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

[Z-tight]

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.

BTC holders do not lose anything, to be affected by TX fees you have to make a transaction; the spenders are the ones that have probably been affected. As for people who accept BTC payment in their business, surely they still do because they have nothing to lose, if there are customers that want to pay through the high TX fees, then let them do, if there are none, you receive payments through other options, so why should they remove the BTC option when they have nothing to lose.

The mempool is also cooling off, there were over 400k unconfirmed transactions some days ago, but now it is below 300k and the fee rate for transactions is also coming down, soon the people who are using this situation to spread fud about BTC will have nothing more to say.

[1714576412]

1714576412

[1714576412]

1714576412

[1714576412]

1714576412

[1714576412]

1714576412

[Rruchi man]

The mempool is also cooling off, there were over 400k unconfirmed transactions some days ago, but now it is below 300k and the fee rate for transactions is also coming down, soon the people who are using this situation to spread fud about BTC will have nothing more to say.

The best strategy is really not just stressing over it too much, but just wait for the whole situation to settle,  place any transaction you want to do currently on a must-do basis. Any transaction not important can wait till later after things get normal or you do your transaction in the traditional way with fiat. To serious HODLers, the whole situation of high transaction fees is just another news because they barely use their bitcoins for any form of transaction.

[serjent05]

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.

BTC holders do not lose anything, to be affected by TX fees you have to make a transaction; the spenders are the ones that have probably been affected. As for people who accept BTC payment in their business, surely they still do because they have nothing to lose, if there are customers that want to pay through the high TX fees, then let them do, if there are none, you receive payments through other options, so why should they remove the BTC option when they have nothing to lose.

Have you not thought that most merchants are actually not holding Bitcoin?  Most of them are converting Bitcoin in real time the moment the customer paid in Bitcoin with the third party processor.  With this merchants are also forced to pay the transaction when they convert the BTC payment to fiat.  Although someone can argue that it is already paid by the customer

The mempool is also cooling off, there were over 400k unconfirmed transactions some days ago, but now it is below 300k and the fee rate for transactions is also coming down, soon the people who are using this situation to spread fud about BTC will have nothing more to say.

Also, the transaction fee is going back to normal.  No those FUD spreaders have lots to say, they can even use your way of eating to FUD the market  .  They have lots of ways to attack the sentiment of the market since I believe these people have a grasp of trading psychology.

[CryptSafe]

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.

I have known this since the story of ordinals came up and i had known they were up to something which i could not really decipher what their plans were. I had known that things  were  not well. Well, my own happiness is that the ordinals attack is gradually fading away and that those bankrolling them would soon see it that they wasted their funds and succeeded making miners richer than they could expect so soonest. They never had the thought of the previous attack on bitcoin which did not see the light of the day years back before they came up with another scheme which they could not succeed.

Bitcoin is an entity that has stood the test of time on its own now and i believe no matter what and how the pressure and propaganda is schemed, it can not in anyway surpass bitcoin existence in nature.

[panganib999]

So it was Ordinals all along. Jesus christ.

Too late though. Pretty much over 300k transactions remaining on mempool waiting to be resolved, and it shows considering fees aren’t as jigh as it was before. Ultimately still going to be a recurring problem however which could only result to either Ordinals getting exiled out of the bitcoin network for inadverrently causing these clogs, or Ordinals coming up with a solution to this problem. Bitcoin could only take so much and it’s not the best when it comes to facilitating transactions (let’s face it) so it needs all the help it can get to stay afloat. This “attack” further solidifies that fact and is nothing but a big massive slap to the face of bitcoin visionaries who seem to not see any flaw with bitcoin.

[PX-Z]

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.

Exactly, what else you will expect to the BSV community after believing that its the real Bitcoin when in fact it is just a fork from a fork of Bitcoin.

[Darker45]

~snip~

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?

It isn't okay for me, of course. But if that is proven, I guess I'd even be somehow relieved, because I know that it won't last. How deep are the pockets of these BSV scumbags that they can sustain such an attack? Not that deep, I guess. If they are, I know they aren't bottomless.

But what if this isn't an attack coming from them? What if this is happening naturally? To me, this is a more serious concern. I think it would be such a great waste that a decentralized currency will just do down the drain because some garbage transactions are killing the monetary ones.

And what is a malicious intention for you? Isn't it malicious when you are clogging the network, delaying monetary transactions like remittance, salaries, purchases, and so on for days, discouraging its adoption as a currency, causing a terrible increase in fees with your frog pics?

[bbc.reporter]

@Darker45. A malicious intention is when someone spends much funds to spam and cause bitcoin's transaction fees to be high and also cause it to be unusable for much of the users who use it as a medium of exchange. It is very much similar to a denial of service attack.

If verified true that it is an attack, it is also very important to ask who is paying for this denial of service attack. Is it a competing project like BSV? Is it the government? Is it both of them working together?

[be.open]

But what if this isn't an attack coming from them? What if this is happening naturally? To me, this is a more serious concern. I think it would be such a great waste that a decentralized currency will just do down the drain because some garbage transactions are killing the monetary ones.

And what is a malicious intention for you? Isn't it malicious when you are clogging the network, delaying monetary transactions like remittance, salaries, purchases, and so on for days, discouraging its adoption as a currency, causing a terrible increase in fees with your frog pics?

Many things look different depending on how you look at it. Yes, this is an attack on bitcoin and yes, it happens naturally. Yes, it's a problem, and yes, it's okay. Yes, it's junk on the blockchain and yes, it's stored value. Yes, we would like to avoid a split, and yes, the expectation of a split can be a powerful driver for the price of bitcoin. Yes, we want to keep Satoshi's original vision and yes, we welcome expansion into new areas of adoption. This is the way.

"First they don't notice you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. And then you win."

[Darker45]

@Darker45. A malicious intention is when someone spends much funds to spam and cause bitcoin's transaction fees to be high and also cause it to be unusable for much of the users who use it as a medium of exchange. It is very much similar to a denial of service attack.

Then all those who are paying high fees for their garbage inscriptions to get prioritized have malicious intentions. Is that what you are saying?

If verified true that it is an attack, it is also very important to ask who is paying for this denial of service attack. Is it a competing project like BSV? Is it the government? Is it both of them working together?

To be honest, this is a minor issue to me. If it's the BSV people, that's understandable. They've been attacking Bitcoin and its supporters non-stop for years now. They've been spending money for it. If it's the government, the same thing. Bitcoin is a threat to them.

What is a major issue to me is that there is something in Bitcoin that could be taken advantage of by its adversaries to bring it down. And the attack is happening right now at the expense not just of Bitcoin's reputation, its adoption, but more so of the people who have relied on it one way or another.

[YUriy1991]

To effectively address the issue of increasing transaction fees in Bitcoin, it is crucial to determine the root cause of the problem and verify if it is a deliberate attack. Given the complexity of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, there could be various factors contributing to the issue, including attempts to disrupt Bitcoin and the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem. Thus, it is essential to conduct a thorough investigation and gather reliable information to determine if there is a coordinated effort to counter Bitcoin. That's my view.

[bbc.reporter]

What is a major issue to me is that there is something in Bitcoin that could be taken advantage of by its adversaries to bring it down. And the attack is happening right now at the expense not just of Bitcoin's reputation, its adoption, but more so of the people who have relied on it one way or another.

I can quite agree that this is certainly what they are doing. It might also be the only reason and they do not really care which altcoin we use to replace bitcoin. BSV coin might only be a trick to make everyone assume that someone is scamming us. The real reason might be as straigthforward as they only want us to stop using bitcoin, however, we cannot see this.

[Casdinyard]

Months past and clealry this is still seen as an issue. And correct me if I were wrong but I don’t think Ordinals is doing that much of an impact to network congestion at this point, cause surprise surprise, NFTs are effectively dead. Now this either means that there’s something else afoot causing all this unnecessary traffic and high transaction fees over long wait times, or scalability is already becoming a more prevlanet problem in the bitcoin network than what we have expected. Perhaps this is the blocksize war biting our asses back with twice the PSI

Now what do we do in this situation? Do we just wait? Do we ban Ordinals so they can’t contribute to the traffic any longer? What’s in place to make sure that even temporarily we have this be taken care of?

[wavessurfing]

Months past and clealry this is still seen as an issue. And correct me if I were wrong but I don’t think Ordinals is doing that much of an impact to network congestion at this point, cause surprise surprise, NFTs are effectively dead. Now this either means that there’s something else afoot causing all this unnecessary traffic and high transaction fees over long wait times, or scalability is already becoming a more prevlanet problem in the bitcoin network than what we have expected. Perhaps this is the blocksize war biting our asses back with twice the PSI

Now what do we do in this situation? Do we just wait? Do we ban Ordinals so they can’t contribute to the traffic any longer? What’s in place to make sure that even temporarily we have this be taken care of?

interesting discussion.
probably a mainstream cause as the extent of the problem appears important.

[libert19]

Months past and clealry this is still seen as an issue. And correct me if I were wrong but I don’t think Ordinals is doing that much of an impact to network congestion at this point, cause surprise surprise, NFTs are effectively dead. Now this either means that there’s something else afoot causing all this unnecessary traffic and high transaction fees over long wait times, or scalability is already becoming a more prevlanet problem in the bitcoin network than what we have expected. Perhaps this is the blocksize war biting our asses back with twice the PSI

I am unsure of precise difference between ordinals and brc20 but, these two combined have congested the network. There plenty brc20 tokens are popping up these days, and on the first glance they look literal shitcoins but people are printing money, exchanges are listing them.

It's hype of these tokens that's congesting the network, we have seen similar happening on ethereum.

NFT hype may have toned down, they are certainly not dead.

Now what do we do in this situation? Do we just wait? Do we ban Ordinals so they can’t contribute to the traffic any longer? What’s in place to make sure that even temporarily we have this be taken care of?

I wouldn't honestly ban them (however you do it, idk), I feel like it's running away from the problem (that's Bitcoin's inability to handle larger amount of transactions) than solving it.

[justdimin]

What is a major issue to me is that there is something in Bitcoin that could be taken advantage of by its adversaries to bring it down. And the attack is happening right now at the expense not just of Bitcoin's reputation, its adoption, but more so of the people who have relied on it one way or another.

I can quite agree that this is certainly what they are doing. It might also be the only reason and they do not really care which altcoin we use to replace bitcoin. BSV coin might only be a trick to make everyone assume that someone is scamming us. The real reason might be as straigthforward as they only want us to stop using bitcoin, however, we cannot see this.

I think there are a lot of powerful people who do want us to stop using bitcoin, however since it's a free world and regulations are not that high, we do have a lot of people who are rich and likes bitcoin as well. So I think there is an argument at the top, some people want us to stop, and want to do something about that, and some people wants us to use it and like it and they are fighting for that.

This is the reason why there isn't a clear noise coming from the top, even if you are some crazy person who thinks illuminati rules the world, it's literally the same logic, think about it like not all illuminati people wants it or hates it, they have arguments over it together. So all the powerful people in the world likes to see them argue.

[bbc.reporter]

Months past and clealry this is still seen as an issue. And correct me if I were wrong but I don’t think Ordinals is doing that much of an impact to network congestion at this point, cause surprise surprise, NFTs are effectively dead. Now this either means that there’s something else afoot causing all this unnecessary traffic and high transaction fees over long wait times, or scalability is already becoming a more prevlanet problem in the bitcoin network than what we have expected. Perhaps this is the blocksize war biting our asses back with twice the PSI

I am unsure of precise difference between ordinals and brc20 but, these two combined have congested the network. There plenty brc20 tokens are popping up these days, and on the first glance they look literal shitcoins but people are printing money, exchanges are listing them.

It's hype of these tokens that's congesting the network, we have seen similar happening on ethereum.

NFT hype may have toned down, they are certainly not dead.

Now what do we do in this situation? Do we just wait? Do we ban Ordinals so they can’t contribute to the traffic any longer? What’s in place to make sure that even temporarily we have this be taken care of?

I wouldn't honestly ban them (however you do it, idk), I feel like it's running away from the problem (that's Bitcoin's inability to handle larger amount of transactions) than solving it.

Agreed on NFTs are not dead. Anyone who mentions that they are dead appears to have not made their research. They only need to look the price of a Cryptopunk on opensea.io.

In any case, on BRC20, it is a token standard that uses ordinals inscriptions. Similar to how images are inscribed to a satoshi for ordinals NFT, on BRC20 a json file is inscribed.

[dansus021]

Huhhhhh Ordinals is crazy bro the sats and rats pumping hard like 200% in a fucking single day and it seems this transaction not gonna stop.

I don't know but the Bitcoin developer or the ordinal developer should figure this out or the fee will be this high for a long time. ordinal should move to other chain or figure it out to creating new chain like layer 2 for bitcoin so rollup all the ordinal transaction and push it to bitcoin I think is the best idea for now rather than do on chain like today.

[kryptqnick]

I'm happy that the last time the craze blew over, so I just hope we'll see the same again soon. Unfortunately, there seems to be a big enough market for those useless images and inscriptions. Ideally, Bitcoin just shouldn't be used for that, and I'd be in support of a motion to restrict such projects on Bitcoin blockchain because there are plenty of other blockchains to use for that stuff. Leaving Bitcoin alone is just basic decency. Its transaction capabilities aren't that good even without all these extra transactions, and using other platforms for this stuff is not a hard thing to do.

[NotATether]

I don't know but the Bitcoin developer or the ordinal developer should figure this out or the fee will be this high for a long time.

There is no "Ordinals developer". There's only a bunch of people throwing programming shit at the wall to see what sticks.

As for bitcoin developers, well the default tendency is to do nothing, except for a small minority of them.