The severity of the Ordinals Attack is increasing

[slaman29]

Based on my few years of experience on this forum, where supposedly we are all made of Bitcoiners, I really don't think there are that many people at all who use BTC.

100% and in the gambling section that its really easy to see, you can measure that by the ammount of people talking divided by the ammount of people who really take part on pools, sahring bets , etc.

Now you said it, that's exactly it. I am sure even worse results would happen if you checked to see the amount of people talking and the amount of people who actually use Bitcoin for other than trading/speculation. In fact, I prefer people use Bitcoin for speculation than not at all.

If you live in Asia try sending America or Europe some money or if you work abroad and send money home. Big big fees, big big delays, and sometimes stuck if the bank is a crap bank.

Well, this its completly true, a lot of people have a occidental way (and its ok because they live there) to think and they can access easily to the banks international transfer etc, but in the rest of the world that its not easy, its really complicated depending on what country you are and also how much money and contacs do you have, in that part, crypto its very very useful to bypass that limitation.

The funny thing is in fact it is not so much a problem of where we are in Asia. In my country I work in, I can send immediately to neighboring countries, and for almost free. It is when I send to America or Europe the problem becomes fees and delays, and my banks tell me they processed it already but the accepting bank is the one taking the time, and the big fee comes from them, not our banks!

The same if people in Asia work in Europe, they send money home, the banks over there charge huge fees to send back and then if you call the bank here, they say no, the other bank has not sent it yet.

This nonsense shouldn't be happening in 2023 Thanks to BTC, boom, done. Except when high fees like now lol

[be.open]

I see suggestions that "rules" should be applied to stop these transactions and that miners should "block" these transactions, but I see no calls for people to protect Bitcoin's censorship resistance.    Is the idea behind Bitcoin, not for individuals or groups not to be able to "censor" certain transactions?

We should find other solutions to protect the Bitcoin network against attacks like this, without sacrificing the principles that are protecting the users transactions. 

These "because freedom" comments are just laughable. Let's stop using email filters and drown in spam. Let's legalize drugs and child porn "because freedom". Bitcoiners should have freedom to use Bitcoin and make transactions without being interfered by spammers. Do you agree?

At an early stage in the development of the network, developers have repeatedly introduced restrictions to protect bitcoin from malicious spam attacks. Your persistence in calling for new restrictions suggests that the current level of development of the network continues to be early and Bitcoin has not yet reached the point of maturity where any attempts to attack it only benefit it. I think bitcoin no longer needs any kind of hyper-custody and is an independent entity that follows its own path with the passage of time.

Think about this one more thing. You don't have to be clairvoyant to suggest that for the foreseeable future, bitcoin will be subject to equally strong pressure from regulators to force miners to drop mixed transactions. Transactions that pass through the mixer will also try to be declared spam, illegal, not in the true spirit of the open blockchain, dirty and not eligible for inclusion in the block. Today you advocate new restrictions to protect against spam, but are you ready to find yourself on the other side of this barricade tomorrow with the only hope of protection from those whom you accuse of connivance today?

[Web$$$]

 As part of the recent discussion on Bitcoin transaction fees I had a question I had been lurking in my mind to @JayJuanGee Sir, @JayJuanGee tried to explain it logically but it was easier to understand when @mikeywith added something to him.  Hall
 Contrary to what he said in my question, Minara is not a member of a forum that you can maintain contact with or have the option to contact.  We know each other on the forum.  But miners have no chance to communicate with each other.  So how can they systematically stop work and create network congestion?  However, all miners know how they will benefit.  The most important thing is that the miners will mine independently if anyone wants to slow down they will lose.  His reward will be less than others.  If 90 percent of people stop mining, 10 percent won't stop doing it.  In this their profit will be more.  No one will want to harm them.  They will try to perform their tasks quickly and bring the rewards to their account.
 He also said that as long as we don't need the permission or license of a big country such as the United States, Britain or Russia to do mining, the miners will continue the mining activities without disturbing their mining but with the highest importance for profit.

[franky1]

So how can they systematically stop work and create network congestion?  However, all miners know how they will benefit.  The most important thing is that the miners will mine independently if anyone wants to slow down they will lose.  His reward will be less than others.  If 90 percent of people stop mining, 10 percent won't stop doing it.  In this their profit will be more.  No one will want to harm them.  They will try to perform their tasks quickly and bring the rewards to their account.
 He also said that as long as we don't need the permission or license of a big country such as the United States, Britain or Russia to do mining, the miners will continue the mining activities without disturbing their mining but with the highest importance for profit.

there is more then one pool
if 90% of one pool stopped. then that pool will make >90% less blocks and >90% less rewards
(EG lets say 90% of foundry is in america)
other pools then make more frequent blocks due to less competition. so their block count and rewards go up

however the 10% that want to continue will be left on a dying pool which make >90% less blocks so their rewards are less. if any. yep if you have a small pool your chance/luck decreases exponentially too. its not a fair %
 
this will mean that the first pool only gets rare blocks or dies
however 10% moving to another pool means a boost in blocks for that other pool but now they have to share with an extra 10%

..
also governments dont need to ban mining they just need to make power companies apply a premium electric tarrif, and then the governments then tax it at 30% ontop and just price people out of wanting to mine in certain countries

EG
mining is not banned in japan or hawaii. but due to electric costs. making it cost ~$120k just to break even per btc mined. no one wants to mine in japan/hawaii

[serveria.com]

Those are quite drastic comparisons and completely detached from reality. It wouldn't be the same as not using email filters, email is predominantly accessed on centralised servers/clients. It'd be like asking the internet protocol (that is decentralised and based on basic rules) to censor this spam in the first place, in order for it not to end up at the destination of email clients - that would be the equivalent of Bitcoin wallets.

No, you didn't get it. I don't care about how tech works here. I was comparing user experience. Email spam is a serious global issue, same as ordinals in Bitcoin. Email spam if not limited by the email filter would make users' lives miserable. Exactly as ordinals do.

As for drugs or chil porn, these aren't technologies, so there is literally zero comparison. Not to mention there are centralised laws in place to criminalise these activities. Are you therefore suggesting Bitcoin implements centralised laws in order to criminalise these activities? Again, that would be the equivalent of what you are suggesting here. Please try harder next time with your poor quality comparisons.

Again, you're comparing technologies, I didn't meant that. What I was trying to say, they have similar effect on the user. And no, there's no need to criminalise anything. It's a system error, a glitch, a bug which needs to be fixed.

So no, I don't think certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. The network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else, whether you like that or not. If you don't like that, then I suggest you stop using Bitcoin - as that's how it was designed. Likewise it's development has led to BRC20s and ordinals that certain users are paying more for.

I never said that certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. You're absolutely right saying that the network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else. The nr.1 rule is that the transaction should be legitimate, it should not be useless spam. Otherwise, the system stops working as it simply wasn't meant for that. Do you know what a ddos is? Ordinals are sort of a ddos on Bitcoin network.

You can claim that they aren't Bitcoiners, but if you are sending satoshis to Bitcoin miners as fees as Bitcoin network user, for the network to verify, that makes you a Bitcoiner.

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.

I really hope this situation with ordinals / high fees doesn't end up with 2017-esq hard fork proposals, as it's increasingly looks like people are pushing for centralised protocol "upgrades" with these rhetorics...

Protocol upgrade or more precisely, a bugfix is not the same as a hardfork.

[suzanne5223]

You can see a lot of people are frustrated with gas fees and Bitcoin network congestion at the moment but know what to do because there are many transactions at the same time or a network attack.

Yes, there's a huge number of transactions at the same time but there's no network attack. Mind you, the insignificant block of Bitcoin was implemented by Satoshi to prevent any form of attack and the recent vast of the Bitcoin network was triggered by the Ordinal project.

What we need to do now is reduce the hype over this news.

Reduction of hype or any news is never the solution and the solution is people using the alternative which is the lightning network.

I wonder how effective the lightning network is.  How does the fee fare on-chain when we use this method.  I also think that lightning network is one of the solution but I am curious about the onchain transaction activity when we use lightning network.  Does it decrease the fee needed?

Yes, cause the lightning network is created as the second layer and solution for the Bitcoin network. It's transactions are more faster and cheaper than the traditional Bitcoin blockchain transactions.
If the network congestion continues, we will see all crypto exchange switching to it.

Instead, expect the development team to build solutions to improve and enhance the quality of the network.

Maybe they will come up with a solution or introduce a block increase.

If disabling the feature that enables Ordinals and BRC 20 is not the way to go then the developer should think of a way to improve the scalability of Bitcoin so that the network can accomodate and not be hampered by this attack or the robust transaction of BRC20 that congest the network.

I don't the developer we think of another solution than the creation of new fork coin, or making use of the BTC lightning network.

[dragonvslinux]

So no, I don't think certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. The network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else, whether you like that or not. If you don't like that, then I suggest you stop using Bitcoin - as that's how it was designed. Likewise it's development has led to BRC20s and ordinals that certain users are paying more for.

I never said that certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. You're absolutely right saying that the network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else. The nr.1 rule is that the transaction should be legitimate, it should not be useless spam. Otherwise, the system stops working as it simply wasn't meant for that. Do you know what a ddos is? Ordinals are sort of a ddos on Bitcoin network.

This sounds like a contradiction, claiming that the no.1 rule of the network is that a transaction should be legitimate, and not spam. The BRC20 and ordinals transactions are legimate, hence they are accepted by the network. They are legitimate because the users making those transactions have signed a signature proving that they own the satoshis they use for the transactions, not much else. The reason why the network has fees was never to stop spam but for spam to have a cost, in order to discourage it. I also don't believe this is a ddos, as the network remains available for users who are willing to pay the correct fee.

This is how the network legitimises transactions, by verifying them. It has nothing to do with whether users are transferring coins between accounts or otherwise. 

You can claim that they aren't Bitcoiners, but if you are sending satoshis to Bitcoin miners as fees as Bitcoin network user, for the network to verify, that makes you a Bitcoiner.

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.[/quote]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then! I don't think you need to love or believe in Bitcoin in order to use it. A Bitcoiner, by definition, is simply a Bitcoin user. It has nothing to do with sentiment.