'Attack on Bitcoin’ Claims Circulate as Transaction Fees Climb Higher

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that the predictions and speculations of some of the members of bitcointalk about Ordinals have become another big storyline or has it presently become our reality?

This will certainly open a strong argument to adopt simple altcoins without smart contracts and Ordinals type capabilities.



The Bitcoin quadrant of Crypto Twitter was abuzz with concern on Sunday, as some users saw high transaction fees and a congested backlog of transactions as an attack on Bitcoin.

There are currently over 469,000 transactions waiting to be confirmed in Bitcoin’s mempool as of this writing, according to mempool.space. Before transactions are added to Bitcoin’s blockchain, transactions are sent to the network’s mempool, where they wait to be selected by a Bitcoin miner and inserted into Bitcoin’s next block.

The two metrics suggested that Bitcoin’s network was especially clogged, but some thought it was the product of nefarious behavior, aimed at cutting off those that couldn’t handle the uptick in transaction fees.

Still, others attributed the uptick in transaction fees and Bitcoin’s sizable backlog to Ordinals, a protocol used for minting NFT-like assets on Bitcoin. Called inscriptions, the total number of Bitcoin-based digital assets cruised past 4.3 million on Sunday, according to a Dune dashboard. Just last week, inscriptions totaled 2.5 million, based on Decrypt coverage.

Source https://decrypt.co/139259/bitcoin-ddos-ordinals-inscriptions-attack



Source where everyone can see the volume of ordinals marketplaces.

https://dune.com/domo/ordinals-marketplaces

[1714257181]

1714257181

[1714257181]

1714257181

[1714257181]

1714257181

[1714257181]

1714257181

[1714257181]

1714257181

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

This might be the storyline of the month hehehe. According to @Wublockchain on Twitter, the BSV community have been developing Ordinals software, platforms and have been using them.

The development team behind the wallet for BRC20 called Unisat was also the same development team that created BSV's smart contract solution. The development team behind Ordswap was the same development team that created a decentralized trading platform on BSV. Twetch developers created Ordinals wallet.

I reckon if verified true, this is certainly an attack on bitcoin.



The BSV community has extensive participation in Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC 20. Behind Unisat, the core wallet of BRC20, is the Chinese development team of the previous BSV community, which has developed Sensible Contract, a smart contract solution on BSV. By
@TechFlowPost

The team behind Ordswap, the first BRC20 trading platform, has developed RelayX, the first decentralized trading platform on the BSV network. Behind the wallet Ordinals Wallet is Twetch, a social application built on BSV. The founder of the Mempool mining pool is also a core member of the BSV community

Source https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain/status/1655793726474838016

[Tytanowy Janusz]

it doesn't matter who is responsible for the attack and what types of transactions are flooding the blockchain... someone is paying for this.

"For instance, in the case of bitcoin, each valid block encompasses an average of 2000 transactions."
https://originstamp.com/blog/how-many-blocks-are-in-a-blockchain/

"Bitcoin Average Transaction Fee is at a current level of 30.91"
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee

so you have 60 000$ per 10 min = 9 mln $ per day. No matter if its bitcoin attacker that wanted the price to collapse, or pepe kids excited about new use case, sooner or later they will run out of cash. And there will be only one winner. bitcoin miners = bitcoin security = bitcoin network

[tbct_mt2]

it doesn't matter who is responsible for the attack and what types of transactions are flooding the blockchain... someone is paying for this.

Transactions are vitamins to keep the network lively. People who are readily to pay those expensive transaction fees deserve what they do but it affects other people who are not ready to accept very expensive transaction fee. They are either smart enough or poor enough and can not afford to pay such crazy fee.

so you have 60 000$ per 10 min = 9 mln $ per day. No matter if its bitcoin attacker that wanted the price to collapse, or pepe kids excited about new use case, sooner or later they will run out of cash. And there will be only one winner. bitcoin miners = bitcoin security = bitcoin network

I don't like what are happening with Bitcoin blockchain and its transaction fee but this attack gives us a signal that Bitcoin miners will be fine in future. Even in 2140 when no new bitcoins from block reward, they will still earn enough money from transaction fees.

[bbc.reporter]

it doesn't matter who is responsible for the attack and what types of transactions are flooding the blockchain... someone is paying for this.

"For instance, in the case of bitcoin, each valid block encompasses an average of 2000 transactions."
https://originstamp.com/blog/how-many-blocks-are-in-a-blockchain/

"Bitcoin Average Transaction Fee is at a current level of 30.91"
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee

so you have 60 000$ per 10 min = 9 mln $ per day. No matter if its bitcoin attacker that wanted the price to collapse, or pepe kids excited about new use case, sooner or later they will run out of cash. And there will be only one winner. bitcoin miners = bitcoin security = bitcoin network

I reckon it certainly matters if there is a malicious intention and a motive to disrupt the normal order of business. You also say that someone is paying for this. I agree, it is us the users including all services and the gambling site that pays you for your campaign.

This good for the miners storyline manipulation is being used at our expense. We are being tricked that this attack, assuming that this is verified true, is alright.

In any case, this is being shared in social media.



Action should have been taken months ago. Spam filtration has been a standard part of Bitcoin Core since day 1. It's a mistake that the existing filters weren't extended to Taproot transactions. We can address that, or try a more narrow approach like OP_RETURN (ie, what "Ordisrespector" does). Since this is a bugfix, it doesn't really even need to wait for a major release.

(We already have pruning. It's not an alternative to spam filtering.)

Luke

Source https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg12637.html

[Darker45]

I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth. Now, this issue has already escalated a lot and we seem to be taken back to step 1. Whether this now is a deliberate attack or not, bold steps should be taken. After all, it has already shaken the very core of Bitcoin. And I guess this transaction fee problem has not yet even reached its climax.

[tbct_mt2]

I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth.

I think it should be allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions as fair as other reasons. We should not block some reasons that are not allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions even if the users are ready to pay transaction fee.

Now, this issue has already escalated a lot and we seem to be taken back to step 1. Whether this now is a deliberate attack or not, bold steps should be taken. After all, it has already shaken the very core of Bitcoin. And I guess this transaction fee problem has not yet even reached its climax.

I believe solutions should be made not only to stop this escalating attack but also to increase Bitcoin blockchain capacity to cope with bigger demand, bigger transactions per block, bigger size.

It is better to see bigger demand on Bitcoin network and it shows us the recognition of community on the quality and security of Bitcoin blockchain and network. Many altcoins have bigger block sizes, faster transaction times but who care about them for their transactions. If they can, they will choose Bitcoin network.

[Darker45]

I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth.

I think it should be allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions as fair as other reasons. We should not block some reasons that are not allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions even if the users are ready to pay transaction fee.

What are fair Bitcoin transactions? What if others are willing to pay terribly high fees for jpeg inscriptions thereby causing the network to clog? What if monetary transactions on the Bitcoin network are left pending for days in the mempool because memes are getting the priority? Can we perhaps bring this discussion into a more fundamental level, in the level which defines Bitcoin as an electronic cash system and not a network made for frog artworks?

[franky1]

I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth.

I think it should be allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions as fair as other reasons. We should not block some reasons that are not allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions even if the users are ready to pay transaction fee.

What are fair Bitcoin transactions? What if others are willing to pay terribly high fees for jpeg inscriptions thereby causing the network to clog? What if monetary transactions on the Bitcoin network are left pending for days in the mempool because memes are getting the priority? Can we perhaps bring this discussion into a more fundamental level, in the level which defines Bitcoin as an electronic cash system and not a network made for frog artworks?

if transactions use opcodes that bypass normal bitcoin checks and just assumes "isvalid" then its non-standard
if transactions waste bytes on non bitcoin functionality/proofs then its not bitcoin

for years better devs made bitcoin lean. counting every byte used to solve a purpose of lean bitcoin proof of ownership/transfer.. the latest collective of devs have broke rules, loosened rules, bypassed rules and let bloat occur.

[bbc.reporter]

@tbct_mt2. I agree on we can brush this off if all of the activity and usage on Ordinals and the trading happening in their marketplace is a natural market occurrence. However, if the speculation that the BSV community and their developers are responsible for spamming bitcoin to make the fees very high are verified true, I reckon this can be considered an attack.

[Husires]

Bitcoin Ordinals is a new Elon musk, China ban, John McAfee topics, Do we need more topics to discuss?

Fees have decreased from the past days, and for those who think that we should forget about cheap fees of 1 sat/vB, and therefore more need for the Lightning Network will push owners of daily transactions to use it instead of the Bitcoin network, image lovers and crazy people with these strange things.

The wonderful thing about Bitcoin is that it has become like a sponge that absorbs shocks, no matter how strong they are.

[Darker45]

@tbct_mt2. I agree on we can brush this off if all of the activity and usage on Ordinals and the trading happening in their marketplace is a natural market occurrence. However, if the speculation that the BSV community and their developers are responsible for spamming bitcoin to make the fees very high are verified true, I reckon this can be considered an attack.

I'm a bit surprised. So if the Bitcoin network has turned into a network for sending poor frog images and worthless jpegs and lewd photos and whatnot but in such a manner that the transactions are natural and not deliberately done to attack Bitcoin, it is perfectly all right?

My point is that it is secondary that what's happening right now may be an attack by the BSV community and developers. There's not even an information which conclusively points at them as the culprit. The primary concern is that the Bitcoin network may end up filled to the brim of transactions that are not monetary in nature but ones which involve mere NFT-like collections.

Would it not concern you that the main philosophy of Bitcoin as a financial technology will be compromised because of these garbage inscriptions? Can you simply brush it off because things happened naturally?

[franky1]

ordinals is due to bitcoin core devs opening an exploit and casey(ordinals) then using the exploit
he is not a BSV.. bsv devs have no skill they are just copyright breakers then claim they own the copyright. they cant code even if they tried.
but casey is part of the sponsored devs of the corporate development of core and lightning community (not a bitcoin maxi)

anyone supporting making bitcoiners pay more fee's than fiat transfers cost. is not a bitcoiner nor a crypto supporter
bitcoin was suppose to be better then fiat

anyone supporting a subnetwork that doesnt even use blockchains has no clue of what blockchains enabled which cypherpunks/smart-contractors were unable to pre bitcoin

trying to scam people over to a insecure broken network has no clue about a real money system, especially if they want to price users out of utility

[retreat]

I think it should be allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions as fair as other reasons. We should not block some reasons that are not allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions even if the users are ready to pay transaction fee.

I don't agree with you. It's true that everyone has the right to use the Bitcoin network for their various needs, but what these ordinal lovers are doing has disturbed other users on the network. Not only users, Bitcoin devs are also getting tired of their existence and will soon take action on it (https://decrypt.co/139576/bitcoin-developer-calls-block-ordinals-brc-20-tokens-network). Indeed, Bitcoin is free for anyone to use, but that does not mean that everyone is free to do anything on the Bitcoin network, everything has rules, and if they don't like it they can create their own network and develop their own community there.

[Z390]

It's not a free attack  and that's satisfying, since someone is paying for this I hope they can keep up as time goes on, there is always a end to everything and Ordinals will one day become a past story, let them keep attacking Bitcoin, as the only way they can keep attacking Bitcoin is spending a lots of money, the true winner is still Bitcoin.

Keep draining down their pocket Bitcoin, if you are going to go down at least there will be a larger consequences on the attackers side ..


Lol 😆. So satisfying.

[bbc.reporter]

@tbct_mt2. I agree on we can brush this off if all of the activity and usage on Ordinals and the trading happening in their marketplace is a natural market occurrence. However, if the speculation that the BSV community and their developers are responsible for spamming bitcoin to make the fees very high are verified true, I reckon this can be considered an attack.

I'm a bit surprised. So if the Bitcoin network has turned into a network for sending poor frog images and worthless jpegs and lewd photos and whatnot but in such a manner that the transactions are natural and not deliberately done to attack Bitcoin, it is perfectly all right?

My point is that it is secondary that what's happening right now may be an attack by the BSV community and developers. There's not even an information which conclusively points at them as the culprit. The primary concern is that the Bitcoin network may end up filled to the brim of transactions that are not monetary in nature but ones which involve mere NFT-like collections.

Would it not concern you that the main philosophy of Bitcoin as a financial technology will be compromised because of these garbage inscriptions? Can you simply brush it off because things happened naturally?

Yes, if everything has happened in a natural and organic way, for me it would be okay.

However, if there were malicious intentions, assuming that the information about the BSV developers and community are verified true, this should not be okay. Will it be okay for you?

[DaveF]

Yes, if everything has happened in a natural and organic way, for me it would be okay.

However, if there were malicious intentions, assuming that the information about the BSV developers and community are verified true, this should not be okay. Will it be okay for you?

Yes, that's the way the system works, if the BSV people want to give BTC miners a bunch of extra money then it's all good.
Miners made a lot more over the last couple of weeks and if it came at the expense of a bunch of scam artists then fine.

As a group, we have more time and money then they do.

-Dave

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

I think it should be allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions as fair as other reasons. We should not block some reasons that are not allowed to use Bitcoin blockchain for transactions even if the users are ready to pay transaction fee.

I don't agree with you. It's true that everyone has the right to use the Bitcoin network for their various needs, but what these ordinal lovers are doing has disturbed other users on the network. Not only users, Bitcoin devs are also getting tired of their existence and will soon take action on it (https://decrypt.co/139576/bitcoin-developer-calls-block-ordinals-brc-20-tokens-network). Indeed, Bitcoin is free for anyone to use, but that does not mean that everyone is free to do anything on the Bitcoin network, everything has rules, and if they don't like it they can create their own network and develop their own community there.

If we are not going to be sentimental here, there's no big deal in giving bitcoin network a more applicable use case, bit not to our detriment or at our own expense, then we should also considers the blockchain technology as a network that accommodate alot of other networks such as bitcoin network, smart contracts and many more, which NFT could better fit in any of such category other than the bitcoin network, but yet, if this wouldn't serve a means of threat to the entire bitcoin network in the future then it's a welcome idea, which only need to get balanced with the issue of transaction fee.

[benalexis12]

I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth. Now, this issue has already escalated a lot and we seem to be taken back to step 1. Whether this now is a deliberate attack or not, bold steps should be taken. After all, it has already shaken the very core of Bitcoin. And I guess this transaction fee problem has not yet even reached its climax.

Regardless of what those ordinals caused, the effect on Bitcoin holders was not a good one that the majority saw. And what's worse is all the merchants who accept bitcoin payment in their businesses which in my observation have definitely stopped because of the effect of the high fees. And because of these high fees, we can also clearly see that the ones who have benefited the most from this are really Bitcoin miners and not Bitcoin holders in truth and real talk.

[Haunebu]

This entire fiasco is a short-term issue which I doubt will ever repeat again at any point in the future since whoever is responsible for it doesn't have unlimited money to burn. The silver lining here is that the miners made bank.

BTC has proven again and again that it can withstand any kind of attack which is the best answer to all of its haters.