Will the Ordinals craze cause a UAHF soon?

[Wind_FURY]

leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)?

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.

Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules.

Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?

[1714289429]

1714289429

[1714289429]

1714289429

[1714289429]

1714289429

[1714289429]

1714289429

[kryptqnick]

I don't think there's a high risk of a hard fork, and anyone's always welcome to try creating another version of 'Bitcoin' that won't succeed (so that doesn't really matter). The fees are going down, and I just hope that this will be one of the issues that get naturally resolved on its own by the market, namely with a lower interest towards Ordinals, as high transaction fees are affecting everyone using the network. The hype seems to be dying out, there are plenty of other coins to use for NFTs and stuff, and Bitcoin will eventually be left alone, I believe. The high fees are probably an issue not just to regular Bitcoin users but to those using blockchain for other purposes as well, which should be discouraging to them.

[Abiky]

It won't result in a hard fork soon.

More transactions in mempools than days ago but no more very high fee rates like days ago.
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),30d,weight

So the problem comes from how people understand the issue and use fee rate. If they keep escalating fee rates, they will escalate it to infinity. Do they want infinity fee rate?

I believe at some expensive fee rate, they will stop like how people rejected to make transactions on Ethereum blockchain with too expensive Gwei or they just don't have enough money for too expensive fee. They can not make transaction with $100 in fee and only have $20 to buy some BRC20 token.

I hope that turns out to be the case in the long run. Bitcoin cannot afford losing market value with another hard fork. You can see how both BCH and BSV hard forks took a large portion of BTC's market share when they came into inception sometime ago. Fortunately, fees on the BTC blockchain are declining. People will ultimately decide the fees to pay, leaving miners no choice but to go along with the "fee market". It's the way this works.

Let's see how long will the "Ordinals craze" last as people move on to the next big thing in crypto. Maybe all of those worthless NFTs will move to a sidechain in the future? Just my opinion

[serjent05]

Fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have been on the rise ever since Ordinals became a big hit. There's a lot of NFT inscriptions that's making BTC slower and expensive to use. We've already seen some criticism by Bitcoin users all across social networks (Twitter). Last time I've checked, TX fees were as high as $30. It's insane!

I'm beginning to wonder if nodes will eventually reject Ordinals transactions, leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)? If that happens, we'll be heading back towards the era of the scaling debate which lead to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Do you think the new hard fork will be a success? Will it destroy/ruin Bitcoin? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

I do not think this one needs a hard fork, I believe this will only need a soft fork where the idea of filtering the network or censorship will be implemented against unnecessary transactions created by the that exploit Ordinals and the Taproot feature.  A hardfork may happen if the miners decided to stick with the current rulings and create a split chain just like what happen when segwit was implemented.  Rejecting Ordinals does not necessary needs a hardfork IMO, a softfork is enough to upgarde the existing network and block unnecessary transactions.

The action to solve the current problem will not destroy or ruin Bitcoin, instead, I believe it will make Bitcoin more resistant of the attack and possibly enable the scalability of Bitcoin to improve.

[OgNasty]

I don’t think a hard fork will happen as a result of Ordinals. I think it would show bias towards projects that would be hard to defend going forward without also disabling the Lightning network. It’s a major problem in my opinion if the developers are able to censor transactions for any project they don’t deem as important as their own.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

I don’t think a hard fork will happen as a result of Ordinals. I think it would show bias towards projects that would be hard to defend going forward without also disabling the Lightning network. It’s a major problem in my opinion if the developers are able to censor transactions for any project they don’t deem as important as their own.

I don't like censorship and Bitcoin network with its main mission to provide non-censored transactions, peer-to-peer, decentralized should keep up this mission. If it breaks its vision, it will lose belief in communities and users.

Why do I have to use Bitcoin network for transactions if my transaction can be censored, rejected because of any node, mining pool which don't like mine?

If it goes to this direction, Bitcoin network will no longer be better than altcoin networks or central banks. I and others will have less reasons to use it for either transactions or investments.

[Yaunfitda]

Fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have been on the rise ever since Ordinals became a big hit. There's a lot of NFT inscriptions that's making BTC slower and expensive to use. We've already seen some criticism by Bitcoin users all across social networks (Twitter). Last time I've checked, TX fees were as high as $30. It's insane!

Nah, although the fees is still high as compare before wherein we can pay 1 sat/vByte, now the fees is between 16 - 35 sat/vByte, and I think that is manageable, still less than 2$.

I'm beginning to wonder if nodes will eventually reject Ordinals transactions, leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)? If that happens, we'll be heading back towards the era of the scaling debate which lead to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Do you think the new hard fork will be a success? Will it destroy/ruin Bitcoin? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Depends on the nodes if they will eventually reject Ordinals, the point of contention is that it's business and they are making big money because we try to outbid each other to get our transaction to get into the next block, so that debate is going on right now.

For all we know, those entities spamming bitcoin's network right now are the same individuals back in 2017 wherein we have a debate whether to increase block or not.

[Godday]

I hope the hardfork will run successfully even though I'm not really sure about that. And yes I agree that the garbage of NFTs has made blockchain networks quite slow and I don't like what they call non-fungible. I hope this hardfork will actually solve the current problem.

[Wind_FURY]

Fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have been on the rise ever since Ordinals became a big hit. There's a lot of NFT inscriptions that's making BTC slower and expensive to use. We've already seen some criticism by Bitcoin users all across social networks (Twitter). Last time I've checked, TX fees were as high as $30. It's insane!

Nah, although the fees is still high as compare before wherein we can pay 1 sat/vByte, now the fees is between 16 - 35 sat/vByte, and I think that is manageable, still less than 2$.

I'm beginning to wonder if nodes will eventually reject Ordinals transactions, leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)? If that happens, we'll be heading back towards the era of the scaling debate which lead to the creation of Bitcoin Cash (BCH). Do you think the new hard fork will be a success? Will it destroy/ruin Bitcoin? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Depends on the nodes if they will eventually reject Ordinals, the point of contention is that it's business and they are making big money because we try to outbid each other to get our transaction to get into the next block, so that debate is going on right now.

Full node operators can filter Ordinals from their mempool using Ordisrespector, but it won't make a difference because not the whole network would be doing it. Those transactions would still propagate.

For all we know, those entities spamming bitcoin's network right now are the same individuals back in 2017 wherein we have a debate whether to increase block or not.

Possible, plausible, probable.

 

[tbct_mt2]

Full node operators can filter Ordinals from their mempool using Ordisrespector, but it won't make a difference because not the whole network would be doing it. Those transactions would still propagate.

Do we all want censorship from Bitcoin full node operators and miners on our transactions?

I believe that if they filter and censor transactions from Ordinals, they will be able to do the same for coins related to CoinJoin transactions or any reason they think is bad, serious and should be censored.

It is not what Satoshi Nakamoto designed for Bitcoin and it is not what the Bitcoin community have tried to maintain since 2009.

Should we break it because of Ordinals?

My answer is very strong, No, I don't want it and I don't think we should have it.

[Wind_FURY]

Full node operators can filter Ordinals from their mempool using Ordisrespector, but it won't make a difference because not the whole network would be doing it. Those transactions would still propagate.

Do we all want censorship from Bitcoin full node operators and miners on our transactions?

I believe that if they filter and censor transactions from Ordinals, they will be able to do the same for coins related to CoinJoin transactions or any reason they think is bad, serious and should be censored.

It's not what I personally want, but their full node, their mempool.

It is not what Satoshi Nakamoto designed for Bitcoin and it is not what the Bitcoin community have tried to maintain since 2009.

Should we break it because of Ordinals?

My answer is very strong, No, I don't want it and I don't think we should have it.

Satoshi technically designed a permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant network, if we start calling for censorship for their use case of the blockchain, they might start calling for censorship for our use case of the blockchain.

[franky1]

strange thing is satoshi invented a permissioned network:
a. the handshape protocol between peers
b. agreeing to share data
c. when sending a transaction it has to be done by the permissioned owner of value
d. it had to have a fixed format.
e. length of proof was required
f. he started with a 0.01 fee which all tx with less was rejected
g. later the called it "dust" where they rejected amounts below
h. it does not allow double spends
i. his code did not allow more then 50btc per block reward subsidy, rejecting blocks that tried
j.he did not allow 4mb of monkey pics in a block, they got rejected

decentralised:
a. many devs in satoshis day were not using one repo. they copied code into their own and compiled their own client.
b. there was no centralised github, reference client or roadmap
c. he didnt even hire/rank/sponsor or contract people to be his team maintaining the rules

censorship resistance
a. bitcoin had strict rules where every byte was accounted for where each byte had a purpose. if a tx contained anything not set for the purpose of proving value transfer of sats. it was rejected
b.transactions trying to move more then they are owed rejected
c. blocks not fitting the rules rejected,
d. transactions paying to little rejected
e. blocks with hash solves not fitting difficulty requirement rejected

i can go on but i just said a few examples of each

bitcoin is not permissionless.. its consensus..
bitcoin is not censorship resistant.. its has(had) rules..
bitcoin is not as decentralised.. due to CORE central point of failure (they named if that for a reason)

[serjent05]

leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)?

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.

Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules.

Upgrades and development of the Bitcoin blockchain can be implemented even without Hardfork.  Softfork is enough since Segwit and Taproot had been implemented through soft-fork.  So I do not think that there is a need for Hardfork in order to solve the current problem.

Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?

I think removing Bitcoin Ordinals in the blockchain does not need hardfork, the developer just needs to disable the feature that allows it and it can be done without hardforking the network.

[franky1]

Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?

I think removing Bitcoin Ordinals in the blockchain does not need hardfork, the developer just needs to disable the feature that allows it and it can be done without hardforking the network.

its simple. all opcodes/sigop codes should come with requirements, format and expectations. that way things can actually be verified to be validated rather than tagged as "is valid" without verification checks
having it where after block 7XXXXX any opcode/sigops that has no format/requirements will have that tx rejected by core 2X.x+ where economic nodes and pools do another NYA.. devs loved that plan last time. so they cant now pretend its impossible or unable or not capable of doing. they already set that precedent

if devs want to propose a new opcode in the future. then they should do it the proper way. propose it, code it. get people to adopt it. and when safe to run due to adoption level THEN it activates, where by its given time for the network to be ready to actually verify and validate blockdata.

all this weakening consensus to not need a consensus activation is what gets these exploits to occur. it makes devs lives easier but when they are the ones in control of a near trillion dollar economy they need to have a tough life where they are responsible for what happens within it

..
and again for those shouting UAHF
it should be emphasised as a EN MPA (Economic Node(merchants/services)) (Mining Pool Assisted) becasue regular normal users dont have the same power as the services/miners.

if users reject blocks, not much happens it just affects the user who is no longer part of the network.. stuck at a certain old height.. however if merchants rejects blocks it affects their customers which includes miners and users being their customers. thus it pressures mining pools to toe the line and users to toe the line.

so now you know where the power lies. core devs then merchants followed by pols, followed by users. in that order

[be.open]

so now you know where the power lies. core devs then merchants followed by pols, followed by users. in that order

Developers have power as long as they don't abuse it. Merchants seems to benefit from this strange meme economy, plus the expectation of a hard fork can be a good driver for the rise in the price of bitcoin. Miners benefit from the current situation, and in the event of a hard fork, they will switch to a more profitable network. Hardfork is also beneficial for users, in principle, they will receive coins in both networks. In an environment where it is technically easy to make a hard fork and so many benefit from it, it is hardly in the interests of developers to try to tempt fate with a public demonstration of power.

[Abiky]

I don’t think a hard fork will happen as a result of Ordinals. I think it would show bias towards projects that would be hard to defend going forward without also disabling the Lightning network. It’s a major problem in my opinion if the developers are able to censor transactions for any project they don’t deem as important as their own.

In other words, rejecting Ordinals transactions would bring censorship to the Blockchain. Bitcoin is decentralized and open to anyone, so why go ahead and block something you (developers) don't like? This would make BTC no different than banks. If people are not happy with the high fees, they could either make their own fork off the BTC blockchain or simply switch to an alternative chain with lower fees. The market will eventually decide the optimum network fees that will benefit both miners and users alike. Fees can't stay high forever, anyways. Things have settled a bit lately, so there should be nothing to worry about.

I've read something about Bitcoin Stamps which are even better than Ordinals inscriptions. I really hope they don't become extremely popular, or fees will go high again. No one can predict what's going to happen with Bitcoin in the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my thoughts

[Wind_FURY]

leading Bitcoin towards a hard fork (UAHF)?

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.

Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules.

Upgrades and development of the Bitcoin blockchain can be implemented even without Hardfork.  Softfork is enough since Segwit and Taproot had been implemented through soft-fork.  So I do not think that there is a need for Hardfork in order to solve the current problem.

I was merely saying, if everyone went into consensus for a hard fork, the communuty shouldn't waste the opportunity to include more important changes in the code? Changes like to make the network running a full node more efficient perhaps? Or anything to improve scaling. REAL SCALING, not the one the big blockers sell.

Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?

I think removing Bitcoin Ordinals in the blockchain does not need hardfork, the developer just needs to disable the feature that allows it and it can be done without hardforking the network.

Get the context of my posts, I never said that it needed a hard fork ser.

[franky1]

In other words, rejecting Ordinals transactions would bring censorship to the Blockchain. Bitcoin is decentralized and open to anyone, so why go ahead and block something you (developers) don't like? This would make BTC no different than banks. If people are not happy with the high fees, they could either make their own fork off the BTC blockchain or simply switch to an alternative chain with lower fees. The market will eventually decide the optimum network fees that will benefit both miners and users alike. Fees can't stay high forever, anyways. Things have settled a bit lately, so there should be nothing to worry about.

you do realise POOL MANAGERS take most the fee's not the asic owners(most pools share payments are the main reward not the fee element)

you do realise POOL MANAGERS can spend their own income in their own block templates(not zero confirm relay) where they give themselves a high fee(returning funds to themselves AT NO COST) but causing the crappy fee estimator of EVERYONE ELSE to be high

as for you saying if everyone else does not like it .. they should avoid asking for it to be fixed and instead use another network.. are you seriously that central point adoring that you want devs to be paid to break bitcoin by corporations that created altnets that you want them to tell devs what do do and not the decentralised userbase..
where you just want  everyone that wants a decentralised monetarian system to instead opt and move over to a crappy network that has middle men payment providers(routers)

seriously. you are reading the wrong hymn sheets and you are not thinking about whats best for bitcoin. but whats best for corporations/businesses.. which means you are the one that loves the "banking" model

[Wind_FURY]

In other words, rejecting Ordinals transactions would bring censorship to the Blockchain. Bitcoin is decentralized and open to anyone, so why go ahead and block something you (developers) don't like? This would make BTC no different than banks. If people are not happy with the high fees, they could either make their own fork off the BTC blockchain or simply switch to an alternative chain with lower fees. The market will eventually decide the optimum network fees that will benefit both miners and users alike. Fees can't stay high forever, anyways. Things have settled a bit lately, so there should be nothing to worry about.

you do realise POOL MANAGERS take most the fee's not the asic owners(most pools share payments are the main reward not the fee element)

you do realise POOL MANAGERS can spend their own income in their own block templates(not zero confirm relay) where they give themselves a high fee(returning funds to themselves AT NO COST) but causing the crappy fee estimator of EVERYONE ELSE to be high

Most, not all? Is that what all the pools are doing? Doesn't it depend on the pool, and what kind of allocation schemes they share with the miners? Because it was probably OK when the pools got "most' of the coins collected from the transaction fees BEFORE, when most of miner-profit were from the actual block rewards.

I believe the only trusted source for anything about mining and mining pools is philipma1957. We should ask him what's the current state of profit sharing scheme between miners and pools.

[Outhue]

It took me less than a dollar to send some BTC this morning, I think things are back to normal,  if splitting of chain will be the solution to bitcoin ordinals then I'm cool with it because I believe the reason why the gas fee is still lower right now is because all the Ordinal hypes have gone down.

Now, as time goes on, if ordinals become a big thing, may be successful, it is very certain that the price of ordinance will never remain the same, it will Skyrocket and affect bitcoin transactions so badly, then many people would be able to sell their Bitcoin in a bull market, so if splitting or forking the chain will be the solution then it is for the greater good.