observer, but not when we put these perceptions to each other.

I’m open to discussing this solution with anyone interested in further development.

[apogio]

Bitcoin is "A peer-to-peer electronic cash system". This is what Satoshi invented.

In 2021 I moved from shitcoins to Bitcoin only. I have set a multisig vault with money for my retirement.

I hate NFTs, I hate Ordinals.

In 2023, if Bitcoin doesn't get rid of this bullshit, I will sell all of my Bitcoin.

[NotATether]

Actually it just hit me.

A few months ago I posted the James Jani video to Bitcointalk, that was a critique about Bitcoin. It was mainly about scalability, but it also criticized the wider crypto industry for useless NFTs.

Many people here including myself did not like it, but coming into the future, he has a point.

That video has 2 or 3 million views.

That means, potentially several hundred thousands of people agree with the verdict that NFTs are useless and should be avoided.

Now I have heard some miners and youtubers say that we need to keep BRC20 to preserve the miner fees, but that only works if people continue to use it.

Do you guys really think that BRC20 is going to be around strong forever like how Bitcoin is strong?

It is highly more likely for BRC20 to disintegrate and fall by the wayside just like ERC-20 NFTs fell. (And don't tell me "well they are actually still around" I know that, but their usage is a far cry from what it used to be. That is exactly what will happen to BRC20.)

BRC20 mining income is not sustainable, and it will probably not even last for a full two years (the time it took for NFTs to fall from its peak).

Honestly, fuck all this "DECENTRALIZATION FREEDOM FOR ORDINALS" bullshit. This income is not sustainable for miners and it will actually drive users away from the network, which will decrease the total number of users.

The battle is truly and earnestly on, and we must not only smash this harmful use of Bitcoin, but also set up sustainable deterrents such as Lightning Labs Taro and make sure they are in end users' hands, so this kind of user payment disruption (not necessarily mempool congestion) can never happen again.


Sustainable miner income means assets that are continuously transferred on a protocol without the possibility of a traffic jam.

[Hamza2424]

I agree with Op's thoughts and am willing to support him. Still, there are controversial comments needed to be figured out first of all we need to decide what we actually want because when I was new to Bitcoin I was a joiner of Bitcoin as an asset and my primary thoughts about Bitcoin were simple this is an Asset directly proportional to the digital gold and this was how my journey started.

After a specific amount of time, spent in the worn direction I came to know it's not like how I am taking it actually the role of BTC was to provide a patent system seamless to any central system and this concept was the beauty of this project. Now here are two types of narratives as I did explained earlier decide the STandings first then we can take a deep look into the fundamental changes which are most required at this time otherwise it will be alarming.

Ordinals is not a small topic I directly oppose this this is not a playground it's the real independent financial world and these Ordinals are the Bugs here in the financial field. ETH bow down and now we all know why now this fire is in the front face of us we need to reap it out. Because otherwise there can be dirty game on the name of community views.

[tabas]

After gathering info about what's actually happening in the Bitcoin blockchain, I agree with your sentiments OP based on what I've read on this thread. I just also want to get back to those days when we're seeing news about transferring millions of dollars through bitcoin and paying fees with cents. That's like the pride that we've got and not these images stuck on the bitcoin blockchain. This is like an indirect attack to bitcoin because they've seen how it went going with ERC20 and other networks that have these features for their NFTs. I believe that this is just like an obstacle, a temporary one that shall be passed not just by Bitcoin alone but also us, the community that have the same sentiments about this matter.

[Volgastallion]

Do you guys really think that BRC20 is going to be around strong forever like how Bitcoin is strong?

It is highly more likely for BRC20 to disintegrate and fall by the wayside just like ERC-20 NFTs fell. (And don't tell me "well they are actually still around" I know that, but their usage is a far cry from what it used to be. That is exactly what will happen to BRC20.)

BRC20 mining income is not sustainable, and it will probably not even last for a full two years (the time it took for NFTs to fall from its peak).


Sustainable miner income means assets that are continuously transferred on a protocol without the possibility of a traffic jam.

The most funny part for me its, some of this pro NFTs guys are saying this cray things like before NFT BTC was dying badly.

Man WTF we have a large history we a future and we dont need them, so from where they come with all this shit, now they are trying to install something like, without NFTs BTC cant live because of miners fee bla bla bla.

Ok maybe we need to rethink some things but come on....

[franky1]

Now I have heard some miners and youtubers say that we need to keep BRC20 to preserve the miner fees, but that only works if people continue to use it.

Sustainable miner income means assets that are continuously transferred on a protocol without the possibility of a traffic jam.

real bitcoin miners get shares of bitcoin rewad. many POOLS managing miners and blocks set their share scheme that the POOL MANAGER takes the fee's and the miners take the reward. thus miners dont benefit (unless the POOL is also the asic farm)

these bloating tx may waste funds proping up fee's but REAL BITCOINERS will transact less. sell up or move to other networks
then when the bloating stops millions of users have moved away and given up on bitcoin. thus end result bitcoin has lost its appeal

MINERS dont gain more profit from fee's they gain it from spot market speculation

..
wording it another way
if bank wire transfers were cheap say $0.05 7 years ago and moved any value within the same hour
but then delays and fees rose to $30 per wire, which made people think they needed to invent something like paypal that promised to offer fee's of a few pennies but took middleman profits from those fee's

what they are not saying is this. it costs $30 to subscribe to paypal. and $30 to unsubscribe
this causes idiots to lock into paypal and never want to leave. or they simply avoid dollar and paypal entirely and try euro(ether analogy) with venmo(ethereum subnetworks)

right now there is more bitcoin being pegged to other subnetworks on other mainnets.. such as avalance and WBTC.. much more liquidity in 2 years than lightning achieved in 5 years
(analogy. american prefer EU venmo rather than US paypal)

lightning has not just the locking-unlock fee problem of bitcoin mainnet. but also the many flaws of LN itself. many have tried LN and found LN flawed, it just cant scale. its just a small niche service for small value. it wont cope moving large value in one go. NEVER

so many are moving away from bitcoin and playing with value over on ethereum based subnetworks.

people need to stop this 5 year long broken promise of "move to LN its the saviour", "dont fix bitcoin, use LN" .. its not a saviour, its not capable of doing what bitcoin does. its broke.

meaning that when devs fail to fix a bitcoin exploit and they want to push people into a subnetwork thats also a failure. people will end up just giving up on bitcoin entirely.
and when the drama ends and the fee mania ends. the user base wanting to transact on bitcoin will be far lower, because everyone had gotten used to using ethereum and other shitcoin mainnets and subnetworks

..

if pools want more fee's
the better economic plan long term is this:

actualy have rules that actually involve lean byte usage. where every byte has a purpose/format/rule/reason for a BITCOIN transaction, not aimless useless bloat. then allow actual utility of the full 4mb limit without out the 1mb 3mb cludgy split of what can go into which part of a block... so that 3x more transactions counts can happen. meaning 4x the users normal transactions, meaning people pay less but in a sustainable long term way while totals increase overall for the pools

also give up on the broken promise of LN and start afresh/from scratch a new subnetwork devoted purely for and functionally just for bitcoin that actually can do the job it promises, as a subnet for certain usage types

[NotATether]

One day when all this blows over, somebody needs to make a documentary about the Lightning Network.

[franky1]

One day when all this blows over, somebody needs to make a documentary about the Lightning Network.

im guessing your going two write two books
well if the first book is where you want to call it the rise and fall of bitcoin(your mindset)
then i suggest: compromise and fool of lightning

i know u only have notes to advertise lightning as "cheap fees" but never done the math..
how about do some research on the network liquidity issue of payment routing

LN is not the solution your told it is