(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[BrianH]

Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchanges (see quote from Satoshi in sig). It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions. There are many altcoins that do a better job of providing this utility. Let them do that.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back. This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

[1715097389]

1715097389

[1715097389]

1715097389

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Overall I completely agree.
BTC was designed for currency transfer/storage. Period.

Tokens, smart contracts, etc have no place in it! As the OP has already said there are more than enough other blockchains around to support that stuff. Ya know, ones that were created just for it...

[_act_]

Overall I completely agree.
BTC was designed for currency transfer/storage.

Tokens, smart contracts, etc have no place in it! As the OP has already said there are more than enough other blockchains around to support that stuff. Ya know, ones that were created just for it...

What I think is that there is no going back. Taproot has already been created that Ordinals used to create what is happening now. It is better for bitcoin developers to look for more ways to reduce transaction fee.

Miners are happy very well this time because they are making more money from transaction fee and they are not going to agree on anything that will not make them gain.

Know that this has already been created, no way back that will not divide the community, but there are ways forward.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

There is a discussion among devs here ------> [bitcoin-dev] [Mempool spam] Should we as developers reject non-standard Taproot transactions from full nodes?

I still haven't got enough time to read everything

But I think they should be removed.

What I think is that there is no going back.

Why not?

Taproot has already been created that Ordinals used to create what is happening now. It is better for bitcoin developers to look for more ways to reduce transaction fee.

How?

Increase block size? Go check out what's happening to BCH right now. Sometimes they get only about 40 transactions per block

Miners are happy very well this time because they are making more money from transaction fee and they are not going to agree on anything that will not make them gain.

So what happens when so many people abandon the network because of unbearable fees? What will the miner earn then?

Know that this has already been created, no way back that will not divide the community, but there are ways forward.

The BRC20 shit tokens are doing way far more damage to the Bitcoin network adaption than you think. Better to get rid of them early enough.

[BitMaxz]

What I think is that there is no going back. Taproot has already been created that Ordinals used to create what is happening now. It is better for bitcoin developers to look for more ways to reduce transaction fees.

The transaction fee is still far from what happened last April 2021 where the transaction fees are very expensive compared to today but the average transaction per day today is too high compared to April 2021.



So the network is too busy due to lots of transactions being created these days.

And the good thing is it may attract new investors to buy more miners. Meaning if more miner participants are joining they can find and solve more blocks that will help to speed up confirmation process. However, the network or overall hashrate is pretty stable I don't see yet big companies joining to participate in mining.
That's the only solution that I thing would help to clear out pending transaction and reduce the TX fee.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

And the good thing is it may attract new investors to buy more miners. Meaning if more miner participants are joining they can find and solve more blocks that will help to speed up confirmation process.

Speeding up block confirmations?

No way. That would only be possible if there was no difficulty adjustment in place. More miners into the network would mean that the hast rate goes up to the roof and after every 2016 blocks, the network difficulty gets automatically adjusted to keep the average transaction time well within the approximate 10-minute interval.

[sheenshane]

And the good thing is it may attract new investors to buy more miners. Meaning if more miner participants are joining they can find and solve more blocks that will help to speed up confirmation process.

Speeding up block confirmations?

No way.

This was what I thought before and believing that increasing the number of miners will help the network congestion until there's such a user corrected me with my wrong perception.

The reason is, those miners are only responsible for processing and confirming transactions, but the speed and efficiency of the network.
Because the network matter such as the size of the blocks, the difficulty level of mining, and the overall network bandwidth and increasing the number of miners can potentially help to distribute the workload and increase the processing power of the network but not the speed of transaction.  Besides, there is the worst result if there are too many miners,  it will increase the competition among miners for block rewards and potentially lead to a greater centralization of the network.

However, I tend to agree that removing BRC20 tokens would be given help Bitcoin congestion.

[donaldhino]

I agree, BRC-20 provides an attack vector (albeit an expensive one) - malicious actors, along with dim-witted doomers, can fill the blocks up with feces. This prevents the ordinary, often un-unbanked, people from using Bitcoin as its intended purpose - 'A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash'. This would force individuals to look for alternatives.
The blocks should only be filled with financial transactions - not with monkey pictures or sh1tcoins.

[philipma1957]

As a miner its cool 😎 to see the high fees.

 The key 🔑 is do the high fees break the back of the 25k support.

Crashing us to a nice dip buy. Or do the crazy ass degenerate players that think they can break btc price support bust out.

The worst possible thing is removing BRC20 which would be fully admitting that BTC is a loser and can be broken by a piece of shit thing like BRC20

If you believe in btc you should support it by doing a few btc moves and paying high fees over the next two weeks.

IE on or two 10 dollar fees paid won’t break you over the next two weeks.


Crying to developers to fix it and having the developers do something is terrible.

Think of the future when fees are too small to support miners will you be crying for developers to raise the fees? I think not. Guess what miners will do down the road they will move to scrypt algo or any algo that supports mining.

Btc traders and users want small tiny fees miners want bigass fees.

The play goes back and forth.

Lets see what happens by June 1.

My guess is fees drop down and things go back to normal.

At 144 blocks a day and paying 1 or 2 coins each block you are spending 4.2 to 8.4 million a day in extra fees.

The people doing this will run out of coin. May take all of May but they will shoot their load and be spent.

[pooya87]

Your general idea is correct, you just made some small mistakes:

It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin does support smart contracts, in fact each transaction you make, you are creating and using smart contracts. It just doesn't have certain functionality that would allow creation of tokens.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions.

It is not about TPS or capacity. In other words even if bitcoin could handle 1 GB blocks and a billion transactions per second, these types of spam would still not be tolerated.

To put simply it is all about usage. Bitcoin was created to handle transferring money not as a cloud storage.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back.

To be clear there is no such thing as "BRC-20" in Bitcoin or Taproot. It is not part of the protocol. It is fake centralized term the scammers are using to give their attack some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of the naive.

This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

I don't think this can "end" bitcoin but it is definitely damaging it real hard and must be prevented.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

Again BRC-20 does not exist anywhere in the protocol to be removed. There is a vulnerability in bitcoin consensus rules that is being exploited by malicious attackers and that must be patched.
At this point the best solution is a soft fork to mend the flaw.

[NotATether]

As it stands (from what I gathered in the mailing list), it does seem that developers agree this is an important issue but also that they're not actually going to do anything about it.

So it's up to the rest of us to make Layer 2 implementations that will mitigate it for end users.

As a miner its cool 😎 to see the high fees.

 The key 🔑 is do the high fees break the back of the 25k support.

Crashing us to a nice dip buy. Or do the crazy ass degenerate players that think they can break btc price support bust out.

The worst possible thing is removing BRC20 which would be fully admitting that BTC is a loser and can be broken by a piece of shit thing like BRC20

If you believe in btc you should support it by doing a few btc moves and paying high fees over the next two weeks.

IE on or two 10 dollar fees paid won’t break you over the next two weeks.


Crying to developers to fix it and having the developers do something is terrible.

Think of the future when fees are too small to support miners will you be crying for developers to raise the fees? I think not. Guess what miners will do down the road they will move to scrypt algo or any algo that supports mining.

Btc traders and users want small tiny fees miners want bigass fees.

The play goes back and forth.

Lets see what happens by June 1.

My guess is fees drop down and things go back to normal.

At 144 blocks a day and paying 1 or 2 coins each block you are spending 4.2 to 8.4 million a day in extra fees.

The people doing this will run out of coin. May take all of May but they will shoot their load and be spent.

PS: It's ironic in a way. I understand that miners such as yourself are not happy with seeing all these requests to remove BRC-20, but to see this kind of opposition from nocoiners or random people from Ethereum and other shitcoin networks is comical, at best.

Like, notice all the tweets from ETH maxis posting screenshots of dashjr's opinion about it in the mailing-list discussion, and he has a grand total of... 1 post in that thread. I guess they don't have the balls to call me out directly  

[Yamane_Keto]

Fees were high in 2017, and the same discussions took place regarding increasing block size, as it is the easy idea to solve this problem, and we all know what happened to those who chose that solution BitcoinCash does not represent 10% of the current Bitcoin value.

Putting pressure on developers and trying to change things will lead to bad results in the long run. This fever will not last long because all those who use tokens and smart contracts will not be able to pay higher fees for a long time, while the average Bitcoin user who believes in its ability to survive in the long run, will know that it is a temporary tax.

Consider what happened as a forced HODLING and try to Delay your Bitcoin transaction for this week| Volunteer campaign
Edit

[philipma1957]

Fees were high in 2017, and the same discussions took place regarding increasing block size, as it is the easy idea to solve this problem, and we all know what happened to those who chose that solution BitcoinCash does not represent 10% of the current Bitcoin value.

Putting pressure on developers and trying to change things will lead to bad results in the long run. This fever will not last long because all those who use tokens and smart contracts will not be able to pay higher fees for a long time, while the average Bitcoin user who believes in its ability to survive in the long run, will know that it is a temporary tax.

Consider what happened as a forced HODLING and try to Delay your Bitcoin transaction for this week| Volunteer campaign
Edit

Yeah if BTC hodlers panic and cry for a dev rescue BTC deserves to crash out.

This is a test of wills and BTC needs to hodl hodl hodl. Also do a few small btc moves to support net work.

[goldkingcoiner]

Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchanges (see quote from Satoshi in sig). It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions. There are many altcoins that do a better job of providing this utility. Let them do that.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back. This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

I doubt there is any need for concern over the whole BRC-20 debacle. The truth is that its not sustainable for the attacker, while profitable for the miners and irritating for the Bitcoiners making transactions.

In the worst case scenario, a soft fork will cut out the entire system but at the same time who is to say it will not return under a different disguise?

I am not worried. The only reason why money launderers and scammers are so interested in it right now is because its heavily unregulated. Its still a separated market, though. And without a means of trade such as a centralized exchange, there is no point to it, making BRC20 incredibly centralized. Once its declared a security, which it most likely will be, nobody will want to touch it.

[we-btc]

The Bitcoin white paper is titled: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". 

Bitcoin was designed to be an alternative to the current monetary system.  The reason it is slow is because it needs to be distributed, decentralized and immutable.
If we continue to allow it to be used for things other than currency it will loose it's value as a currency.  It was not designed to be an efficient network which could support non cash functions. In order to keep Bitcoin as a "Cash System" ordinals need to be removed from the system.

I urge the developers to make this change immediately!

I run three nodes and if necessary, I would support a hard fork to remove ordinals.

Thank you!

[logfiles]

Yeah if BTC hodlers panic and cry for a dev rescue BTC deserves to crash out.

This is a test of wills and BTC needs to hodl hodl hodl. Also do a few small btc moves to support net work.

Forget about Hodlers, I doubt if they even care about the current fees.

The problem is that the high fees are not sustainable for people making day to day transactions in the long run. This is supposed to be one of the strong points of Bitcoin. Eliminate the middleman who could charge you exorbitant fees like how banks and all those other payment providers do.

I doubt there is any need for concern over the whole BRC-20 debacle. The truth is that its not sustainable for the attacker,

With this confidence and the innocence you have, I am sure they (the attacker) gave up on the fees on the Ethereum Network that spiralled past $100 even when they had hundreds of thousands of Dollars in their pockets after selling scam coins to gullible traders.  

Our hope is the congestion stops when the hype dies down, but let say it continues for 2–3 years like it happened in another network. What next?
How many of us do you think will start using alternative networks in order to make transactions?

[Expressgint]

I find it great, that you have something like the BRC 20 standard,

that makes it possible to store & share inscriptions via the btc blockchain.

This is unique.


Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.


If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.


And not just left for the world of alt coins.


Regards

[logfiles]

I find it great, that you have something like the BRC 20 standard,

that makes it possible to store & share inscriptions via the btc blockchain.

At the cost of bloating the Blockchain and stopping it's intended use.

Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.

You might as well tell us where in this whitepaperdoes it talk about Bitcoin being a peer to peer electronic art system.

If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.

What higher adoption if more users are going to stop using the network because of very high fees due to the unnecessary network spam that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?

[goldkingcoiner]

With this confidence and the innocence you have, I am sure they (the attacker) gave up on the fees on the Ethereum Network that spiralled past $100 even when they had hundreds of thousands of Dollars in their pockets after selling scam coins to gullible traders.  

Our hope is the congestion stops when the hype dies down, but let say it continues for 2–3 years like it happened in another network. What next?
How many of us do you think will start using alternative networks in order to make transactions?

Only time can tell how long that is going to take or how long we will have to keep enduring high fees. But I believe the attack to be unsustainable. There is a limit to the number of idiots who buy NFTs/scamcoins. If that makes me naive, then so be it.

BRC-20 is a useless parasitic existence which needs to definitely be removed. If that means rolling back Taproot, then I am all for it. Althought personally I doubt that the attacks will be a long term thing. Hopefully this is just a dumb fad which will calm down and even perhaps die out, over time.

I would not call it a "fatal flaw which can bring an end to Bitcoin". Its rather an irritating thing which can and will be carved out of the Bitcoin chain "ecosystem".

[Z-tight]

Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.

If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.

BTC network has its use cases, that is why it is valuable and is used all around the world, from all i have read and understood about BTC, art isn't one of its use cases. The most important one of BTC use cases is to transfer funds peer to peer, and to do that one has to pay tx fees, if anything is bloating the network and restricting people from making transactions, maybe we can call that thing a problem. BTC has enough use cases for higher adoption, especially in an organic way.

Though this exploit has already happened, and the reason why i can't find a middle ground on this situation is if you call for ordinals to be removed, you now sound like you are promoting censorship in a censorship resistant and permissionless network. Maybe a chance for the network to be exploited in this way should not have happened, but i believe its end has to happen in a non-censorship way.

[NotATether]

Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.


If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.


And not just left for the world of alt coins.

Not art, because they have flaws that have been completely exposed by Ethereum NFTs (people will just abuse it to make what I call "lazy art", to make a quick buck, which screws over the buyers in the process, which gives the entire NFT system a sour taste in people's mouths.

Much better is for a layer on top of Bitcoin to be used for genuine seals/stamps of approval issued by private companies for their own products.

[ABCbits]

--snip--
Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.


If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.
--snip--

I think you're confused between Ordinals and BRC-20. BRC-20 (which is discussion of this topic) is only about token.

--snip--

BRC-20 is a useless parasitic existence which needs to definitely be removed. If that means rolling back Taproot, then I am all for it. Althought personally I doubt that the attacks will be a long term thing. Hopefully this is just a dumb fad which will calm down and even perhaps die out, over time.

--snip--

Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot.

[Kryptowerk]

What uprises me about this mess is the quetion, how long can it be "profitable" / sustainable to send bloated data-transactions to the bitcoin network?
I doubt there are actually too many players involved in creating these. When the hype (if there ever was much of one) is over and everyone sits on their BRC-20 shit-token-pseudo-art, there will not be much incentives left to create these bloating transactions. Slowly but surely I wold expect to see less transaction stuck in mempool over the next few weeks until fees and blocks are at a normal level again.

[Expressgint]

DEX (based on stacks) might be the solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdq54yHDUq0

[joker_josue]

So it's up to the rest of us to make Layer 2 implementations that will mitigate it for end users.

But I don't think L2 is the solution, because at some point the money has to go to L1, and extremely high fees will drive people away rather than attracting more users.

The L2 should only be used for day-to-day transactions, with bitcoin having to be loaded and unloaded from there.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

This is a insider attack on Bitcoin allowing this to happen.

If they won't remove it forks will come.

Many are working on it already to take us back to a simpler time no counterparty risk with LN which also had a flaw during the recent events by way of not being able to update the channel state without paying the on-chain fee. which was crazy.

[WillyAp]

I don't think they remove it, and who would do that.
It opens up a posibilty for other decentral coins which are more thought thru than Bitcoin
There are a few to choose from. Litecoin, Dash, BCH to name a few. 

[bitmover]

Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot.

I believe something will be done.

A few hundreds of people cannot flood the network like this with a malicious script (and the ordinals can be used like this).

Imagine if Faketoshi (or some other authority) wants to flood the network, making bitcoin unusable.

In my opinion, this is already a security problem. Similar to a DDOS attack.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The most important one of BTC use cases is to transfer funds peer to peer, and to do that one has to pay tx fees, if anything is bloating the network and restricting people from making transactions, maybe we can call that thing a problem.

Congestion can also happen by merely making "normal" transactions, so in accordance with your reasoning, making "normal" transactions is also a potential problem. Needless to say it's a false reasoning, because the network's security relies on the fact that it's congested.

What uprises me about this mess is the quetion, how long can it be "profitable" / sustainable to send bloated data-transactions to the bitcoin network?

Probably not for too long. This whole Ordinal and BRC-20 business is a hyped-up bubble, waiting to be burst. Hopefully, until that happens, I hope the community won't begin block size wars II.

[joker_josue]

Probably not for too long. This whole Ordinal and BRC-20 business is a hyped-up bubble, waiting to be burst. Hopefully, until that happens, I hope the community won't begin block size wars II.

The problem is not the size of the block, but the organization of the block.

For example, always having 25% of the block reserved for transactions older than 72 hours, regardless of the fee, would make much more sense. This would allow all transactions to flow through the network, preventing them from being held on hold for weeks. At the same time, those who want to move to the front of the queue can pay more fees.

[pooya87]

That depends on people's definition about smart contract. Some people define smart contract as turing complete scripting/programming.

That is a subcategory of smart contracts and this definition was popularized after the introduction of Ethereum. Otherwise ever since 1990s a smart contract is technically a program or a protocol that can be executed automatically without human intervention, trusted third parties, etc.

The best and simplest example of a smart contract is the vending machines which is the oldest implementation of them too.

because the network's security relies on the fact that it's congested.

That is incorrect.
Having a block size cap which would create a fee market in case of a spam attack which discourages/prevents prolonged attacks is not exactly called "network security". Security of the network relies on many things including hashrate and its decentralization. Not to mention that bitcoin was secure when the blocks had barely any transactions in them (in early couple of years) and it was still secure when the blocks were full and it is still secure when the mempool is congested.

[lionheart78]

I find it great, that you have something like the BRC 20 standard,

that makes it possible to store & share inscriptions via the btc blockchain.

This is unique.

But destructive at the current level of Bitcoin development.  NFT and smart contracts need to have a proper blockchain application that can process its creation, transactions and transfers without affecting the entire blockchain network.  If it posses a problem to the network then obviously that said token isn't for that blockchain network.

Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.

If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.

And not just left for the world of alt coins.

Regards

No, crypto itself is all about the implementation of security.  BTC does not need NFT for higher adoption, BTC adoption is doing fine without it.  I would not mind if the implementation of this NFT does not bring problems to the Bitcoin network but in the current state of Bitcoin technology, it does, which simply means, the Bitcoin network isn't ready to be spammed by NFTs.

[vjudeu]

For example, always having 25% of the block reserved for transactions older than 72 hours, regardless of the fee, would make much more sense.

In the past, there was a concept called "coinage": the older your coin was, the higher priority it got: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions

Later, it was replaced with the simplest approach of "from highest to lowest satoshis per byte", and today we still have that system, counted in satoshis per virtual kilobyte.

Because I don't expect any soft-fork in the near future, all you can do is to use your own mempool inclusion rules. If you are a miner, you can enforce that. But to make it de-facto standard, other mining pools and solo miners would need to join (and be ready to earn less, so convincing them may not be that easy).

[satscraper]

 I think they should be removed.

Luke Dashjr for it. He has  urged other developers to end both BRC20 and ordinals shit.

[Who is John Galt?]

The problem is not the size of the block, but the organization of the block.

For example, always having 25% of the block reserved for transactions older than 72 hours, regardless of the fee, would make much more sense. This would allow all transactions to flow through the network, preventing them from being held on hold for weeks. At the same time, those who want to move to the front of the queue can pay more fees.

This will only work for the occasional temporary increase in mempool size, which of course is fine too. But if the mempool grows systematically, anyway, sooner or later the 25% quota for old transactions will overflow, and they will also have to be ranked somehow additionally, because some transactions will start to overdue.

But it looks good as a temporary solution, because it will reduce commissions for non-urgent payments.

[ABCbits]

Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot.

I believe something will be done.

Maybe, but rollback shouldn't be option any Bitcoiner (who value immutability property of Bitcoin) consider.

A few hundreds of people cannot flood the network like this with a malicious script (and the ordinals can be used like this).

Imagine if Faketoshi (or some other authority) wants to flood the network, making bitcoin unusable.

In my opinion, this is already a security problem. Similar to a DDOS attack.

Flooding Bitcoin network always has been possible though, even without Taproot. The difference is Ordinals, BRC-20, ORC-20 and other thing give financial incentive to make people do such thing, without even thinking their action may flood BTC network.

That depends on people's definition about smart contract. Some people define smart contract as turing complete scripting/programming.

That is a subcategory of smart contracts and this definition was popularized after the introduction of Ethereum. Otherwise ever since 1990s a smart contract is technically a program or a protocol that can be executed automatically without human intervention, trusted third parties, etc.

The best and simplest example of a smart contract is the vending machines which is the oldest implementation of them too.

Thanks for reminder, it's piece of history i forget. But it doesn't change fact people these days is more familiar with definition introduced by ETH/ETH community.

[darkv0rt3x]

Maybe, but rollback shouldn't be option any Bitcoiner (who value immutability property of Bitcoin) consider.

Yeah, no rollback. We would fall into the same paradigma of other shit networks that have the "power" to travel back in time. Immutability is a key feature of Bitcoin blockchain. It needs to be kept that way!

Flooding Bitcoin network always has been possible though, even without Taproot. The difference is Ordinals, BRC-20, ORC-20 and other thing give financial incentive to make people do such thing, without even thinking their action may flood BTC network.

And on top of that, this exploit has been being used as a cloud storage. That is not the purpose of the Bitcoin Blockchain although some argue that any information in a blockchain is "cloud storage", that even the normal transactions in the blockchain can be considered cloud storage. But in this case, my argument is that blockchain was created for this purpose, not for storing monkeys and all kind of crap! As already was said smewhere, this might even remove trust from the blockchain, from some users perspective and make them leave for another blockchains!


And there is a question that is kind of messing with me. I don't have enough knowledge to answer it but these jsons that have been being included in transactions are somehow using some space, right? So, if there is this space available, why can't it be used to include even more transactions in a block? Isn't it viable? Why is there this space available and ready to be filled (now) with this spam jsons? Why can't this space be used to improve the efficiency of the blocks and blockchain in terms of number of transactions per block, at least?

[BrianH]

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

Thanks for the link to the developers' thread. It looks like they are giving serious consideration to how to address this issue. The solution is not an easy one, because they have already introduced "security regression", as one developer put it, into the network.

It is naive to think this will go away. If we wait on this issue and the value of Bitcoin is reduced to where people no longer have trust/buy it, the system could collapse as mining becomes unprofitable. We could have a Terra/Luna feedback death cycle.

Also, at the current rate of transactions (600k / day), if a central government wanted to destroy trust in Bitcoin, spamming the mempool with a billion dollars in transactions could flood the system for about half a year - that's nothing to many governments.

At the mining concerns, the price of Bitcoin will continue to increase to support the miners - as long as their is value in the system. That value is destroyed if the peer-to-peer payment system no longer works. That is a short-sighted view. What will the miners have to mine if their ASIC hardware is no longer worth anything?

Rolling back Taproot is unlikely, but patching Bitcoin to remove the non peer-to-peer transactions needs to be deployed. The problem is so bad that I had a transaction stuck in unconfirmed status for over 4 hours yesterday, after paying the highest fee in my software.

[joker_josue]

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

That's right!
One of Bitcoin's strengths was never deviating from Satoshi's initial plan. The fact that everything continues to work as it was done from the beginning, guarantees stability and continuity.

Therefore, I think that everything that deviates from the basic idea of Bitcoin must be rectified, so that everything remains as the initial plan.

One of the things that annoys me the most is when I'm starting to get involved in a project and suddenly the rules of the game change. I think this is very bad and discourages the project.

[BrianH]

This article summarizes the current situation nicely and introduces an additional regulatory concerns caused by BRC-20, which are little more than storing trash variables in the blockchain:

The More Bitcoin Acts Like Ethereum, the Less Investors Should Like It

Are new NFTs and meme tokens good for Bitcoin?

When the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the original Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) white paper back in 2008, he envisioned the cryptocurrency as a peer-to-peer digital payments system and the ultimate form of "sound money." Some even imagined that one day, Bitcoin might replace the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Flash-forward to 2023, and we're starting to see some unexpected innovations coming to Bitcoin's ecosystem that seem to contradict this original premise -- among them, highly speculative meme tokens and new non-fungible tokens (NFTs). What's concerning it that these innovations are leading to higher transaction fees, network congestion, and complaints about market disruptions. What's going on here, and what impact should it have on your decision to buy Bitcoin?

The "new" Bitcoin

Perhaps the easiest way to describe what's going on here is that it is a battle between the "old" Bitcoin and the "new" Bitcoin. The old Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency originally proposed by Nakamoto. The core purpose of its blockchain is to handle digital currency transactions. From this perspective, blocks on its blockchain should only contain transaction data -- nothing more. Proponents of the new Bitcoin, though, believe that the core Bitcoin blockchain should be used for more than just digital currency transactions. Why not the creation of NFTs or even meme tokens, such as those found on the Ethereum (CRYPTO:ETH) blockchain?

...

Real-world impact

According to one blockchain analytics service, 65% of all Bitcoin transactions on May 7 were related to BRC-20 tokens. Put another way, 65% of the traffic on the Bitcoin blockchain this past Sunday involved people swapping in and out of meme tokens. Things got so out of hand, in fact, that Binance (CRYPTO: BNB) -- the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world --- had to put a temporary halt on Bitcoin withdrawals.

The important point here is that we are starting to see disruptions in the way Bitcoin is used, and these are causing higher fees and network congestion. In El Salvador, where Bitcoin is legal tender and used for everyday purchases, the transaction fees for withdrawing $100 in Bitcoin are now reportedly as high as $20. Think about that: If your bank charged you $20 every time you took $100 out of the ATM, you might start looking for a different bank.

Of course, the innovators who brought us Ordinals and the new BRC-20 tokens will describe how much functionality and utility they are bringing to Bitcoin. Perhaps they will tell you how they are helping Bitcoin reach wider mainstream adoption. And they will claim that they helped to create a billion-dollar market opportunity literally overnight. Fair enough.

But I can't help thinking about that 65% figure. Are two-thirds of Bitcoin transactions now just related to speculating in meme tokens? Please, nobody tell Gary Gensler this. As soon as the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman finds out that crypto enthusiasts have turned Bitcoin into a speculative meme-token playground, it's game over. And that's a primary concern of mine. How can anyone reasonably describe Bitcoin as "sound money" when people are playing with meme tokens in the background and inscribing funny pictures into its blockchain?

Should you invest in Bitcoin?

At one point, I thought the new NFTs might be a good thing for Bitcoin's future valuation. However, with the arrival of BRC-20 meme tokens, I've started to change my mind. Many of the most popular Bitcoin BRC-20 tokens are clearly designed to be meme tokens. The top tokens in this category by market cap now include a pizza-themed token, a frog-themed token, and a token that calls itself, yes, "meme." Now that larger, more mainstream cryptocurrency exchanges are starting to list these tokens for trading, this problem could get bigger as more people get in on the meme-token mania.

For now, I remain bullish on Bitcoin long term. But, in the short term, I'm taking a close look at what's happening with NFTs and meme tokens. If the primary purpose of Bitcoin -- to act as a peer-to-peer digital cash system -- is being hindered by high fees, congestion, and other forms of market friction, then it might be time to pump the brakes. If Bitcoin is trying so hard to become Ethereum, why not just invest in Ethereum?

I was nearly 100% into Bitcoin. I am divesting myself of my Bitcoin holdings, until this matter gets settled. I am sure I am not the only one.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Having a block size cap which would create a fee market in case of a spam attack which discourages/prevents prolonged attacks is not exactly called "network security". Security of the network relies on many things including hashrate and its decentralization.

Both of which rely on the computational power that the network incentivizes to spend, which incidentally corresponds to the cost of block space.

Not to mention that bitcoin was secure when the blocks had barely any transactions in them

Never have I argued the opposite. However, it'd be utter clueless to consider bitcoin increasing exponentially in price when the block subsidy will not be sufficient. The only realistic approach, is that transaction fees will be the backbone of the network in two decades from now. So Bitcoin, more or less, relies on the fact that it will be congested.

[d5000]

Sorry, this thread is full of misunderstandings. I'm not in any way defending Ordinals but please acknowledge that:

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since as early as 2013/14 or even earlier (EPOBC protocol, Open Assets, Mastercoin/Omni, see coloured coins)
- even NFTs were deployed on the Bitcoin blockchain in 2016 (Rare Pepes on the Counterparty platform)
- Ordinal NFTs need to be differentiated from Ordinal BRC-20, even if they're technically the same thing. BRC-20 token transactions store data extremely inefficiently. But they are quite small and would be perfectly feasible with a protocol not based on Taproot at all, or with a "crippled" Taproot with some kind of size limit for arbitrary data. So if any code change takes place limiting Taproot, the "spam" could perfectly stay; in the case Taproot data pushes are banned entirely they could use an OP_RETURN based token protocol like Counterparty, or if OP_RETURN is also banned or crippled, even encode data in public keys or the sequence number (that was the first idea for tokens in BTC). Or fork Doginals and use simply P2SH.

See also this post from the developer discussion and also this one from Peter Todd. Thanks for linking to the discussion anyway, seems to be the only benefit I had from reading this thread

[wtfmidn]

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s]. Not unless someone here believes that Jesus wrote that white paper. 

I'm open to being ridiculed. I just want to learn and protect my investments. Thanks for reading.

[BrianH]

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s]. Not unless someone here believes that Jesus wrote that white paper.  

I'm open to being ridiculed. I just want to learn and protect my investments. Thanks for reading.

I hear your perspective. However, you have to see the big picture.

Bitcoin drives the cryptocurrency market. It's held at least 40% of the market for nearly all of it's life. When things get bad - people flock to Bitcoin, because of it's ability to function as a peer-to-peer method of exchange.

Bitcoin has something that no other coin has as much of - trust. That trust was founded, because it has worked as a trustless, peer-to-peer payment system for the last 14 years. Ordinals damage that ability. They are throwing shackles on - not taking them off.

There are 1000s of other coins out there. Some of them have better features than Bitcoin. However, making a coin that specializes in everything means you have a coin that excels at nothing.

Bitcoin operates using PoW. Few coins still have the ability to be supported by any computer in the world. It's already a more trusted platform than Ethereum 2.0, which uses PoS. ETH's PoS algorithm centralizes the network and will make it easier for the network to be hijacked, as its value increases. There are other smart contract coins that are much faster than Ethereum, less expensive, have fewer outages and may also offer NFTs - so what does Ethereum really offer?

Bitcoin specializes in one thing. It makes sense it would need to adapt to become better at that specialization. But it does not make sense to try to offer something completely different that other coins already do better.

As for changing the Constitution, the interest in Bitcoin is stronger today, because someone thought it would be a good idea to shackle people with a federal income tax (16th Amendment). Maybe it's a good idea to keep things the same?

[BitcoinTS.org]

BRC-20 is not the only bitcoin token. There are several different bitcoin tokens in existence.

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:

https://docs.bitcoints.org/

[Mame89]

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

That's right!
One of Bitcoin's strengths was never deviating from Satoshi's initial plan. The fact that everything continues to work as it was done from the beginning, guarantees stability and continuity.

Therefore, I think that everything that deviates from the basic idea of Bitcoin must be rectified, so that everything remains as the initial plan.

One of the things that annoys me the most is when I'm starting to get involved in a project and suddenly the rules of the game change. I think this is very bad and discourages the project.

Yes, even though ordinals and BRC-20 love new use cases in Bitcoin, ordinals and BRC-20 split the Bitcoin community. Bitcoin and satoshi maximalists say these ordinals are an attack on Bitcoin. Why? The first problem is that this idea has existed since the time of satoshi and was rejected by satoshi himself. For example, there is BitDNS whose idea is more or less the same as the .sats domain but was rejected by satoshi at that time. Santoshi said Bitcoin was created only as a decentralized peer to peer financial system.

The second problem is social issues. since the launch of ordinals in January 2023, the Bitcoin community has been divided again. For several reasons there is a social issue. An example could be someone inserting a picture or news about Tiananmen in the Bitcoin protocol which causes Bitcoin to be banned in China for example. And Actually this happened in 2017. Now with the protocol ordinals, everyone can easily insert pictures. For example, pornographic images on the Bitcoin network. And that's irreversible, it's also not funny if the Global reserve currency has all the coins in its "doodles". According to Bitcoin maximalists, this makes Bitcoin not pure anymore.

The third problem is block struggle. Inscription satoshis (sats) are currently competing for blockspace on the Bitcoin network and disrupting other transaction activity. Ultimately causing the Bitcoin network fee to be more expensive, the ones who actually benefit the most are miners.

The fourth problem is in security. For example, Wallet Unisat is immediately hit by a double spend attack after being launched. In conclusion, BRC-20 is still in the experimental stage.

[d5000]

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. [...] I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I'm here in agreement with BrianH: Bitcoin has enough reasons to exist on its own without any additions. It's the most sound cryptocurrency, the most decentralized one (Ethereum is probably a security!).

And I absolutely don't see why you think that "now" the danger of Ethereum surpassing BTC is bigger than let's say in 2017/18 when the ERC-20 bubble started and everybody was talking about a "flippening". And finally: Even if a flippening occurs - Ethereum is a completely different asset class, a mostly centralized enterprise platform. Its public is very different from BItcoin's.

I can however understand your reasoning a bit. I am for example interested in contracts resembling options or futures for Bitcoin. If something like "DeFi" can be replicated on BTC in a totally decentralized way, I think Bitcoin could profit inmensely from it, as we could mitigate risks associated to volatility on the platform itself. I am also interested in smart property, which is similar to NFTs.

However, Ordinals is not the technology I see as appropiate for that. Ordinals is a cheap hack, and BRC-20 tokens are extremely inefficient when compared even to old token standards like EPOBC and Counterparty. See below for RGB, a technology which I see most promising. I think all "token", "smart contract" and "DeFi" standards should support second layers, like Lightning and sidechains, to avoid cluttering the main chain. And RGB does that.

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s].

I think you misunderstand the whitepaper. No part in the whitepaper says that tokens should not be possible on Bitcoin. There are tons of technologies built "on top" of Satoshi's original technology, not only token platforms (like mentioned 3 posts above) but also Lightning, atomic swaps and other interesting contracts.

My personal opinion: Sell your BRC-20, if you still can

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:

https://docs.bitcoints.org/

This is NOT the complete list of tokens, but only the list of token standards based on Ordinals. There are many, many more!

The most modern standard is probably RGB, which uses lots of advanced cryptography, it's however afaik still not stable, that means that the final version may not be 100% compatible with now, but it's coming closer. It supports Lightning out of the box.

[Renampun]

I find it great, that you have something like the BRC 20 standard,

that makes it possible to store & share inscriptions via the btc blockchain.

This is unique.


Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.


If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.


And not just left for the world of alt coins.


Regards

Have you ever heard why vitalik created his own Ethereum token, it's because his proposal regarding smart contracts was rejected,

now you say the adoption of NFT and arts should be pushed with bitcoin network, are you out of your mind on this!!

Pure Bitcoin was created for transactions, not for shit token, Satoshi sees BRC-20 as a joke that interferes with his/her/their/our vision and mission of creating Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

It could be argued that the vision was how no one would be in a position of power to intervene and prevent others transacting.  But what you propose is that someone in power should intervene and prevent others from transacting.  

Now imagine I'm in charge of one of your nation's security agencies or the treasury/taxation authorities.  In such a position, I wouldn't like how you're transacting without me knowing exactly who you are and what you are doing with your money.  Maybe you're funding terrorists or failing to pay your taxes.  How about I apply pressure to those same someones in power to prevent you from transacting in Bitcoin until you'll completed all the necessary KYC/AML and other privacy-crippling hurdles?  Things go to dark places very quickly when you consider the implications of what it is you're asking for here.  Censorship for some could easily escalate to censorship for all.

Personally, I take the view that your ideals are far more dangerous to Bitcoin's longevity than a bit of short-term congestion.  Bitcoin is neutral.  That means sometimes people will use it in ways you may not agree with.  But that's simply the price of freedom.

[NotATether]

The most modern standard is probably RGB, which uses lots of advanced cryptography, it's however afaik still not stable, that means that the final version may not be 100% compatible with now, but it's coming closer. It supports Lightning out of the box.

I wouldn't argue that all of these token protocols are useless. Generally I only see the meme tokens such as BRC/ORC20 as something toxic that has to be dealt with, not things like RGB (which could have something useful to store on them that could actually work out for Bitcoin), and even Ordinals to some extent - but with the full knowledge that art NFTs have only a little bit use and that's it.

[Lucius]

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

Maybe people like you are the reason why projects like this don't fail much faster than they should, because after all, money drives everything, and too many people obviously have too much money to invest in various tokens or some new invention, believing that it is "that something" that will make them rich. You yourself say that you are not an expert, but obviously 0.7 BTC is not a problem for you, your money, your risk.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I've been reading and hearing about "Flippening" for almost 10 years, since the existence of ETH and its owner's obsession to flip BTC, but it hasn't happened yet, despite the fact that the max supply of ETH is constantly changing and actually looks like it will be infinite. Fortunately, it's not all about money, as most people see it, but there is also something about trust, as some have already mentioned before me.

With all the changes that ETH has made since its inception and with all the changes that follow, I wonder how anyone still believes in such fairy tales?

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

It is my humble opinion that these ordinals will destroy themselves sooner or later, or rather when they run out of money, that is, when people realize what kind of nonsense this is all about. In addition, bitcoin developers are not the ones to point the finger at and say "fix it", the game is run by the miners and the only thing that matters to them is to make a profit, and do you think they want to kill the goldfish that fulfills all their wishes?

[pooya87]

And there is a question that is kind of messing with me. I don't have enough knowledge to answer it but these jsons that have been being included in transactions are somehow using some space, right? So, if there is this space available, why can't it be used to include even more transactions in a block? Isn't it viable? Why is there this space available and ready to be filled (now) with this spam jsons? Why can't this space be used to improve the efficiency of the blocks and blockchain in terms of number of transactions per block, at least?

Number of transactions per block depends on the size of each transaction. After SegWit soft fork, it also depends on how many of them were using SegWit; the more SegWit transactions, the bigger the block and the higher the number of transactions in that block up to 4 MB. The smaller each transaction, the bigger the number of transactions in the block.

Take these two blocks, even though they are both special/extreme cases but are also good examples: 367,853 and 786,501

The first one is pre-SegWit so the max size is 1 MB (or 999,956 bytes to be exact) however it contains 12,239 transactions simply because the transactions in that block are among the smallest sizes possible*.
The second one is post-Taproot/post-Ordinals-Attack and the size is 3,978,938 bytes however it only contains 39 transactions simply because it contains a spam transaction of 3,969,494 bytes where the attacker pays $13500 to include that tx in this block!

* These are special cases that are not normally possible. In short this block is cleanup of another attack against bitcoin where the attackers flooded the chain with outputs with 0 satoshis paying to OP_TRUE.

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since ...

If you change the content of the OP_RETURN in this tranasction to send 2000 USDT instead of 1000 USDT, the transaction is still a perfectly valid bitcoin transaction, will be relayed and mined. However it will no longer be a valid Tether/Omni transaction, and the Tether amount will not be transferred to the secondary address anymore.

Since none of these protocols are actually supported or enforced by the bitcoin protocol, we can't say "these 'tokens', etc. exist in bitcoin".

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap.

It is trivial to "surpass" bitcoin in market cap considering how easy it is to create fake supply (mc=supply*price) and how centralized shitcoins with huge premines like Ethereum have unlimited supply. But I don't see them gaining anything more than that, specially shitcoins that have a mutable blockchain with no real world utility that have been on a downtrend against bitcoin and have lost 60% of their value ever since 2017.

[darkv0rt3x]

And there is a question that is kind of messing with me. I don't have enough knowledge to answer it but these jsons that have been being included in transactions are somehow using some space, right? So, if there is this space available, why can't it be used to include even more transactions in a block? Isn't it viable? Why is there this space available and ready to be filled (now) with this spam jsons? Why can't this space be used to improve the efficiency of the blocks and blockchain in terms of number of transactions per block, at least?

Number of transactions per block depends on the size of each transaction. After SegWit soft fork, it also depends on how many of them were using SegWit; the more SegWit transactions, the bigger the block and the higher the number of transactions in that block up to 4 MB. The smaller each transaction, the bigger the number of transactions in the block.

Take these two blocks, even though they are both special/extreme cases but are also good examples: 367,853 and 786,501

The first one is pre-SegWit so the max size is 1 MB (or 999,956 bytes to be exact) however it contains 12,239 transactions simply because the transactions in that block are among the smallest sizes possible*.
The second one is post-Taproot/post-Ordinals-Attack and the size is 3,978,938 bytes however it only contains 39 transactions simply because it contains a spam transaction of 3,969,494 bytes where the attacker pays $13500 to include that tx in this block!

* These are special cases that are not normally possible. In short this block is cleanup of another attack against bitcoin where the attackers flooded the chain with outputs with 0 satoshis paying to OP_TRUE.

So, let me see if I understood.
This spam transaction only went into the block just because the fee value was high enough to go with higher priority than any other, right? The other 39 transactions are already normal Bitcoin transactions that had higher fees than others in the mempool, yes?

[BrianH]

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

It could be argued that the vision was how no one would be in a position of power to intervene and prevent others transacting.  But what you propose is that someone in power should intervene and prevent others from transacting.  

Now imagine I'm in charge of one of your nation's security agencies or the treasury/taxation authorities.  In such a position, I wouldn't like how you're transacting without me knowing exactly who you are and what you are doing with your money.  Maybe you're funding terrorists or failing to pay your taxes.  How about I apply pressure to those same someones in power to prevent you from transacting in Bitcoin until you'll completed all the necessary KYC/AML and other privacy-crippling hurdles?  Things go to dark places very quickly when you consider the implications of what it is you're asking for here.  Censorship for some could easily escalate to censorship for all.

Personally, I take the view that your ideals are far more dangerous to Bitcoin's longevity than a bit of short-term congestion.  Bitcoin is neutral.  That means sometimes people will use it in ways you may not agree with.  But that's simply the price of freedom.

I don't understand this "censorship" argument. The ability to create BRC-20 tokens was recently added to Bitcoin's code by the developers. This is "censoring" people's ability to perform peer-to-peer transactions efficiently, which was the founder's vision for Bitcoin and is its #1 utility. IMO and many others - this change was a mistake. Changing the code requires consensus among the community. You're trying to draw a parallel with central authority and quasi-democratic changes where there is none. Bitcoin's trustless peer-to-peer protocol inherently avoids KYC/AML requirements, unless people give up their keys/rights and move trust to a central authority. In no way am I advocating for that. If you want better privacy features at the expense of less fungiblity and a more bulky blockchain there is also Monero.

[DooMAD]

I don't understand this "censorship" argument. The ability to create BRC-20 tokens was recently added to Bitcoin's code by the developers.

But other methods of creating tokens have existed for some time (see d5000's post).  BRC-20 is merely one of the first to gain significant popularity.  It's rare to see widespread use of tokens to the point where it has caused noticeable levels of congestion.  Someone managed to drum up a fair amount of hype for this particular implementation and so lots of people have opted to use it recently.  But equally, someone could just as easily have hyped up an earlier implementation which didn't utilise Taproot and we'd be in much the same position.  And if there was an agreed manner in which to close the Taproot loophole (and I'm not convinced that there will be), people may even elect to use one of those other existing implementations to clog up everyone's mempools once again.  And no doubt you'd then be calling for more intervention to censor that too.  Where does it end?   

Bitcoin still has the strongest security of any Proof-of-Work coin, the most prevalent network effects in terms of utility, and garners the most recognition on the world stage.  The silly-picture-brigade changes nothing in that regard.  I'm not going anywhere because of that.  But I would seriously consider my continued involvement in Bitcoin if your misguided ilk get their way.  Pleading to those you perceive to be a central authority (I'd also point out that devs aren't a central authority, so you've got that bit wrong, too) to prevent people from using Bitcoin is utterly repugnant to me.  Again, I perceive your ideals to be a bigger threat to the health and well-being of Bitcoin than any so-called spammer. 

[BrianH]

I don't understand this "censorship" argument. The ability to create BRC-20 tokens was recently added to Bitcoin's code by the developers.

And no doubt you'd then be calling for more intervention to censor that too.  Where does it end?  

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "censor" and "central authority" or else are throwing around harsh words to further your opinion to others. The well-being of Bitcoin's #1 use over the last 14 years and the trust that it has generated over that time as an always reliable method of peer-to-peer transactions, is under attack due to the spam these tokens have introduced. Let's both agree to disagree on how Bitcoin should be changed, going forward. The community will decide the consensus of how things should or should not be changed again.

[DooMAD]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "censor"

You want material you deem objectionable to be removed.  It's literally your thread title.  What else would you call it?

The well-being of Bitcoin's #1 use over the last 14 years and the trust that it has generated over that time as an always reliable method of peer-to-peer transactions

And yet the first thing it did was to record an embedded message in the genesis block.  All transactions came after that.



//EDIT:  Also, whilst I'm certainly no fan of John McAfee, I've just noticed the quote in your sig:

On government, "We are trying to develop a system of mathematics that eliminates the need for trust and the need for control." -John McAffee

It sounds to me like you have a need for both trust and control if you're calling for intervention for objectionable material to be removed.  You're deviating from your own principles.    

[d5000]

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since ...

If you change the content of the OP_RETURN in this tranasction to send 2000 USDT instead of 1000 USDT, the transaction is still a perfectly valid bitcoin transaction, will be relayed and mined. However it will no longer be a valid Tether/Omni transaction, and the Tether amount will not be transferred to the secondary address anymore.

Since none of these protocols are actually supported or enforced by the bitcoin protocol, we can't say "these 'tokens', etc. exist in bitcoin"

You're partly right, at least we can say "tokens are not part of the Bitcoin protocol". What's part of the Bitcoin protocol however is OP_RETURN, which allows storing of arbitrary data which can be ignored by the Bitcoin validation algorithm.

And token protocols are enforced in a similar way than Bitcoin transactions: They use Bitcoin PoW's decentralized timestamping quality to determine the transaction order. So while you can create a valid Bitcoin transaction which is not a valid token transaction, once you are using the token's extension protocol, the token's rules become enforced by the Bitcoin protocol plus the extension software.

I think that's more or less a discussion about semantics, though

[BrianH]

Coindesk had a related article, based on all these overhyped, practically useless meme tokens that are clogging up networks:

In S**tcoin Spring, any pointless cryptocurrency with a Twitter account can enchant thousands of traders into playing meme coin musical chairs. Throwing money at the wall and reason out the window, they let greed get the best of them. Sometimes literally.
...
It’s a story that showcases the dark psyche encouraged by those one-off tales of meme coin riches. For every lucky speculator up 5,000,000% on pepecoin (PEPE), there are thousands of gamblers losing money to insiders and trading bots. Some fall for malicious tokens designed to steal all the money in their wallets, not just the poker chips they’d anted up.
GREED could have been one of those. To get GREED, over 43,000 Twitter accounts this week authorized one man in Croatia to tweet on their behalf. A further 55,306 wallets signed an intentionally sussy-looking transaction that, in theory, might have let him drain their wallets.

But the creator of the GREED experiment doesn’t plan to steal their money (nor can he; his developers never built that code). Even so, Ivor Ivosevic, better known as Voshy to the Solana community, very much will s**tpost from those Twitter accounts.

In an interview with CoinDesk, Voshy said he wants to teach crypto traders a lesson, one that focuses on internet security – with maybe a dash of morality and sensibility, too. The thing’s called GREED, after all.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/05/15/greed-token-is-not-a-crypto-scam-but-a-lesson-on-how-to-get-scammed-amid-meme-coin-mania/

[bettercrypto]

Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchanges (see quote from Satoshi in sig). It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions. There are many altcoins that do a better job of providing this utility. Let them do that.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back. This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

I agree with what you said, Actually it should really no longer have brc20. Because bitcoin holders are okay, especially with fees when making a transaction in Bitcoin.

     When they created brc20, did it do any good? did it help bitcoin holders well? What I have clearly seen in the past 2 weeks is that brc20 has shocked us, given us a headache as a bitcoin holders, and deducted us a high transaction fees caused by this brc20 or ordinals. So it should be removed because it has no good effect and help for bitcoin holders. That's why only taproot can disable brc20 and ordinal when developers unite in my opinion.

[BlackHatCoiner]

When they created brc20, did it do any good?

Define "good".

did it help bitcoin holders well?

If that's your definition of "good", they I ought to say it's very poor and false. When I make transactions I don't expect to help Bitcoin holders. I only expect to satisfy myself.

So it should be removed because it has no good effect and help for bitcoin holders.

Really disappointed by your arrogance of knowing so perfectly what's good and bad for the rest of the users that you're in the position to enforce it on the protocol.

Listen up, and listen good: Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

[larry_vw_1955]

this is certainly an interesting thread. seems like they keep popping up but this one really has generated some intense discussion with good arguments back and forth. appreciate all you guys.

[NotATether]

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)

The only question remaining is... how? The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology? I mean, if Casey Rodarmor was able to ignite it by himself, any developer with modest bitcoin knowledge can.

However, it appeals to me that FedEx'ing all the BRC20 tokens to a sidechain is the best approach. This will allow us to say stuff like "more scalability and thus more tokens", and as a result boot them off mainnet and onto a sidechain.

Or:

Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 (despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter.

At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4

[pooya87]

This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology?

That's the main problem. The tokens are useless as an idea this is why any alternative is not going to work. We already have other "hype technology" from Ethereum to all the other token platforms. We even have at least 3 bitcoin sidechains and protocols created with the purpose of "token creation". However their uselessness means none of these are going to become serious projects.

In other words this means that they NEED TO create their garbage inside bitcoin blockchain to gain any kind of hype since at this point they have exhausted all their options.

That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer"

[larry_vw_1955]

That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer"

that sounds like it could get serious. 

[TechW87]

ordinals/brc20/etc is a direct attack on bitcoin by ETH maxis disguised as Decentralization maxis.

Its sad bitcoin maintainers dont want to fix this.

[serveria.com]

It's so nice to see so many "voice of reason" comments here. Delusional Ordinals/BRC-20 shills are drowning in this sea of anti-NFT comments. It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

[Z-tight]

It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

Ordinals didn't cause any loss, it wasn't an attack that compromised the network or people's wallet, not that it is even possible, so what has a lawsuit got to do with this. BTC is even a decentralized currency, so if you ever lose BTC in your self custody, no lawsuit can help you recover it. Ordinals truly takes up block space, but it isn't a threat to BTC; it only causes mempool congestion and makes people to pay higher tx fees to outbid others and get their transaction confirmed, it is surely going to cool off.

[larry_vw_1955]

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

i doubt that would hold up in court. you might have to go after individual people that are using his tool to abuse the network if that's the way you feel. imagine that. people uploading monkeys to bitcoin getting sent to jail. and that creates a chilling effect wherein other people become afraid to upload new monkeys and only trade monkeys on the darkweb...isn't that how bitcoin started out by the way? 

[mikeywith]

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

Not a fair compression IMO, SegWit implementation had no exclusion of a certain type or category of users, even the people who opposed it were essentially looking for the same goal that SegWit was going to accomplish they just thought their approach was better, maybe a few miners were upset about the fact that people can now transact cheaper using Segwit, but nothing major in terms of counter-arguments against SegWit.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

[serveria.com]

It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

Ordinals didn't cause any loss, it wasn't an attack that compromised the network or people's wallet, not that it is even possible, so what has a lawsuit got to do with this. BTC is even a decentralized currency, so if you ever lose BTC in your self custody, no lawsuit can help you recover it. Ordinals truly takes up block space, but it isn't a threat to BTC; it only causes mempool congestion and makes people to pay higher tx fees to outbid others and get their transaction confirmed, it is surely going to cool off.

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network. 

[pooya87]

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

Not a fair compression IMO,

I didn't compare the Ordinals Attack and its preventive measures with SegWit. I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

Back in 2017 those who were performing the different types of attack on bitcoin were also a community and their funds surpassed at least tens of millions of dollars.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

Again in 2017 the mining pools were making massive amount of profit from the spam attack and yet we managed to activate SegWit and the attack was also eventually eliminated.

[DooMAD]

It's so nice to see so many "voice of reason" comments here. Delusional Ordinals/BRC-20 shills are drowning in this sea of anti-NFT comments. It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings.

If you think more noise is going to yield your desired result, you might be disappointed.  You're still offering up a wishlist, rather than a course of action that everyone can agree upon.

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

As you seem to be one of the most aggrieved and are stating that there has been an impact on your business, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and get the ball rolling on that? 

Which legal precedent for 'an inventor being sued for people using their invention exactly as it was designed to be used' will you be invoking? 

Perhaps it's satoshi you need to sue?  Given that your argument is people aren't using their invention in the way you think it should be.

[BlackHatCoiner]

People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason.

There is a particular reason. Competition. It's a free market feature. Deal with it.

Cry all you want. Transactions are, by design, resilient to censorship.

I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

Honestly but how relevant a transaction malleability and scalability proposal is, in comparison with banning a certain type of transaction because you don't want to pay more in mining fees? I can't think of one relevance.

[Z-tight]

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

I am not contradicting myself, you say Ordinals caused huge losses like it created an opening for people's funds to be stolen in the network. TX fees isn't losses, a time will come when miners will receive incentive only through TX fees which will not be so cheap then, will it also be called losses at that time. I don't support this invention and i don't use it, but people are using it, and because the network is permissionless, they do not need my permission or yours to do so.

[NotATether]

I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused.  

i doubt that would hold up in court. you might have to go after individual people that are using his tool to abuse the network if that's the way you feel. imagine that. people uploading monkeys to bitcoin getting sent to jail. and that creates a chilling effect wherein other people become afraid to upload new monkeys and only trade monkeys on the darkweb...isn't that how bitcoin started out by the way?  

If you guys are still considering legal action, well good luck with that because the original Ordinals client is CC0-licensed (in other words, it's in the public domain).

[ABCbits]

Or:

Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 (despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter.

At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4

It sounds more realistic than you might expect when there are exchange which have BTC/tBTC pair. And they can even make argument testnet coin actually have value because there's cost to mine it.

Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network. 

As if suing Casey would stop people from using Ordinals. But if you or someone else suing Casey for such reason, i would classify such action as attack to open source software/development and i hope you went bankrupt after lose on court.

[dansus021]

To be honest BRC 20 is a great idea where we have smart contract like Etherum did build on popular and most recognizable blockchain BItcoin but it overloads the Bitcoin Network?'

I am just curious is there a possibility that Bitcoin has layer 2 but way way more efficient like Eth did with their layer 2 chain polygon arbitrum or optimism

[darkv0rt3x]

People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason.

There is a particular reason. Competition. It's a free market feature. Deal with it.

Cry all you want. Transactions are, by design, resilient to censorship.

I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

Honestly but how relevant a transaction malleability and scalability proposal is, in comparison with banning a certain type of transaction because you don't want to pay more in mining fees? I can't think of one relevance.

I understand and aknlowledge you hhave a point on the free market for fees, however, I still argue that this thing is using the Bitcoin network only as a cloud storage for crap stuff. This is not what Bitcoin was intended for. Wy wouldn't they go for BCH or BSV networks? I'm honestly asking because I don't know if this is technically possible!

Anyway, I still think something should be done regarding this attacks despite the fact that people may see this as an oportunity to make the network even stronger and resilient!

[DooMAD]

Wy wouldn't they go for BCH or BSV networks? I'm honestly asking because I don't know if this is technically possible!

Yeah, the BCH and BSV chains are stuffed full of images and other media.  Someone made an Ordinals equivalent for DOGE.  This stuff absolutely exists on other blockchains.  They just don't carry the same level of prestige as Bitcoin.

Anyway, I still think something should be done regarding this attacks despite the fact that people may see this as an oportunity to make the network even stronger and resilient!

The provision of an incentive is a natural way to encourage people to transact in a considerate manner, without trying to control them or deny their existence.  All this pitchforks-and-torches, tyrannical lynch-mob, "let's just ban it" mentality is discouraging.  I feel that approach would weaken the network.  It's about creating the right environment to incentivise the behaviour we'd like to see.  If the discussion were more along those lines, it would be more productive.  Things like this would provide an incentive and offer a more efficient way for gullible speculators to buy and sell silly pictures.  Even if the rest of us think it's stupid. 

[darkv0rt3x]

Things like this would provide an incentive and offer a more efficient way for gullible speculators to buy and sell silly pictures.  Even if the rest of us think it's stupid. 

That was what I was referring to. If these Ordinals, BRC-20 and ORC-20 were not possible in Bitcoin, those patches-on-top-of-patches wouldn't be needed. But seems that devs are not considering this as an attack! Some of us, do consider it an attack!

[DooMAD]

those patches-on-top-of-patches wouldn't be needed.

Just because you might not personally need them, doesn't mean other people don't.  At the end of the day, if you can find a way to build it and it works, it's very difficult for people to stop you.  Which is precisely why no one can shut Bitcoin down (that's a good thing, in case you needed the hint).

Just imagine the number of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments who wish they could just snap their fingers and make Bitcoin disappear forever.  But they can't.  And yet, here people are saying they want to undermine the very freedoms that make it impossible for those entities to shut us down.  Don't you see how reckless that it?

Building more efficient ways to transact is always preferable versus trying to find ways to stop people transacting.  Because once it's possible to stop people, THEN you'll find out what an "attack" on Bitcoin really looks like.  I sincerely hope no one ever finds a way to prevent people from transacting.  And I wish people understood why that's so unbelievably important.  

Will people please listen to reason and stop being so short-sighted?

[darkv0rt3x]

Just because you might not personally need them, doesn't mean other people don't.  At the end of the day, if you can find a way to build it and it works, it's very difficult for people to stop you.  Which is precisely why no one can shut Bitcoin down (that's a good thing, in case you needed the hint).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I might not personally need them", doesn't mean other people don't". I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf. The base layer was perfect as it was. It didn't need the extra garbage!

Just imagine the number of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments who wish they could just snap their fingers and make Bitcoin disappear forever.  But they can't.  And yet, here people are saying they want to undermine the very freedoms that make it impossible for those entities to shut us down.  Don't you see how reckless that it?

Did the Ordinals / Inscriptions, BRC-20 and ORC-20 changed any of that? Bitcoin was already like that before! As of now, the only way to shut Bitcoin down is to bring the entire internet down, and even so, as soon as any node at any point of the world became online again, it was enough to resume the network again. So, all these new garbage didn't bring anything new to the network.

Building more efficient ways to transact is always preferable versus trying to find ways to stop people transacting.  Because once it's possible to stop people, THEN you'll find out what an "attack" on Bitcoin really looks like.  I sincerely hope no one ever finds a way to prevent people from transacting.  And I wish people understood why that's so unbelievably important. 

Will people please listen to reason and stop being so short-sighted?

I understand that but the thing here is that this is only atracting shitcoiners! Bitcoin doesn't need shitcoiners! And it seems that these tokens (or whatever people call them) brought more adoption and more "traffic" to the network, but the point is also that thhey are not using the network to what it was supposed to be used in the first place! They are using it as cloud storage!

This is my view and I simply can't agree with this garbage!

[DooMAD]

Just because you might not personally need them, doesn't mean other people don't.  At the end of the day, if you can find a way to build it and it works, it's very difficult for people to stop you.  Which is precisely why no one can shut Bitcoin down (that's a good thing, in case you needed the hint).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I might not personally need them", doesn't mean other people don't". I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf. The base layer was perfect as it was. It didn't need the extra garbage!

Just imagine the number of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments who wish they could just snap their fingers and make Bitcoin disappear forever.  But they can't.  And yet, here people are saying they want to undermine the very freedoms that make it impossible for those entities to shut us down.  Don't you see how reckless that it?

Did the Ordinals / Inscriptions, BRC-20 and ORC-20 changed any of that? Bitcoin was already like that before! As of now, the only way to shut Bitcoin down is to bring the entire internet down, and even so, as soon as any node at any point of the world became online again, it was enough to resume the network again. So, all these new garbage didn't bring anything new to the network.

Building more efficient ways to transact is always preferable versus trying to find ways to stop people transacting.  Because once it's possible to stop people, THEN you'll find out what an "attack" on Bitcoin really looks like.  I sincerely hope no one ever finds a way to prevent people from transacting.  And I wish people understood why that's so unbelievably important. 

Will people please listen to reason and stop being so short-sighted?

I understand that but the thing here is that this is only atracting shitcoiners! Bitcoin doesn't need shitcoiners! And it seems that these tokens (or whatever people call them) brought more adoption and more "traffic" to the network, but the point is also that thhey are not using the network to what it was supposed to be used in the first place! They are using it as cloud storage!

This is my view and I simply can't agree with this garbage!

*sigh*

I don't see how this is so difficult for people to grasp.  Embedding non-financial data in the blockchain has always been there.  People have been doing it for years.  There's simply more of it now.  This has always been possible. 

On top of having that part wrong, your instinctive reaction to "fix" it is to CHANGE Bitcoin, in order to introduce gatekeepers to determine what is or isn't acceptable usage.  This is fundamentally wrong, because once that's possible, law enforcement agencies will start looking for ways to introduce gatekeepers to prevent anyone who hasn't completed KYC from transacting.  That would cause a pretty rapid end to this little experiment and Bitcoin would be considered a colossal failure.  And that's just one possible example of ways things would turn to shit real quick if even a few of the censorship advocates in this topic had their way.

You are the bigger threat if you think gatekeepers in Bitcoin are a good idea.  YOU are the ATTACK here.

Thankfully, the protocol cares about your "views" as much as it does the views of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments.  As such, the network will continue to accept transactions some would rather see blocked.  Because that's what it was designed to do.

Some here consider Ripple a centralised shitcoin because it has centralised validation.  It's the one where traditional finance institutions are building a permissioned network.  Effectively, banks control the chain.  At all times, they get to determine what is valid and what is invalid.  They can also freeze balances if they choose to.  But it's considered highly efficient.  There are no silly pictures embedded in Ripple as far as I'm aware.  Perhaps you'd rather take a look at that if you're struggling to cope with the level of freedom Bitcoin has afforded you.  It sounds more akin to what you want.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But seems that devs are not considering this as an attack!

Why should they?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I might not personally need them", doesn't mean other people don't". I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf. The base layer was perfect as it was. It didn't need the extra garbage!

Seems rather your singular behalf, as the protocol doesn't understand "extra garbage". It understands valid and invalid. I can agree it's valid garbage, but apparently acknowledging something is garbage versus invalidating that something because it's garbage does not seem orders of magnitude different to most here. But it is.

Did the Ordinals / Inscriptions, BRC-20 and ORC-20 changed any of that? Bitcoin was already like that before! As of now, the only way to shut Bitcoin down is to bring the entire internet down, and even so, as soon as any node at any point of the world became online again, it was enough to resume the network again. So, all these new garbage didn't bring anything new to the network.

Answer the following question and you'll understand the point: are my financial transactions any more useful to you than Ordinals?

[pooya87]

Answer the following question and you'll understand the point: are my financial transactions any more useful to you than Ordinals?

You are basically saying that just because other people's transaction doesn't matter to you then we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage because that junk data also doesn't matter to you!!!

[serveria.com]

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

I am not contradicting myself, you say Ordinals caused huge losses like it created an opening for people's funds to be stolen in the network. TX fees isn't losses, a time will come when miners will receive incentive only through TX fees which will not be so cheap then, will it also be called losses at that time. I don't support this invention and i don't use it, but people are using it, and because the network is permissionless, they do not need my permission or yours to do so.

Yes they are losses. If a user paid 1sat/byte for a transaction before ordinals attack and now the same user has to pay 100sat/byte because there are 500000 monkey pics queued in mempool the user is losing money/Bitcoin. The network has come to a complete stall now after the BRC20 attack joined ordinals attack in a massive ddos targeted at Bitcoin. 

[stompix]

I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf.

Does Bitcoin know about this?
Who made you the spokesperson of Bitcoin?

If I remember correctly, one of the garbage that Bitcoin was supposed to get rid of was centralization, so we wouldn't have a single leadership and a guy deciding what is best for millions, and look where we are, somebody suddenly feels like Jesus and he's speaking for all of us!

Just imagine the number of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments who wish they could just snap their fingers and make Bitcoin disappear forever.  But they can't. 

I'm starting to doubt this. According to some around here, a bunch of JPGs and daily fees that are not even the budget of third rate government agencies are enough to launch a terrorist attack on bitcoin and make the network unusable by the average Joe with only whales being able to use Bitcoin.

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.
I've seen numerous threads about how Bitcoin has 100-200 million users worldwide, now, the simple question is, what will happen if every single on of them would want to just do a transaction? 
A regular, normal transaction, that is not a jpg monkey, verified by all peers, eco friendly sustainable, with a positive value to the economy, rated 5 stars even by the defenders of the Palantir or how the hell does the mob of anti ordinals call themselves?

What do we do then to bring the fees down?
- we ban mixers and tumblers?
- we ban consolidations?
- we ban tx between 0.04645 and 0.38651 ?
- we ban tx sent any other time than between 8-16 during weekdays?

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

[BlackHatCoiner]

You are basically saying that just because other people's transaction doesn't matter to you then we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage because that junk data also doesn't matter to you!!!

No. You twisted my words. I never said we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage. I find it a very dumb idea. I implied that if a group of people want to use it as cloud storage, they can have the option as long as they pay the respective cost. If I wanted the former, I'd be a strong supporter of big blocks; the 4 MB blocks make such concept too pricey to carry on.

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

As you have rightly pointed out, we can't stay the same... Unless of course our goal isn't global adoption. The way I see it, is that the average Joe will never want to switch to Bitcoin, unless there's repealing of cash which will introduce the need for electronic cash, but that's just one extreme scenario for the time being. The average Joe never prioritized self-custody, so I doubt handing it over will mind him much.

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.
I've seen numerous threads about how Bitcoin has 100-200 million users worldwide, now, the simple question is, what will happen if every single on of them would want to just do a transaction?  

rolling up my sleeves:

well that would mean the mempool of unconfirmed transactions would be huge. how big? well, assuming the lower end at 100 million users and say the average transaction size is 500 bytes. Then we would be looking at 50,000 MB mempool or 50GB. It gets worse though. Assuming the often quoted 7 transactions per second, and assuming a transaction would stay in the mempool until it got confirmed (which is not the case obviously) and everything worked on a FIFO basis, people could expect their transaction to clear in about 82 days. That's over 2 months. Slower than the US Postal Service by orders of magnitude. But still more reliable...

What do we do then to bring the fees down?
- we ban mixers and tumblers?
- we ban consolidations?
- we ban tx between 0.04645 and 0.38651 ?
- we ban tx sent any other time than between 8-16 during weekdays?

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

Well yeah, don't send as often. Maybe wait for times when fees are lower. That's about all you can do.

[DooMAD]

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.
I've seen numerous threads about how Bitcoin has 100-200 million users worldwide, now, the simple question is, what will happen if every single on of them would want to just do a transaction? 
A regular, normal transaction, that is not a jpg monkey, verified by all peers, eco friendly sustainable, with a positive value to the economy, rated 5 stars even by the defenders of the Palantir or how the hell does the mob of anti ordinals call themselves?

What do we do then to bring the fees down?
- we ban mixers and tumblers?
- we ban consolidations?
- we ban tx between 0.04645 and 0.38651 ?
- we ban tx sent any other time than between 8-16 during weekdays?

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

Precisely.  That is why calls from impatient, entitled censorship advocates will fall on deaf ears and devs will continue to focus on scaling and other important factors.  Devs see the big picture and understand what they're building towards.  Whereas the entitled censorship advocates will make a lot of noise, completely fail to raise a single valid point (because they understand very little) and they'll never lift a finger to enact change.

Censorship advocates are already on the wrong side of history.  They just don't know it yet.

[serveria.com]

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.
I've seen numerous threads about how Bitcoin has 100-200 million users worldwide, now, the simple question is, what will happen if every single on of them would want to just do a transaction? 
A regular, normal transaction, that is not a jpg monkey, verified by all peers, eco friendly sustainable, with a positive value to the economy, rated 5 stars even by the defenders of the Palantir or how the hell does the mob of anti ordinals call themselves?

What do we do then to bring the fees down?
- we ban mixers and tumblers?
- we ban consolidations?
- we ban tx between 0.04645 and 0.38651 ?
- we ban tx sent any other time than between 8-16 during weekdays?

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

Precisely.  That is why calls from impatient, entitled censorship advocates will fall on deaf ears and devs will continue to focus on scaling and other important factors.  Devs see the big picture and understand what they're building towards.  Whereas the entitled censorship advocates will make a lot of noise, completely fail to raise a single valid point (because they understand very little) and they'll never lift a finger to enact change.

Censorship advocates are already on the wrong side of history.  They just don't know it yet.

Paradoxically, I'm anti-censorship and I also hate ordinals spam at the same time. Fighting spam has nothing to do with censorship. I also really hope that this attack will end naturally and we won't be forced to take any counter-measures (censorship as you call it). 

[HmmMAA]

I also really hope that this attack will end naturally and we won't be forced to take any counter-measures (censorship as you call it). 

DeFi is around the corner for btc , sooner or later someone will find a way to make it real , then the real pain will kick in . If that happens i expect insane fee prices , what happened so far in mempool will look like a fart compared to a nuke . Anyway , it's an interesting time to see how things will evolve .

[larry_vw_1955]

DeFi is around the corner for btc , sooner or later someone will find a way to make it real , then the real pain will kick in .

You mean like having a sushiswap on the bitcoin blockchain? 

If that happens i expect insane fee prices , what happened so far in mempool will look like a fart compared to a nuke .

would that mean bitcoin is destroyed at least temporarily until fees got back under control?

Anyway , it's an interesting time to see how things will evolve .

not for people that don't like paying big fees. they just want fees to go back down to reasonable levels but the problem is there is nothing in the bitcoin protocol that defines what a reasonable fee is. it could be anything.

[pooya87]

I implied that if a group of people want to use it as cloud storage, they can have the option as long as they pay the respective cost.

This is where you and I disagree. I say we should not allow bitcoin blockchain to be largely used for something other than a "peer to peer electronic cash" ledger, in this case for cloud storage.

The "cost" you are talking about is also a soft preventive measure and it can not work against this type of attack where there is an incentive. We need a hard limit on the witness version 1 size (similar to version 0).

Keep in mind that this could only be the start. There is nothing stopping others to continue using bitcoin as a cloud storage at a much larger scale effectively rendering it useless as a payment network.

[BrianH]

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.

Excellent point! Can you imagine how much this spam is hurting El Salvador? Their minimum wage averages around $300/month. The BRC-20 transaction fee was >10% of what they earned in a month. This bug that was introduced a few months ago must be strangling global adoption of Bitcoin. Even the current fee is prohibitive. Anyone who was using Bitcoin in El Salvador must be switching to alternatives now.

This argument really boils down to who will use Bitcoin?
1. A few elites who want to use Bitcoin to stick a $27,000 copy of a monkey picture in the blockchain
2. Everyone who wants to send a trustless, unrestricted, decentralized, peer-to-peer transaction, which Bitcoin has already served reliably as for over 14 years.

not for people that don't like paying big fees. they just want fees to go back down to reasonable levels but the problem is there is nothing in the bitcoin protocol that defines what a reasonable fee is. it could be anything.

That's a great point. The fee is how Bitcoin controls what is "reasonable." Supply and demand increases this fee and limits how many people can send Bitcoin. This ordinals bug has artificially changed Bitcoin's purpose in support of a few moneyed individuals, eroding its original use case for the last 14 years. Demand will fall as people abandon Bitcoin in favor of other coins.

Demand is falling...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-outflows-poor-bitcoin-btc-sentiment-coinshares

Crypto sees 5th week of outflows on 'poor' BTC sentiment: Coinshares

Institutional investor sentiment over digital assets took another beating last week, with “poor sentiment” around Bitcoin leading to yet another week of outflows of digital asset investment products.
...
Institutional BTC shedding

Butterfill noted that Bitcoin investment products have seen $112 million worth of outflows so far this year, with 90% of the sum coming in May alone, while short-Bitcoin products have seen $34.8 million worth of outflows over May.

Butterfill, however, noted that it is “unclear why there is such coordinated negative sentiment for both long and short investment products.”

[darkv0rt3x]

Does Bitcoin know about this?
Who made you the spokesperson of Bitcoin?

If I remember correctly, one of the garbage that Bitcoin was supposed to get rid of was centralization, so we wouldn't have a single leadership and a guy deciding what is best for millions, and look where we are, somebody suddenly feels like Jesus and he's speaking for all of us!

You either being sarcastic or you completely missed the point and misunderstood me!

I was answering directly to this quote of yours.

Just because you might not personally need them, doesn't mean other people don't.

This is not about me as you made it look here! I could have said the same. It's not just because other people need this garbage that make it more viable to be inserted in the blockchain.

[BlackHatCoiner]

This is where you and I disagree. I say we should not allow bitcoin blockchain to be largely used for something other than a "peer to peer electronic cash" ledger, in this case for cloud storage.

Neither do I want that, but I want it less than I want to not turn Bitcoin into a censorship nightmare. I'm honestly curious if you've read my points. There's no way to prevent someone from using it as a cloud storage; yes, you can disincentivize financially, but we already do that. It's called block size limit. Anything beyond that introduces subjectivity into play. If there's real demand for these Ordinals, which I think it's questionable but say if, then it won't take long until they avoid your "measures" and turn into indistinguishable Bitcoin transactions.

[TryNinja]

If it's so profitable to mint a PepeShitDoge #1133 NFT even if with a $20 tx fee, can anybody tell me how blocking Ordinals' and BRC-20's current solution is enough to prevent those users from finding another way of ""exploiting"" the network to give life to their frog images?

Let's say we patch how Ordinals/BRC-20 currently sees and interacts with their tokens and now you can't send a single 1000 vByte tx to mint your jpeg. Don't you guys think that they will find other ways, let's say, by designing a protocol that allows 5 txs to address X resulting in a "mint"? Will this actually stop anyone?

Space is still limited, the network is still permissionless and anyone can send as many txs as they want. If there is incentive (or a reason and enough capital), people can clog up the network. Am I wrong?

[NotATether]

Does Bitcoin know about this?
Who made you the spokesperson of Bitcoin?

If I remember correctly, one of the garbage that Bitcoin was supposed to get rid of was centralization, so we wouldn't have a single leadership and a guy deciding what is best for millions, and look where we are, somebody suddenly feels like Jesus and he's speaking for all of us!

With this line of thinking, there ends up being no spokesperson for Bitcoin at all, which is not necessarily a good thing. It means nobody is voicing any decisions of their own. Consensus depends on many people making their own decisions and picking a majority.

Now, if everyone says what they think should be done (as opposed to doing, which, as you can see, nobody really has the power to do by themselves), the opinions end up cancelling out each other until we get some sort of majority.


Now, and this is for all of you:

Do you guys really think the arguing w/ each other like this, in Bitcointalk, will solve anything?

We could be going on like this for 20 pages but it won't change a thing about the state of the network.

The only way about this, is to argue with the people with a shard of power in implementing changes (that is, core developers, exchange bosses, and anyone who makes a Bitcoin software) or by arguing with those who flood Bitcoin with tokens, in the hopes that it changes their mind.


Those of you who believe that Ordinals should be eliminated from the network, take an action against it as outlined above. A majority of Bitcoin users taking a stance against it will force people and companies to start acting.

[pooya87]

This is where you and I disagree. I say we should not allow bitcoin blockchain to be largely used for something other than a "peer to peer electronic cash" ledger, in this case for cloud storage.

Neither do I want that, but I want it less than I want to not turn Bitcoin into a censorship nightmare. I'm honestly curious if you've read my points. There's no way to prevent someone from using it as a cloud storage; yes, you can disincentivize financially, but we already do that. It's called block size limit. Anything beyond that introduces subjectivity into play. If there's real demand for these Ordinals, which I think it's questionable but say if, then it won't take long until they avoid your "measures" and turn into indistinguishable Bitcoin transactions.

You calling it censorship also doesn't make any sense because you never called version 0 censorship when it placed a limit on the witness size preventing exactly this attack. So why all of a sudden requiring to place similar limit on version 1 is considered censorship?!
BTW the incentive is the parallel market for gambling on these fake-tokens that provides the money they need to spam the chain with their arbitrary data. In other words the fees won't bother or disincentivize them.

[TryNinja]

If such protocol need to create multiple transaction, it'd create big overhead (more vBytes used for things other than their arbitrary data) and extra implementation complexity. I'd say it would stop some people and there would be less software/website to interact with the protocol due to the complexity. Although for BRC-20, they can just use OP_RETURN.

I'm not sure if that's the case. People just want an excuse to launch ponzis and new NFT projects, which can make them money, and using the Bitcoin network just gives them this air of being "a new thing". You already need to jump a bunch of hops just to use Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens, and everything is very user unfriendly... even I thought it was way too complicated and full of issues i.e if you spend a "specific sat", you lose your Ordinal... like wtf...

Don't you think that the pandora box has been opened and people will keep finding new ways of using the Bitcoin protocol as a ponzi ecossystem? A new software won't stop people, so I feel like this is a lost battle. Also, some people say this makes attacking BTC easier, but this is plain false. 1 MB in Ordinal transactions = 1 MB in "normal" transactions (and any bad state can overpay to clog up the network, with or without Ordinals/BRC-20 tokens).

[stompix]

~

You either being sarcastic or you completely missed the point and misunderstood me!

How can I misunderstand this?

I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf.

I was answering directly to this quote of yours.

It's not my quote and you couldn't have answered any of my posts since that one was my first post in the topic.  

With this line of thinking, there ends up being no spokesperson for Bitcoin at all, which is not necessarily a good thing. It means nobody is voicing any decisions of their own. Consensus depends on many people making their own decisions and picking a majority.

Worse than the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco? Doubt it!
Besides, there is a huge difference between one hundred people showing their proposals and 1 million voting for what they think is the best one and one guy telling others how things will be done. This is the thing with decentralization, there is no official spokesperson, and the community decides who the best spokesperson is by following him and agreeing with his choices. Any other "solution" is just reverting to a centralized dictatorial system.

Excellent point! Can you imagine how much this spam is hurting El Salvador? Their minimum wage averages around $300/month. The BRC-20 transaction fee was >10% of what they earned in a month. This bug that was introduced a few months ago must be strangling global adoption of Bitcoin. Even the current fee is prohibitive. Anyone who was using Bitcoin in El Salvador must be switching to alternatives now.

Sorry, but you missed the second point.
Banning monkeys or orcs 20 or borgs 40 or whatever won't help the people of Salvador if every of the 100 million Indians that supposedly own Bitcoin would decide to make a tx.  Even if 10% of the people in Salvador will make one onchain tx per day it will be enough just for them to clog the network. Bitcoin needs to scale, that's it! It doesn't get any more simple than this.

[OgNasty]

Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchanges (see quote from Satoshi in sig). It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions. There are many altcoins that do a better job of providing this utility. Let them do that.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back. This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

I don't see any difference between BRC-20's use of the blockchain and the Lightning network's use.  I also don't think taproot is what enabled the current issues as much as segwit, but what do I know? 

You say Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchange, and then go on to say it has become digital gold.  Is evolution of the protocol a good thing or a bad thing?  Did you expect that the Lightning network would continue to have a blockspace advantage without thinking other projects wouldn't take advantage of it as well?  If anything, this BRC-20 stuff is long overdue.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You calling it censorship also doesn't make any sense because you never called version 0 censorship when it placed a limit on the witness size preventing exactly this attack.

I do understand the purpose of such limitations, but please acknowledge this isn't going to prevent people from using Bitcoin as a cloud storage. You can't prevent that, even if you completely break forwards-compatibility and invalidate every transaction that isn't standard. You're just going to make the rules stricter, making the Bitcoin network vulnerable to enforcing rules based on subjective criteria.

So why all of a sudden requiring to place similar limit on version 1 is considered censorship?!

Because now people make usage of it, and because I'm not so ignorant to tell what people are allowed to do in the most freedom-supporting network on the planet.

Note that I wasn't into Bitcoin when SegWit was activated, so I have to accept rules that you may had found me disagreeing with.

[darkv0rt3x]

How can I misunderstand this?

It's not my quote and you couldn't have answered any of my posts since that one was my first post in the topic.  

Indeed, I was confused by the avatars!
But still, it was not my intention to assume myself as any spokesman of Bitcoin or whatever. I just wanted to point out that "it was not me not needing" the ordinals and the other crap. I was saying that, as many others, I don't agree with this garbage in the blockchain!

[takuma sato]

This is what happens when Ethereumtards take over Bitcoin development. If Ethereum had a role that was to keep Bitcoin away from all the nonsense, since all the nonsense would be hosted on the so called Ethereum blockchain, now that isn't enough for them so they have to ruin Bitcoin by bringing the nonsense into the actual Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin Core should just block all this stuff, most nodes are Bitcoin Core nodes. Im not sure if Taproot was even needed. The more stuff you add the more window of opportunity for various blockchain spam use cases would show up, it's one of those things. Bitcoin already did what it had to do before any of that was implemented. As far as miners being happy because it raises fees, well, segwit lowered fees and it was rolled in.

[HmmMAA]

Yes, the "pandora box" has been opened. But i'd say spam prevention to reduce incentive or makes such attack more costly should be done regardless.

I really can't grasp the spam term . As long as they pay the fees their transactions are valid . As spam is considered a free/cheap method to achieve a goal , i would consider as spam the transactions that get into blocks with a low fee .  Those that transmit transactions with fees under the current low ( 20 sats/vB ) are the spammers in current situation .

[BlackHatCoiner]

I really can't grasp the spam term .

I come to realize that you're correct. There is no universal consensus on what's "spam", for the Bitcoin blockchain at least. We're free to enforce our views in our node, but when it comes to the end point, which what gets into the ledger, all transactions should be viewed equally.

As spam is considered a free/cheap method to achieve a goal , i would consider as spam the transactions that get into blocks with a low fee

Why is that spam? The miner is free to choose whichever transaction he wants. Why would it make a difference if it paid a fortune or if it paid nothing?

[HmmMAA]

Why is that spam? The miner is free to choose whichever transaction he wants. Why would it make a difference if it paid a fortune or if it paid nothing?

I agree , there's no spam . As long as fees are paid there can't be considered as such . But if you have have to define something as spam , you definitely can't name the transaction that pays more fees a spam .

Edit . But if a part of the community has a problem with the congested mempool i'd suggest to them to either raise fees for their transactions or stop transacting and let mempool decrease in size .

[BrianH]

If Ethereum had a role that was to keep Bitcoin away from all the nonsense, since all the nonsense would be hosted on the so called Ethereum blockchain, now that isn't enough for them so they have to ruin Bitcoin by bringing the nonsense into the actual Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin Core should just block all this stuff, most nodes are Bitcoin Core nodes. Im not sure if Taproot was even needed. The more stuff you add the more window of opportunity for various blockchain spam use cases would show up, it's one of those things. Bitcoin already did what it had to do before any of that was implemented. As far as miners being happy because it raises fees, well, segwit lowered fees and it was rolled in.

Great point. I think the people who want to change the original use for Bitcoin into every other cryptocurrency are short sighted. Bitcoin is currently losing marketshare to Ethereum as institutions are withdrawing their money from the network, due to this change. If people no longer use Bitcoin, the value of that monkey pic in the blockchain will also go to zero.

Pro-BRC-20 bug people can argue all they want in favor of this change, but it will not change the fact that BTC is losing marketshare. You can see this decline in how much it has declined in the last week vs Ethereum. Altcoins nearly always decline faster than Bitcoin as people move their funds to Bitcoin, as a safe haven - no longer. I've pulled nearly all of my investment out of Bitcoin until this bug gets fixed.

No one is arguing that the primary use case for Bitcoin was a method of peer-to-peer exchange for the last 14 years. If you alter the original coin to devalue that primary use case, it becomes generic and it will fade away like thousands of cryptos that came after it. Changes to support its primary use case should always be encouraged. That's why Segwit was eventually adopted, because although it may have temporarily reduced miner's fees, it improved the primary use case, adoption and value of Bitcoin.

There is obviously a major schism in the community, which I have not seen since Bitcoin Cash. I see this eventually resulting in a soft or hard fork. If the pro-BRC-20 bug people want to create monkey pics on a forked chain, that's fine with me.

I do think the Devs read Bitcointalk and I think it's important to keep this thread alive. I hope they focus on their technical discussion, instead of disrupting it with spam.

[pooya87]

I also don't think taproot is what enabled the current issues as much as segwit, but what do I know? 

Considering how this attack has become possible by exploiting an oversight in the Taproot script validation rules, this is a Taproot related issue not a SegWit related one.

but please acknowledge this isn't going to prevent people from using Bitcoin as a cloud storage. You can't prevent that,

That's true but it depends on what we mean by "cloud storage". If it is the very small size we allow to be stored in an OP_RETURN output for example, then we can't prevent that and we aren't. But if it is the exploitation of protocol to store any size without limit (except the block size) then we can prevent it well. We've done that for the past 14 years.

even if you completely break forwards-compatibility and invalidate every transaction that isn't standard. You're just going to make the rules stricter, making the Bitcoin network vulnerable to enforcing rules based on subjective criteria.

It won't break anything and saying that a single transaction with 1 input/output must not be allowed to be ~4 MB in size to store garbage on chain to scam idiots who would pay for this garbage, is not called "subjective criteria".

Because now people make usage of it, and because I'm not so ignorant to tell what people are allowed to do in the most freedom-supporting network on the planet.

Well there is a big difference between usage and exploit.

[BlackHatCoiner]

That's true but it depends on what we mean by "cloud storage".

There aren't lots of definitions for the term. It simply means to allow storage of information. Besides OP_RETURN there are standard scripts, which you can't distinguish if they're used as cloud storage or for legitimate usage. (And at that point, you will have really screwed things up, because the UTXO set will be used as that storage)

If it is the very small size we allow to be stored in an OP_RETURN output for example

Comparably to what standardness allows, it's not. You can fit as much as an entire, 4 MB block in an OP_RETURN output, and it will be valid.

But if it is the exploitation of protocol to store any size without limit (except the block size) then we can prevent it well.

That's true for all transactions.

It won't break anything and saying that a single transaction with 1 input/output must not be allowed to be ~4 MB in size to store garbage on chain to scam idiots who would pay for this garbage, is not called "subjective criteria".

As if it was possible to add more inputs to bypassing that, right?  

If you think it's garbage, and all that are just greater fool theory schemes, then the best approach is to let it pass, as you're so sure it will!

[mikeywith]

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

Not a fair compression IMO,

I didn't compare the Ordinals Attack and its preventive measures with SegWit. I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

What I mean by "compression" is in terms of both actions revolving around the same thing, which is a request to change the protocol, you compare that SegWit "change" to this "ban" change as if they are equally the same, which is why I said it's not a fair compression, back then, you had people who wanted to increase blocksize (Bcash folks with Bitmain siding them), basically just a small group of people who did not want that change to happen despite not having a major disagreement, they just thought their way of fixing things was better.

Banning ordinals now is a completely different story, it's not just Roger and his friends now, it's a large community of actual BTC users, a dozen YouTubers/influencers waiting for the core devs to take any "censorship" action so they can fill their social media content for the rest of the year.

My take on these ordinals and BRC-20 tokens will likely vanish or slow down close to nothing in a few months from now (I checked most top projects, telegram groups, and influencers and etc. The folks behind all this are too weak to sustain it, unlike how everything looks from the outside, the majority of those folks are just trying to get rich overnight and all of them will get rekt, move on with their lives and go back to living with their grandmother)

if we don't want to let the free market handle them, a ban of some sort shouldn't be carried out now while the hype is still high, just give them a few months, people will find a new "trend" and nobody will even notice that they were banned then.

[buwaytress]

Does anyone feel like the problem is actually already self-correcting even quicker than some (or say, myself) predicted? The market cap for these junk coins should be growing, with the amount of new junk entering, yet it's more or less stable (if not shrinking from first week May when it exploded).

That already means the ponzi has peaked. Or that people have moved on to alternatives. Or that the group of sheep is drying up. Or a combination of all of them.

As we, and they, roundly expected, no?

[NotATether]

Does anyone feel like the problem is actually already self-correcting even quicker than some (or say, myself) predicted? The market cap for these junk coins should be growing, with the amount of new junk entering, yet it's more or less stable (if not shrinking from first week May when it exploded).

That already means the ponzi has peaked. Or that people have moved on to alternatives. Or that the group of sheep is drying up. Or a combination of all of them.

As we, and they, roundly expected, no?

Eh, I actually saw this coming. It happens during every "sheep hype".

Once the sheep hype reaches its peak in that all the sheep are rounded together, the wolves are let in and devour them all (well, almost all of them - some sheep are actually smart enough to escape with their lives).

I'm not expecting these sheep to have learned anything from this experiment, but if next time they unleash a shitcoin wave on a Layer 2 network, then at least that shows that the crypto community is collectively becoming a bit competent.

[PawGo]

I'm not expecting these sheep to have learned anything from this experiment, but if next time they unleash a shitcoin wave on a Layer 2 network, then at least that shows that the crypto community is collectively becoming a bit competent.

Or just a bad timing.
Or maybe not enough twitter/youtube/tiktok experts were talking about that and as an effect it did not bring expected amount of $.

If it was a bad timing, sooner or later it will come back.

[mendace]

Does anyone feel like the problem is actually already self-correcting even quicker than some (or say, myself) predicted? The market cap for these junk coins should be growing, with the amount of new junk entering, yet it's more or less stable (if not shrinking from first week May when it exploded).

That already means the ponzi has peaked. Or that people have moved on to alternatives. Or that the group of sheep is drying up. Or a combination of all of them.

As we, and they, roundly expected, no?

Eh, I actually saw this coming. It happens during every "sheep hype".

Once the sheep hype reaches its peak in that all the sheep are rounded together, the wolves are let in and devour them all (well, almost all of them - some sheep are actually smart enough to escape with their lives).

I'm not expecting these sheep to have learned anything from this experiment, but if next time they unleash a shitcoin wave on a Layer 2 network, then at least that shows that the crypto community is collectively becoming a bit competent.

You say there are competent users among the sheep?  mmh I've always doubted this because whoever buys this rubbish does it with the intention that it can enrich their pockets and therefore foolishly makes the mistake and a sheep, as you rightly said, is eaten by the wolf while those few users who know well wolves will never invest a cent.  because they are not sheep but foxes.  I still see too much shit around and too many sheep.

[buwaytress]

Once the sheep hype reaches its peak in that all the sheep are rounded together, the wolves are let in and devour them all (well, almost all of them - some sheep are actually smart enough to escape with their lives).

I'm not expecting these sheep to have learned anything from this experiment, but if next time they unleash a shitcoin wave on a Layer 2 network, then at least that shows that the crypto community is collectively becoming a bit competent.

You say there are competent users among the sheep?  mmh I've always doubted this because whoever buys this rubbish does it with the intention that it can enrich their pockets and therefore foolishly makes the mistake and a sheep, as you rightly said, is eaten by the wolf while those few users who know well wolves will never invest a cent.  because they are not sheep but foxes.  I still see too much shit around and too many sheep.

Some sheep get away, believe they became wolves, and return for the next feeding trough, only to fall the second time. That's usually how greed works. Some do live on, believing they were geniuses, though to be fair, I might have met in my life one or two who understand it was pure luck, and retire happily as regulars.

I suppose we need all kinds to keep this wheel spinning. Bitcoin was the latest to brush shoulders with it, but that really is the beauty of it, all are free to use it as they please, and to move on when they realise it no longer suits them.

Meanwhile, haven't seen 100 sat/byte recommended fee despite mempool still towering high.

[NotATether]

You say there are competent users among the sheep?

After huge pumps and dumps / crashes / scams and other fails, a tiny amount of shitcoiners become enlightened and see the errors of these coins, and become Bitcoiners. But most don't learn, that part is true.

[TryNinja]

Ordinals bad? Even Peter Schiff, Bitcoin's number one hater, can see some use in them.

https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1662210584178475008

[NotATether]

Ordinals bad? Even Peter Schiff, Bitcoin's number one hater, can see some use in them.

He is trying to troll us, he's only using Ordinals because he knows that Bitcoin maxis hate it and always contend with him about his no-coiner policy.

It is best to ignore him completely about this.

[larry_vw_1955]

He is trying to troll us, he's only using Ordinals because he knows that Bitcoin maxis hate it and always contend with him about his no-coiner policy.

It is best to ignore him completely about this.

you may be right because i saw him doing an interview once and he was not a big fan of bitcoin in fact i think he was saying how gold was better than bitcoin. but i can't remember exactly.  

[gmaxwell]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

[nutildah]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

It would appear this activity is from Unisat which allows for wallets, transfer and minting of Ordinals & BRC20, although I'm not 100% certain:

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

[NotATether]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

It would appear this activity is from Unisat which allows for wallets, transfer and minting of Ordinals & BRC20, although I'm not 100% certain:

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

I think the reason for there being only one entity handling most of the Ordinals transactions is because Unisat is the only wallet to provide such functionality. If there were other wallets and/or exchanges doing this then I'm sure we'd see a mich higer ratio of public keys involved.

It's all really just hype though, and it's eventually going to fade into irrelevancy just like ICOs.

[gmaxwell]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

It would appear this activity is from Unisat which allows for wallets, transfer and minting of Ordinals & BRC20, although I'm not 100% certain:

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

Unisat ~= Calvin Ayre, https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784

[originlegacy2323]

Your general idea is correct, you just made some small mistakes:

It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin does support smart contracts, in fact each transaction you make, you are creating and using smart contracts. It just doesn't have certain functionality that would allow creation of tokens.

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions.

It is not about TPS or capacity. In other words even if bitcoin could handle 1 GB blocks and a billion transactions per second, these types of spam would still not be tolerated.

To put simply it is all about usage. Bitcoin was created to handle transferring money not as a cloud storage.

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back.

To be clear there is no such thing as "BRC-20" in Bitcoin or Taproot. It is not part of the protocol. It is fake centralized term the scammers are using to give their attack some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of the naive.

This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

I don't think this can "end" bitcoin but it is definitely damaging it real hard and must be prevented.

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

Again BRC-20 does not exist anywhere in the protocol to be removed. There is a vulnerability in bitcoin consensus rules that is being exploited by malicious attackers and that must be patched.
At this point the best solution is a soft fork to mend the flaw.

So how can we ask for a fork?
also, whould a fork remove any content related to the submitted Ordinals?

[larry_vw_1955]

So how can we ask for a fork?

you don't ask for anything. you do it. research bitcoin cash.

also, whould a fork remove any content related to the submitted Ordinals?

it depends how far you want to rollback the blockchain.

[nutildah]

Unisat ~= Calvin Ayre, https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784

Seems to me that BSV devs are just defecting to BTC because there's way more money flowing in Ordinals / BRC20. I could of course be mistaken. But LTC and DOGE are now facing similar issues with spam, blockchain bloat & network congestion so I'm inclined to believe its not an anti-BTC conspiracy.

I think its just a case of the blockchain-agnostic degen crowd following the newest trend. And it will die down before too long, probably within 3-6 months. Unfortunately it will have long-lasting consequences.

[larry_vw_1955]

I think its just a case of the blockchain-agnostic degen crowd following the newest trend. And it will die down before too long, probably within 3-6 months. Unfortunately it will have long-lasting consequences.

what consequences is that? if it dies down then we're back to normal right?

oh and that's too bad to hear about LTC. that's the one thing that has always been cheap to send. hope those fees aren't going up too much. 

[stompix]

Let's combine a bit the replies!

I was saying that, as many others, I don't agree with this garbage in the blockchain!

I said it before, and I used the same term, delusional majority, when some 2-3-100 guys in a tiny crowd think that just because there are others who agree with them and in this tiny space they are more numerous than the ones that disagree they somehow are the overall majority. The same shock as a 24/7 wow player has when he enters a cafe and nobody gets his gaming jokes! Going further:

Seems to me that BSV devs are just defecting to BTC because there's way more money flowing in Ordinals / BRC20. I could of course be mistaken. But LTC and DOGE are now facing similar issues with spam, blockchain bloat & network congestion so I'm inclined to believe its not an anti-BTC conspiracy.

As I was saying, everyone has their own opinion, even on this thing, the first tweet is about people defecting from BSV and going back to BTC, although I really think it's a ton of sarcasm in that reply I don't doubt more think the same, it's not an attack, it's a way they make money cause there is demand on BTC rather than on BSV. Some might see it as proof of BTC being better some might see it as a terrorist attack, unless we go and have a mandatory vote and count everyone on this planet it's a bit premature to say the majority hates or loves Ordinals.

what consequences is that? if it dies down then we're back to normal right?

The consequences of doing nothing to prevent the next one? 
With users seeing this and ending forever their plans on dealing only in BTC for on-chain tx and switching to alternatives?

[darkv0rt3x]

Ordinals bad? Even Peter Schiff, Bitcoin's number one hater, can see some use in them.

https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1662210584178475008

A retarded commenting on retarded things! lol

Let's combine a bit the replies!

I was saying that, as many others, I don't agree with this garbage in the blockchain!

I said it before, and I used the same term, delusional majority, when some 2-3-100 guys in a tiny crowd think that just because there are others who agree with them and in this tiny space they are more numerous than the ones that disagree they somehow are the overall majority. The same shock as a 24/7 wow player has when he enters a cafe and nobody gets his gaming jokes! Going further:

Have you counted such numbers? How are you so sure, the so you you called "delusional majority", is not in fact the majority? Or that the tiny space is the space of the supporters instead?
I didn't criticized anyone. I just criticized the garbage! And I continue doing. Blockchain, imo, is not intended to be a cloud storage for the garbage. It's, at most, to be a cloud storage for a financial system, by recording actual transactions between 2 or more parties. Period!
Although I can agree that if the opportunity was left there, then, someone took it and made the garbage into the blockchain. It is what it is!

[larry_vw_1955]

The consequences of doing nothing to prevent the next one? 
With users seeing this and ending forever their plans on dealing only in BTC for on-chain tx and switching to alternatives?

No i mean the consequences if ordinals dies down. then there was less than a year of monkeys and then they're gone. do the existing monkeys cause a long term damage on bitcoin or something? the blockspace used would have been the same no matter if its for monkeys or paying bills.

[nutildah]

No i mean the consequences if ordinals dies down. then there was less than a year of monkeys and then they're gone. do the existing monkeys cause a long term damage on bitcoin or something? the blockspace used would have been the same no matter if its for monkeys or paying bills.

Its bloat that wouldn't have otherwise been there. Its not so much (right now) in the grand scheme of things, which is possibly one of the reasons why Core devs have been reluctant to rush out any changes, but the smaller the blockchain stays, the better. The less resources that are required to run a node, the better.

You can see growth of the blockchain was relatively linear up until early February of this year, which is when the Ordinals fad really started to kick in, then it sped up since then:

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


Zooming out, blockchain size growth takes on more of an exponential quality but this probably isn't a good reason to hasten it.

[larry_vw_1955]

Its bloat that wouldn't have otherwise been there. Its not so much (right now) in the grand scheme of things, which is possibly one of the reasons why Core devs have been reluctant to rush out any changes, but the smaller the blockchain stays, the better. The less resources that are required to run a node, the better.

but if you think of bitcoin as a system that stores X amount of data every 10 minutes, X hasn't really changed with the introduction of ordinals has it?

You can see growth of the blockchain was relatively linear up until early February of this year, which is when the Ordinals fad really started to kick in, then it sped up since then:

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


Zooming out, blockchain size growth takes on more of an exponential quality but this probably isn't a good reason to hasten it.

that graph looks very linear to me even since february. yes the slope changed but only very small increase in slope of the line segment. so it doesn't appear to me that the blockchain is growing any faster than it was before ordinals came out. maybe a just a tiny bit more and i don't know why that would be but it doesn't seem out of control or anything. how could it be? bitcoin only allows X amount of data to be stored every 10 minutes or so...that hasn't changed ever i don't think.

[Dimitri94]

Overall I completely agree.
BTC was designed for currency transfer/storage.

Tokens, smart contracts, etc have no place in it! As the OP has already said there are more than enough other blockchains around to support that stuff. Ya know, ones that were created just for it...

Miners are happy very well this time because they are making more money from transaction fee and they are not going to agree on anything that will not make them gain.

When miners receive more transaction fees than block rewards, they must prioritize their profits. Due to mempool congestion, Bitcoin transaction fees have seen a massive increase. In one of them the mining fee was higher than the block reward. The block number was 788695.

BRC-20 tokens only capitalize on the popularity of Bitcoin to attract large investors by creating a hype but the reality is that these tokens are not as secure as Bitcoin. I think once the hype reduced these types of tokens will have no value and In the long run these will not survive.

[pooya87]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

The main characteristic of a successful malicious attack on bitcoin is to get the bitcoin users to do it not yourself. Remember the nonsense called "stress test" years ago? It wasn't just one silly company spamming the network. They got bitcoiners to spam too by funding loads of addresses with small amounts then publishing their private keys. The result was nodes that were flooded by double spends and the mempool that was flooded with spam transactions that didn't come from a single attacker.
In that scenario CoinWallet was the origin of the attack but wasn't the lone attacker.

That is the main principle that the Ordinals Attack is using too. It is not one entity that performs the attack but they have fooled loads of people to participate in it by creating the parallel scam market and the tools to perform the attack.
In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

The principle is commonly used in color revolutions, which I dare say is what's been happening to Bitcoin. One of the signs is seeing old bitcoiners defending this exploit of the protocol in the name of Bitcoin principles such as censorship resistance!

[larry_vw_1955]

In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?

[NotATether]

In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof.

I agree. Let's leave Casey out of this discussion.

[DooMAD]

One of the signs is seeing old bitcoiners defending this exploit of the protocol in the name of Bitcoin principles such as censorship resistance!

If an attacker manages to compel you to abandon the high ground and forfeit your principles, then the attacker has succeeded in their objective.

I'm not defending the exploit.  I'm saying your proposed cure is short-sighted and dangerous.  It would weaken Bitcoin's resilience and open up new (and far more severe) avenues of attack.

Find a better solution. 

[ABCbits]

You can see growth of the blockchain was relatively linear up until early February of this year, which is when the Ordinals fad really started to kick in, then it sped up since then:

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


Zooming out, blockchain size growth takes on more of an exponential quality but this probably isn't a good reason to hasten it.

that graph looks very linear to me even since february. yes the slope changed but only very small increase in slope of the line segment. so it doesn't appear to me that the blockchain is growing any faster than it was before ordinals came out. maybe a just a tiny bit more and i don't know why that would be but it doesn't seem out of control or anything. how could it be? bitcoin only allows X amount of data to be stored every 10 minutes or so...that hasn't changed ever i don't think.

Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment. Although i would just show you chart of block size in last 1 year.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000002/blocks?viewPanel=4&orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now

[_act_]

After huge pumps and dumps / crashes / scams and other fails, a tiny amount of shitcoiners become enlightened and see the errors of these coins, and become Bitcoiners. But most don't learn, that part is true.

Some people may not know about bitcoin very well, fomo and invested at the wrong time like when bitcoin was at $65000. Bitcoin will still get to that price but lack of knowledge may make the people to sell at the wrong time and blame bitcoin.

What I am just saying is that in everything we do, we need to have good knowledge about it before risking our money. Some of the tokens will be scam from the beginning, some may be pumped and dumped, some may remain a shit coin. But all these are no more new like in 2017/2018 and can easily be known from a proper research.

Lack of knowledge can make some people to blame bitcoin, but without bitcoin tokens and non fungible tokens have been existing. But with the help of bitcoin taproot, the tokens and non fungible tokens existed and also increase transaction fee which makes bitcoin utility to increase.

It is not only that alone, because of Ordinals and Inscriptions that lead to bitcoin tokens, we can now see the ones developed for litecoin, doge and other altcoins that had no hope of getting tokens easily before.

[larry_vw_1955]

Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment.

i can see how block sizes bumped up in february for sure but it's not like an exponential increase in block size they are just pushing the theoretical maximum limit of 4MB per block more i guess. the blockchain can't grow more than X amount of data per day. no matter how people are using it. before segwit that max limit was 1MB per block. so if someone has an issue about blockchain bloat then i guess they need to go back and complain about segwit then because it allowed the increase to 4MB...

[Cricktor]

<snip>

There's no reason to derail the topic in trying to question the use of Segwit as a cause for the current situation in my opinion. You don't get the numbers, do you? In the months before Ordinals and BRC-20 crap we had an average size of blocks around ~1.20MB. From Feb until now we're at an average of ~1.88M. That gives an increase of growth rate of ~56%. As I run nodes myself, that does concern me, indeed.

No one said, as far as I read here, that the recent growth was exponential of any kind. There's just a clearly visible step up of block size due to deliberately stuffed additional data, I call it garbage, into witness data of blocks.

[pooya87]

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?

I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.

Find a better solution. 

Well, we first need to get everyone to agree that we need to fix this oversight that is being exploited then begin arguing about the fix. Right now there are still people who either say "it will go away on its own" or claim "there should not be any fix at all".

[BrianH]

Well, we first need to get everyone to agree that we need to fix this oversight that is being exploited then begin arguing about the fix. Right now there are still people who either say "it will go away on its own" or claim "there should not be any fix at all".

Speaking of transaction fees, it now costs ~4x more to perform a Bitcoin transaction than Ethereum. Before, both were about the same. That seems to be the new average increase since this BRC-20 bug was introduced.

Source: YCHARTS

[larry_vw_1955]

I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.

numbering satoshis is not something casey came up with. that idea was born somewhere around 2012 because there's a thread on this forum about them. someone bumped that thread recently!

i'm sure he's a brilliant guy when it comes to technical aspects of bitcoin but he seems like he is in this bubble of people glorifying him and his "invention" whenever i heard him talking. these people just don't get it - the ones he's giving presentations to. they think is invention is great for bitcoin!  and apparently he does too so that's why i say he is dumb. for being a bit naive about how people really feel. i guess by now he knows though if he's had his ear to the ground at all.

Well, we first need to get everyone to agree that we need to fix this oversight that is being exploited then begin arguing about the fix. Right now there are still people who either say "it will go away on its own" or claim "there should not be any fix at all".

maybe you should reach out to casey. he was smart enough to design it. maybe he can help you mitigate it. but make sure you schmooze up to him. he seems to really shine when that's happening...

[gmaxwell]

*facepalm* I accidentally deleted ETFbitcoin's post above my reply, it's content is preserved in my quote (I'm not sure that it's all of it, unfortunately)... the quote/edit/delete buttons are right next to each other, and I don't use BCT much of late.  I'll send him a PM to repost it, and I'll fix the thread order.  

This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5340900.0.

1 and 2 are correct, 3 is incorrect because it's talking about a different thing.

The post you've linked to is saying, effectively,  "The rules for witness type v0 further restrict the scriptpubkey to have exactly 20 or 32 bytes of payload, since that's the only sizes v0 can use.  With v1, instead, if the size isn't exactly 32 bytes (the only size that v1 can use) then the v1 rules aren't applied and those are treated the same as the other versions or v1 before the change: nothing is done, only the same validity rules apply as apply for all scriptpubkeys"  -- none of this has anything to do with data in the witnesses.

So for a scriptpubkey to get v1 treatment it must have v1 and exactly the right sized payload.  This leaves room e.g. to create a v1a that (for example) uses 33 bytes to add the sign back to the scriptpubkey or introduces 448 bit ECC without having to burn up an additional witness version number.

This consensus rule design doesn't improve people's ability to spam using large scriptpubkeys because the same large sizes are valid for non-segwit transactions and those couldn't be made consensus invalid without potentially destroying the bitcoins of someone who happened to have encumbered them with an nlocktime release that involves some large script.

Maybe the invalidity risk there is fringe enough that it could still be argued for, I think not, since the underlying attack that you'd be trying to stop doesn't really care *how* the data is encoded, closing off one will just cause them to use others-- but regardless, going around hobbling bitcoin's consensus rules to try to play wack a mole against some spam vector is a pretty *distinct* concern, and should be handled if at all separately and holistically.   Could you imagine if BIP 342 had an "oh yeah, and also all scriptpubkey's-- not just v1 but all unused witness types and non-segwit too are now limited to X bytes, hope you don't have any funds using long scripts that you can't move before BIP 342 gets activated!"? lol

[OgNasty]

That is the main principle that the Ordinals Attack is using too.

Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.  Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.  The only difference between the two seems to be how the users want to use the blockchain.  They both benefit from the same subsidies that should have never been created anyway.  My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.  I don't know, maybe the super simple merged mining system satoshi himself thought was genius and would give users choices without burdening Bitcoin's blockchain to push some patented solution by a single company.

[pooya87]

I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.

I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

[HmmMAA]

I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.

I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners . Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .

[BlackHatCoiner]

Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.

Ordinals don't grant you the permission to use a nearly instant payment network with minimum transaction cost.

They are literally the same thing.

They are literally the opposite. Ordinals require abruptly large sized transactions, while lightning makes the best transaction compression to this date.

My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.

If this second layer solution didn't exist, I, as an average user, would have paid much more in on-chain fees in the last months.

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners .

And complete indolence does harm the network, and "steals" from the miners, because it sets limit on how usable Bitcoin is as currency. Without second layer, it's quite unusable for a 100 millions.

[ABCbits]

P.S. this is repost since my previous post was deleted by mistake.

Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment.

i can see how block sizes bumped up in february for sure but it's not like an exponential increase in block size they are just pushing the theoretical maximum limit of 4MB per block more i guess. the blockchain can't grow more than X amount of data per day. no matter how people are using it. before segwit that max limit was 1MB per block. so if someone has an issue about blockchain bloat then i guess they need to go back and complain about segwit then because it allowed the increase to 4MB...

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?

I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.

This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5340900.0. See above detailed response by @gmaxwell.

[pooya87]

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall ,

You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

while LN "steal" fees from miners .

Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .

That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.

[HmmMAA]

You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Look at the definition of spam , you can't call spam a transaction that pays more fees than normal . Try to find another term .
 If you had a store and someone was willing to pay you more than your asked price would you deny him your services ? On the contrary , you would leave the other customers and try to please him the most you could . You asked for a fee market , you made it and now people want to pay more to have their transactions validated . Why you call something an attack when it doesn't fit your narratives ?

Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.

Really ? History proves you wrong https://cirosantilli.com/cool-data-embedded-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain#illegal-content-of-block-229k
Not to mention that satoshi himself used blockchain as a "cloud storage" for his timestamp message .

[philipma1957]

As a miner its cool 😎 to see the high fees.

 The key 🔑 is do the high fees break the back of the 25k support.

Crashing us to a nice dip buy. Or do the crazy ass degenerate players that think they can break btc price support bust out.

The worst possible thing is removing BRC20 which would be fully admitting that BTC is a loser and can be broken by a piece of shit thing like BRC20

If you believe in btc you should support it by doing a few btc moves and paying high fees over the next two weeks.

IE on or two 10 dollar fees paid won’t break you over the next two weeks.


Crying to developers to fix it and having the developers do something is terrible.

Think of the future when fees are too small to support miners will you be crying for developers to raise the fees? I think not. Guess what miners will do down the road they will move to scrypt algo or any algo that supports mining.

Btc traders and users want small tiny fees miners want bigass fees.

The play goes back and forth.

Lets see what happens by June 1.

My guess is fees drop down and things go back to normal.

At 144 blocks a day and paying 1 or 2 coins each block you are spending 4.2 to 8.4 million a day in extra fees.

The people doing this will run out of coin. May take all of May but they will shoot their load and be spent.

I quoted myself about a month later. Fees are down to under 1 btc a block vs 2+ btc a block

last 10 blocks on June 5th

792990 ----- 0.61
792989 ----- 0.73
792988 ----- 0.72 > 2.06
792987 ----- 0.48
792986 ----- 0.56
792985 ----- 0.54 > 3.64
792984 ----- 0.59
792983 ----- 0.63
792982 ----- 0.57
792981 ----- 0.73 > 6.16



far less than may 9th date of my quoted post.

789000-----2.19
788999-----3.93
788998-----5.69 ----- 11.81
788997-----1.78
788996-----3.35
788995-----1.76 -----18.7
788994-----1.73
788993-----1.85
788992-----1.73
788991-----1.84-----25.85



Developers did nothing and fees went down bigly. May 9th to June 5th.

give the developers a pat on the back for the "wait and see move".


6.16 is way down from 25.85

[cryptosize]

Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.

[philipma1957]

Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.

As long as the top five pools do not blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte.

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools

Summary of Mined Blocks

Miner / Pool--------Percent

Foundry USA-------33.333%

AntPool-------------22.337%

F2Pool--------------13.574%

Binance Pool--------9.794%

ViaBTC--------------8.419%

total of ----------- over 87.2%

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

[larry_vw_1955]

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

fun for who exactly? not normal users. they would hate that. just what we need some overlord setting our fees.

I have to think they will try it.

They might be forced to do that. If block rewards get so small and they can't make enough off them then they might have to raise the bar  even if it means just mining empty blocks to shut out people trying to submit transactions at a cheaper rate through smaller miners...

That doesn't seem like a nice thing to do but this is business.

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. 

[NotATether]

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

Though I don't expect low-fee tx's to get any priority from them as long as the Unisat hype continues.

[ABCbits]

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. 

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

[larry_vw_1955]

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

[philipma1957]

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?

Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting.  

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

Note bold question.

I mine it is a business
I need fee income
Every ½ ing fee income is more critical and the Block reward lessons.

I will be the first to say while I like to see a 6.25 reward and 4.75 in fees = 11 btc per block but I know it hurts the business of btc if it continues for say 1 or 2 years in a row.

My fears for down the road of ½ ing rewards are getting fees to work well enough for

miners, pools and users of btc.

6.25 + 0.75 = 7 seems to work okay

6.25 + 5.7 = 12 seems to be an issue if it goes for a long time 6 months a year seem bad.

so in a year

3.125 + 0.875 = 4 seems okay

3.125 + 5.875 = 9 seems wrong a real problem

in 2028

1.5625 + 0.9375 = 2.5 still may work

1.5625 + 5.4375 = 7.0 seem wrong a real problem



on and on and on

I worry for this to get worse as time goes on.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

[joker_josue]

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

[ABCbits]

If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).

Code:

0.6 MB * 144 blocks (total blocks mined per day) * 365 (days) * 10 (years) = 315360 MB (~307 GB)

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?

With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.

And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


--Why leave the high fee pool?

Note bold question.

The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top  pools decide to do that.

[larry_vw_1955]

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit?

i didn't realize cpu speed is an issue when running bitcoin core. i am sure that a simple dual core cpu from 2010 would be fine still in 10 years for running bitcoin core just like it probably is today. a core i5 would be better but i'm not sure it's really necessary. but bitcoin doesn't need high end cpus. it never will.

How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?

if someone doesn't have a 100Mbps download speed today they are in the stone ages, just being honest. If in 10 years they're still in that situation then they really have no business downloading a 1Terabyte blockchain. Just being honest. There's companies who just don't want to increase their customers speeds so they try and force them to stay at lower speeds too but that's a different story.

Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.

probably not practical but if it was done then that would certainly encourage people to consolidate their coins. 

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.

just don't try and use ssd for something like chiacoin. i heard it eats them for lunch. churning through and doing a bunch of wear and tear.

[philipma1957]

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

Yes but the problem is BTC is so fucking valuable that we will have scaling issues.

2009 to 2012 reward 50 btc    vs  fee 0.01 or 5000 to 1 ratio

2012 to 2016 reward 25 btc    vs  fee 0.025 or 1000 to 1 ratio

2016 to 2020 reward 12.5 btc vs fee  0.050 or   250 to 1 ratio

2020 to 2024 reward 6.25 btc vs fee 0.100 or  62.5 to 1 ratio


note the fees are an in my head guess as the the average value of each block fee

we know 2023 block fees got up to 6 coins

but the Long term average over last 3 years is closer to .1 btc a block

I am okay at math and figuring some trends out.

the reward to fee number ratio shrinks every 4 years.

5000.000 to 1 2009
1000.000 to 1 2012
  250.000 to 1 2016
    62.500 to 1 2020       note in my head estimate.

this means

   15.625 to 1  in 2024 or    3.125 reward and   0.20 in  fees on average
     3.906 to 1  in 2028 then 1.5625 reward and 0.40 in fees

btw we are over the fee average for 2020-2023  of 0.1000 btc

As of the  last 10 blocks

793263-0.96
793262-0.90
793261-0.69 2.55
793260-1.02
793259-0.76
793258-0.91 5.24
793257-0.98
793256-1.11
793255-0.59
793254-1.04
    
they are about 0.896 btc a block

I have read various number for fee average during 2020-2023 as high as .15 btc average as low as .07 average I picked .1 for my ratio comparison

it is easy to see May 1 to June 7 we are above .07 .1 or .15 in fact we are over 1 btc a block for about 37 days.

But it dropped a bit  as May 5 to May 12 it was 2.5 btc a block

now it is .896 btc a block .  This is ordinals+BRC-20+NFT clutter.

I have shown ways in a prior thread that pools can push fees up and turn profits.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2634505.0

a method of pushing fees upward and not being able to directly prove any pool does it.

All of that thread's concepts  can be done by 3 large pools with the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT clutter.

And proving it is hard.

It is obvious people are testing the Blockchain right now to see how easy they can jack fees turn profits and not be fingered for doing it.


I don't fear any of that as much as I fear the top pools simply black list all tx's under 50 sats a byte.

I think we are heading that way.

BTW if ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs are barred and fees drop to 0.1 per block

The top 5 pools will be incentivized to blacklist all 50sats per  or 40sat per and lower tx's

So Once again I say leave the ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs just as they are,

 as I rather deal with a wild dog(brc-20) than a wild lion (blacklisting of <50sats a byte tx's)

oh some opec news

"OPEC+ countries also agreed to extend oil production cuts they announced in April through the end of 2024, reducing the amount of crude they pump into the world market by more than 1 million barrels per day." 3 days ago  from google search "opec to lower oil"

[OgNasty]

I also don't think taproot is what enabled the current issues as much as segwit, but what do I know? 

Considering how this attack has become possible by exploiting an oversight in the Taproot script validation rules, this is a Taproot related issue not a SegWit related one.

Is that what made it possible?  I'll admit I haven't looked into the technical aspect of this as much as I should have, but I don't believe what you're saying is true.  From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in. 

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network, which I believe is guilty of the exact same crimes of Ordinals, but since it is patented tech by Blockstream and Blockstream basically runs Core, we are all just supposed to blindly support it.

[d5000]

From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in.

It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before.

There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did.

Thus:

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network,

... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN.

[BtcMaxi2090]

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455647.0

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

[larry_vw_1955]

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455647.0

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

i doubt anyone here is going to be excited about that  since they seem to be clogging up the blockchain...

[gmaxwell]

because this applies to big inscriptions

The big inscriptions are non-standard still today, too.  The maximum weight of a standard transaction wasn't changed by taproot. ... but parties can and do pay miners to bypass those rules, and clearly have here.  So I think taproot is also pretty irrelevant for the huge ones too.

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that miners will accept payment to attack the network,  so I think the general skepticism for standardness as anything but a tool to protect forward compatibility mechanisms is probably well founded.

[philipma1957]

because this applies to big inscriptions

The big inscriptions are non-standard still today, too.  The maximum weight of a standard transaction wasn't changed by taproot. ... but parties can and do pay miners to bypass those rules, and clearly have here.  So I think taproot is also pretty irrelevant for the huge ones too.

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that miners will accept payment to attack the network,  so I think the general skepticism for standardness as anything but a tool to protect forward compatibility mechanisms is probably well founded.

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure not the miners or pools.

Getting rid of BRC-20+ordinals+NFTS

only makes pools want to simply do a minimum tx fee of 30 or 40 or 50 sats a block.

In 2032 block reward will be .78 btc if fees are 1.22 a block will be 2 coins if coins are 100k

The smallest fee would be about 227 x 50 = 11350 sats or 0.00011350 btc or $11.35

I believe that the major pools will do everything they can to insure fees are high enough for their survival.

As a miner burning 5000 k-watts a day. or $250 a day I will be forced to use larger pools to avoid variance. So the problem of BRC-20/ordinals/NFT's is a smoke screen to the real issue top 5 pools have 87% of the hash and can set fees at 50sats or higher.

And at the same time they can greenlight fake 0.00000227 tx's to flood the blocks.

This has been done before my lock thread talks about it.

And I see 2032 as fairly close to this date now.

I say leave the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT shit alone and work on a bigger scoped solve that also deals with what I am talking about.

Or leave it all alone and do nothing to see where it goes and how fucked up it gets.

I do not like an out of the fire pan and into the fire solution.

[larry_vw_1955]

I guess me and people on most country[1] still in stone age


[1] https://www.speedtest.net/global-index

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-internet-speed-by-state

in the usa, only california is under 100mpbs but they're sitting at 91. that's stone ages. most states in the usa are at least 300 or 400 mbps. that's still pretty slow...seems like the industry overall has stagnated in terms of higher speeds. stagnated for YEARS. they want to keep charging the same rates for sub-standard technology and service.

I say leave the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT shit alone and work on a bigger scoped solve that also deals with what I am talking about.

Or leave it all alone and do nothing to see where it goes and how fucked up it gets.

you're right. if they don't fix that problem then bitcoin goes back to low security network where people with home computers can mine it and the price becomes worthless...kind of like how it started out 

[gmaxwell]

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure

What is that supposed to mean?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-internet-speed-by-state

in the usa, only california is under 100mpbs but they're sitting at 91. that's stone ages. most states in the usa are at least 300 or 400 mbps. that's still pretty slow...seems like the industry overall has stagnated in terms of higher speeds. stagnated for YEARS. they want to keep charging the same rates for sub-standard technology and service.

Those stats are boarderline lies, they're provided by ISPs trying to juice government mandates and incentives.  Beyond the bulk misrepresentations they don't really expose how bad upload bandwidth is or how poor delivered performance is.   It's pretty common to have 100 Mbit down which seldom does more then 8mbit, and only offers 5mbit up (but usually at least delivers close to it).

you're right. if they don't fix that problem

There is no they buddy, only you.

[larry_vw_1955]

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure

What is that supposed to mean?

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

It's pretty common to have 100 Mbit down which seldom does more then 8mbit,

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

There is no they buddy, only you.

I support ordinals and any other things that bring more use cases to bitcoin so that miners can be incentivized to continue securing the network. how about you? 

[gmaxwell]

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

Why do you take that for granted? Bitcoin fee income levels (even the sustained ones outside of the recent traffic) are many times the entire fees PLUS subsidy of several competing altcoins combined.  Are they currently screwed?

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

Guess you don't live in an area where comcast has a monopoly. In many places they have a "100Mbps" which rarely performs, but lets them claim that they provide broadband for the purpose of government reports.

more use cases to bitcoin

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

I'll give some examples:

"My bank (and ANY conventional bank I can find) is only open for international wire transfers from (say) 10am to 3pm M-F or other such limited hours and I want to be able to send money internationally *at any time*, 365 days a year, because I don't know when a good opportunity will happen or an emergency will come up" Bitcoin solves this.

"I tried using online payments but Paypal froze my account randomly with no explanation and wouldn't give me my money back for a year" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to hold on to money but my government keeps printing it like its going out of style, debasing its value" Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation I kept wealth at home as silver but it took up an enormous amount of space and was easily stolen by thieves because it was hard to secure in a way that was impossible for others to access". Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation AND theft risk, I stored wealth in gold bars in a safe deposit box, but because I didn't visit for two years the bank auctioned off the content (or alternatively the FBI came and took it all because some OTHER customers were suspected of drug dealing)". Bitcoin fixes this.

"I wanted to buy a telescope but they required 20 minutes of invasive security questions that a scammer could have answered anyways and I couldn't convince my bank it wasn't fraud and they froze my account and it took me three days and a dozen phone calls to fix it" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to buy provocative comic books, but even though they are unambiguously legal where I live, the government leaned on payment providers to deplatform the vendor" Bitcoin solves this.

"I'm concerned that years down the line my country might be taken over by a theocracy and they'll get all the payment company records and start executing people who purchased birth control or subject them to some less dire punishment." Bitcoin can help here too.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  These are examples of the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).

Use cases which aren't exclusive-- that any old alternative will also do are fine, but they don't provide a reason for someone to use Bitcoin when they otherwise wouldn't-- instead Bitcoin will get used for those based on other factors like existing usage for the exclusive reasons or because Bitcoin is less expensive (but that is a pretty unlikely case for cases where a centralized alternative works, because centralized alternatives can always be cheaper if they choose to be).

[philipma1957]

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

Why do you take that for granted? Bitcoin fee income levels (even the sustained ones outside of the recent traffic) are many times the entire fees PLUS subsidy of several competing altcoins combined.  Are they currently screwed?

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.

Guess you don't live in an area where comcast has a monopoly. In many places they have a "100Mbps" which rarely performs, but lets them claim that they provide broadband for the purpose of government reports.

more use cases to bitcoin

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

I'll give some examples:

"My bank (and ANY conventional bank I can find) is only open for international wire transfers from (say) 10am to 3pm M-F or other such limited hours and I want to be able to send money internationally *at any time*, 365 days a year, because I don't know when a good opportunity will happen or an emergency will come up" Bitcoin solves this.

"I tried using online payments but Paypal froze my account randomly with no explanation and wouldn't give me my money back for a year" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to hold on to money but my government keeps printing it like its going out of style, debasing its value" Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation I kept wealth at home as silver but it took up an enormous amount of space and was easily stolen by thieves because it was hard to secure in a way that was impossible for others to access". Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation AND theft risk, I stored wealth in gold bars in a safe deposit box, but because I didn't visit for two years the bank auctioned off the content (or alternatively the FBI came and took it all because some OTHER customers were suspected of drug dealing)". Bitcoin fixes this.

"I wanted to buy a telescope but I couldn't convince my bank it wasn't fraud and they froze my account and it took me three days and a dozen phone calls to fix it" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to buy provocative comic books, but even though they are unambiguously legal where I live, the government leaned on payment providers to deplatform the vendor" Bitcoin solves this.

"I'm concerned that years down the line my country might be taken over by a theocracy and they'll get all the payment company records and start executing people who purchased birth control or subject them to some less dire punishment." Bitcoin can help here too.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  They're the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).  Use cases which aren't exclusive-- that any old alternative will do too are find, but they don't provide a reason for someone to use Bitcoin when they otherwise wouldn't-- instead Bitcoin will get used for those based on other factors like existing usage for the exclusive reasons or because Bitcoin is less expensive (but that is a pretty unlikely case for cases where a centralized alternative works, because centralized alternatives can always be cheaper if they choose to be).

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

[NotATether]

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

Honestly I'd much rather see BTC merge mining with doge+LTC than with any of this inefficient BRC20 crap. Maybe BIP301 is on to something. But then again our protocol development has basically stagnated because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues with each other and agrees on nothing.

At least DOGE and LTC are widely agreed on to have actual value. While the popularity of Ordinals and BRC20 is basically not guarrenteed to stay as it is because get-rich-quicker's will tire of it and move to the Next Big Thing(TM).

[philipma1957]

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

Honestly I'd much rather see BTC merge mining with doge+LTC than with any of this inefficient BRC20 crap. Maybe BIP301 is on to something. But then again our protocol development has basically stagnated because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues with each other and agrees on nothing.

At least DOGE and LTC are widely agreed on to have actual value. While the popularity of Ordinals and BRC20 is basically not guarrenteed to stay as it is because get-rich-quicker's will tire of it and move to the Next Big Thing(TM).

Not bad. I would support that.

[gmaxwell]

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

Well lets see, in a whole day right the entire LTC and DOGE networks bring in a total of $1.58 million dollars combined from fees and inflation (fees being utterly insignificant).

Bitcoin, from *fees alone* without any inflation brings in $1.72million dollars/day.

This means that even with inflation completely gone in Bitcoin, Bitcoin already brings in enough in fees pay for significantly more security than those two altcoins achieve essentially entirely from inflation.  (You could, for whatever it's worth substitute or even add other semi-popular altcoins to that and still be less than Bitcoin, I just used the two you suggest)

"Merged mining" is significantly undermined by the central game theory argument for mining:  The game theory argument for mining is that to mine you expend costly energy, and if your work won't end up in the longest chain (or you manage to blow up the thing you're mining) then that effort is wasted so it is in your best interest to mine honestly.  It gets some participation advantage because you can just add it on, but as we saw with namecoin the low income quickly causes parties to either no bother or not maintain their infrastructure.

In the case of merge mining if one asset has meaningful income (like dogecoin maybe has with its perpetual inflation) and the other asset does not-- like litecoin once is subsidy is depleted (unless something changes). Then only the income side has meaningful security, the non-income side does not because the attacker isn't losing much if his blocks don't end up on the longest chain or if he sets the whole thing on fire.

Maybe you can see why many Bitcoiners really dislike altcoiners.  It's usually not that they have any issue with the altcoin itself, it's because people with some kind of investment in the altcoin glibly spread misleading claims about Bitcoin in order to rationalize, justify, and promote their altcoins.  The points are seldom well justified or considered.  I'd say that a simple majority of altcoin centric arguments about Bitcoin are actually points against the altcoins if considered with a bit of care, like this one.

There may well be reasons that you could advocate ltc+doge,  but fudding Bitcoin about its ability to fund security with fees is not one of them.  If Bitcoin's *current* fee-only income isn't enough security income for your taste than you should conclude that these other coins are *currently* insecure and lack any kind of trajectory to allow them to achieve even their current level of security in the future (after all, even doges perpetual inflation effectively dilutes the mining income down to nothing over time too; just at the cost of also debasing everyone's holdings at the same time).

because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues

Argues? Where? AFAICT noise, toxicity, and attacks got so bad the discussion just *stopped*, except a bit of chatter among gadflies and navel gazers that won't ever do the work and can't manage the navigate the public politics.  Maybe you've seen some arguments among  those people, but they were only ever there to argue.  Or it's just unoriginal repetition of ideas that were thoroughly explored in 2012 (like "lets switch to scrypt and merge mine with litecoin!"), getting the responses that could have been copy and pasted from the last three times. If there was real activity you probably wouldn't notice those noise discussions arguing amongst themselves.

When I looked recently the developer chat channel logs, they now regularly go days without any comments at all, yet back in 2013 they averaged 1866 messages per day-- a day without activity would have been a shock.  That isn't argument-- argument would mean activity.  The mailing lists have been widely unsubscribed, most posts are people who've never been extensively involved in development, and just haven't received the message about how dead things are in terms of meaningful change.

Of course, (reinvoking the prior offtopic diversion) bitcoin development "dead" is still significantly more activity than most altcoins get-- so altcoiners don't get any ideas from this comment.  Just about a year ago or so the entire doge network was completely unable to bring up a single new node for *weeks*  until a bitcoin developer friend had a friend that wanted to dump their doge (the outage actually drove up prices because it limited the supply of old coins).  He had to fix some gross incompetence that was preventing nodes from syncing  (such as completely re-validating the defectively expensive scrypt POW and the gigant MM proofs every time it read one off the disk to give it to a peer) then used his fixed node to fix the other nodes, and brought their essentially failed (but hardly noticed failure since pools and exchanges were still running) network back to life.  Maybe next time no family member of a real developer will have doge to dump and it will just stay dead?  who knows!

[larry_vw_1955]

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

that's easy. i need a way to store encrypted data permanently and not have to worry about my data being deleted in 2 years like gmail might do due to inactivity. it's not a huge amount of data but maybe a few kilobytes. from time to time. i need it to have 100% uptime so that anytime i need it i can get it. 24/7/365. as long as i have an internet connection...

that data might consist of anything like login/passwords to important websites or bitcoin seed phrases or anything. i know some people think it's a bad idea to store that type of thing online but hopefully people have better things to do than sit around trying to crack some AES-256 encrypted ordinal.

[gmaxwell]

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

So not only do you have to worry that it might become unavailable, it'll be inevitable, except in the sense that perhaps there may be some archive someplace or another that has the historical chain and might make it available to you at some cost.  But if that's good enough you could put your data on archive.org today or just put it anywhere on the internet and let the common crawl pick it up.  This file storage stuff will hasten the day when the historical chain becomes hard to access, because people will store illegal data in it and then node operators will be forced to shut down or face prosecution.  Already I'm being sued over accusations that I ran a node that distributed copyrighted data hidden inside transactions (by third parties without my knowledge or involvement). (so, please, preface any response that this is a speculative concern with a credible offer to cover my legal expenses and indemnify me should we lose)

To the limited extent Bitcoin accommodates it in practice today it's _exceedingly_ inefficient for it in the sense that the p2p network doesn't provide random access to the chain (and presumably won't be due to the abuse potential) so unless you don't mind downloading and processing a terabyte of data over the several days to retrieve your kilobyte of data it isn't available to you already from the network. It's also the case that other blockchains that care less about security or decentralization can do the same thing for radically lower cost (still a dumb idea to use a blockchain for this but if you must then almost anything else does it better).  Finally, not that anyone doing it cares, but it's also a abuse that was expressly argued against by Bitcoin's creator.

At the moment there is some webpages that provide access but those will be taken down after their operators give up wasting their money on them (or get tired of the issues with illegal content on them ... or when their collateral purpose is satisfied or abandoned)-- and in that case you're really counting on the websites to provide the service. No different that the *prior* sites that have done "files on the blockchain" in bitcoin (which has happened several times in the past, the files then are practically irretrievable now to anyone but an expert developer).

As an aside the data you're talking about doesn't make a lot of sense to store this way:  E.g. "seed phrases" -- because the stored data is public the *only* security for it comes from the private key used to encrypt it.  You could instead skip the stored data and derive all the bitcoin keys and website passwords from the same key with no storage.  Presumably if your key is secure then you have to store it too-- most mediums that can store 256 bits can also store 2kb.  I'll guess your key is really a passphrase which means that the thing the attacker has to attack is just that and not aes-256. A human memorized passphrase usually has less than 70 bits of security, so even worse to make the data public in that case.

[As a bonus: surprise the same person financing that copyright litigation against me is financing several of the high profiles ordinals companies.  Though I think the pretty clear fact that ordinals are being used as an attack on Bitcoin to destroy its decentralization (by driving up resource costs, by increasing the legal risk in running a node, by being used to justify vexatious litigation against tech people) doesn't mean all its users or the people who originally created it intended it as an attack. But it's the effect that counts.]

[philipma1957]

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

Well lets see, in a whole day right the entire LTC and DOGE networks bring in a total of $1.58 million dollars combined from fees and inflation (fees being utterly insignificant).

Bitcoin, from *fees alone* without any inflation brings in $1.72million dollars/day.

This means that even with inflation completely gone in Bitcoin, Bitcoin already brings in enough in fees pay for significantly more security than those two altcoins achieve essentially entirely from inflation.  (You could, for whatever it's worth substitute or even add other semi-popular altcoins to that and still be less than Bitcoin, I just used the two you suggest)

"Merged mining" is significantly undermined by the central game theory argument for mining:  The game theory argument for mining is that to mine you expend costly energy, and if your work won't end up in the longest chain (or you manage to blow up the thing you're mining) then that effort is wasted so it is in your best interest to mine honestly.  It gets some participation advantage because you can just add it on, but as we saw with namecoin the low income quickly causes parties to either no bother or not maintain their infrastructure.

In the case of merge mining if one asset has meaningful income (like dogecoin maybe has with its perpetual inflation) and the other asset does not-- like litecoin once is subsidy is depleted (unless something changes). Then only the income side has meaningful security, the non-income side does not because the attacker isn't losing much if his blocks don't end up on the longest chain or if he sets the whole thing on fire.

Maybe you can see why many Bitcoiners really dislike altcoiners.  It's usually not that they have any issue with the altcoin itself, it's because people with some kind of investment in the altcoin glibly spread misleading claims about Bitcoin in order to rationalize, justify, and promote their altcoins.  The points are seldom well justified or considered.  I'd say that a simple majority of altcoin centric arguments about Bitcoin are actually points against the altcoins if considered with a bit of care, like this one.

There may well be reasons that you could advocate ltc+doge,  but fudding Bitcoin about its ability to fund security with fees is not one of them.  If Bitcoin's *current* fee-only income isn't enough security income for your taste than you should conclude that these other coins are *currently* insecure and lack any kind of trajectory to allow them to achieve even their current level of security in the future (after all, even doges perpetual inflation effectively dilutes the mining income down to nothing over time too; just at the cost of also debasing everyone's holdings at the same time).

because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues

Argues? Where? AFAICT noise, toxicity, and attacks got so bad the discussion just *stopped*, except a bit of chatter among gadflies and navel gazers that won't ever do the work and can't manage the navigate the public politics.  Maybe you've seen some arguments among  those people, but they were only ever there to argue.  Or it's just unoriginal repetition of ideas that were thoroughly explored in 2012 (like "lets switch to scrypt and merge mine with litecoin!"), getting the responses that could have been copy and pasted from the last three times. If there was real activity you probably wouldn't notice those noise discussions arguing amongst themselves.

When I looked recently the developer chat channel logs, they now regularly go days without any comments at all, yet back in 2013 they averaged 1866 messages per day-- a day without activity would have been a shock.  That isn't argument-- argument would mean activity.  The mailing lists have been widely unsubscribed, most posts are people who've never been extensively involved in development, and just haven't received the message about how dead things are in terms of meaningful change.

Of course, (reinvoking the prior offtopic diversion) bitcoin development "dead" is still significantly more activity than most altcoins get-- so altcoiners don't get any ideas from this comment.  Just about a year ago or so the entire doge network was completely unable to bring up a single new node for *weeks*  until a bitcoin developer friend had a friend that wanted to dump their doge (the outage actually drove up prices because it limited the supply of old coins).  He had to fix some gross incompetence that was preventing nodes from syncing  (such as completely re-validating the defectively expensive scrypt POW and the gigant MM proofs every time it read one off the disk to give it to a peer) then used his fixed node to fix the other nodes, and brought their essentially failed (but hardly noticed failure since pools and exchanges were still running) network back to life.  Maybe next time no family member of a real developer will have doge to dump and it will just stay dead?  who knows!

perhaps we see the future of electrical power turning into wealth differently.

I see scaling issues not solved for BTC
I see reward to fee ratio becoming a problem for BTC

I see Ltc+ Doge with 12x the blocks each minute as a better way to scale
I see Doge’s perpetually shrinking inflational rate as pure brilliance.
year 1 100%
year 2   50%
year 11 10%
year 21   5%
year 26  4%
year 51.  2%

So does btc simply do nothing but watch the brc-20 issue. They should do exactly that.

At least in my opinion. As I think it will self regulate.

I think cutting it out is heavy handed and will lead pools into setting minimum fees as early as 2032.

Hoping to reach 2032 as I would be 75 by then I think I can do that much.

Also hoping to see 100-150k by then for btc.

[vjudeu]

"Merged mining" is significantly undermined by the central game theory argument for mining:  The game theory argument for mining is that to mine you expend costly energy, and if your work won't end up in the longest chain (or you manage to blow up the thing you're mining) then that effort is wasted so it is in your best interest to mine honestly.

The solution to that is to always end up in the heaviest chain. There are altcoins based on double SHA-256, that are here and now completely unsafe, and can be reorged at any moment. What they should do, is to trace the heaviest existing proof of work, and burn (or lock to the future) their coinbase rewards, proportionally to their hashrate (so if some ALT has 1% of the total double SHA-256 chainwork, then miners should receive 1% of the coinbase). Mining 1 ALT should be as hard as mining 1 BTC, then people will have reasons to mine both (ideally, they should be pegged in 1:1, then there would be no additional coins, optionally they could use lower denominations, like millisatoshis in LN, if some altcoin does not have enough hashrate to create single satoshis; it is even possible to use merged mining for test coins, if someone wants to test new features, but does not want to "waste" computing power).

It gets some participation advantage because you can just add it on, but as we saw with namecoin the low income quickly causes parties to either no bother or not maintain their infrastructure.

When it comes to NameCoin, that altcoin made many mistakes, and for that reason they are where they are. For example, there are some sidechains like RSK, where merged mining was successful, also because they have 1:1 peg. For domains, there is even no need to create any new monetary base in the first place, they should create domains directly in a vanity-like way. In that case, even limited supply is not needed, because then one miner can own "name123", and another miner can later mine "name456". There could be two parts: vanity part, and hash part. The network can easily guarantee that if you mined "name123", then when users will type "name", they will reach your entry. Later, when your "name" will expire, another user can mine "name456".

Instead of that system, they introduced new monetary base for no reason, and they decided to burn 0.01 NMC for every domain (that is also pointless, because then if that project would be more successful, that would mean it will halt at some point, when all coins will be burned in domain-buying transactions). Instead of commitments, they used explicit on-chain hashes (it is possible to create a system, where any user can prepare some name upfront, and where people will never know that any new name was created, until it will be revealed later, such transactions would be indistinguishable from a regular ones).

[d5000]

Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

Very interesting. Is there some technology under consideration to replace the traditional "initial blockchain download", or some concrete research on one?

There was, of course, the "Mini-Blockchain scheme" [1] (Bruce, 2014) but it had been described as "flawed" (in a discussion I don't remember); I believe due to some attack vectors [2]. Another scheme is Rollerchain [3]. Maybe also [4] (Matzutt et al., 2020) and [5] (Sforzin, Maso et al.) are relevant.

It's an extremely interesting topic as it would also probably solve the problem with the "right to be forgotten".


[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Mini-Blockchain-Scheme-Bruce/2b52355f76fca0ac23c5730f4e1a6a7e653f0237
[2] http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Weaknesses_and_attack_vectors
[3] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Prunable-Blockchain-Consensus-Protocol-Based-on-Chepurnoy-Larangeira/48f1b027c7ec96fa8a4ca4f53e2be6b95643e3f4
[4] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-Securely-Prune-Bitcoin%E2%80%99s-Blockchain-Matzutt-Kalde/d855ac1c3fe47a5b47d808bf763ba95b993ce8da
[5] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-the-Storage-Overhead-of-Proof-of-Work-Sforzin-Maso/21a1bdb3d54e1ab02ca23c1cf8d7c1b88aab4258

[larry_vw_1955]

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  

Then just use something that stores the data in utxo set such as Bitcoin Stamps: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-stamps-nfts-gaining-ordinals-225153058.html

As an aside the data you're talking about doesn't make a lot of sense to store this way:  E.g. "seed phrases" -- because the stored data is public the *only* security for it comes from the private key used to encrypt it.  You could instead skip the stored data and derive all the bitcoin keys and website passwords from the same key with no storage.  Presumably if your key is secure then you have to store it too-- most mediums that can store 256 bits can also store 2kb.  I'll guess your key is really a passphrase which means that the thing the attacker has to attack is just that and not aes-256. A human memorized passphrase usually has less than 70 bits of security, so even worse to make the data public in that case.

it could be literally anything. say i came up with this fantastic recipe for spaghetti and meatballs.

[As a bonus: surprise the same person financing that copyright litigation against me is financing several of the high profiles ordinals companies.  Though I think the pretty clear fact that ordinals are being used as an attack on Bitcoin to destroy its decentralization (by driving up resource costs, by increasing the legal risk in running a node, by being used to justify vexatious litigation against tech people) doesn't mean all its users or the people who originally created it intended it as an attack. But it's the effect that counts.]

sorry you're being sued that's really surprising but what would even be MORE suprising is if the plaintiff won.

now you presented a bunch of use cases for bitcoin and they are all fine to some degree or another but i think my proposed use case isn't like the bottom of the list.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  These are examples of the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).

that's all a nice theory and we like to think that's how it works in practice but the way it usually works goes something like this: i have some cash in my bank account. I transfer some of it to coinbase. The bank allows that transaction to go through. Then I have to start trusting coinbase to let me buy bitcoin. Once I buy it on their platform and pay them any fees which I don't like paying fees but that's non-negotiable, I have to trust them to let me send that bitcoin to my external wallet. If i ever sell some of my bitcoin or pay for something with it, I need to tell the IRS about it. I guess though the IRS issue is outside of the scope of what use cases you are saying bitcoin solves.

So what? USA isn't the whole world.

you know what's funny? people in the USA been getting a big $50 discount off their internet service for quite a while now. Thanks to uncle sam. Not sure how long that will last though. But some of them are getting it for FREE. That's right they don't even pay a penny.

In addition, ISP around the world would advertise their service with words such as "up to X Mbps". So if you get less than X, they couldn't be sued without very serious effort since they use term "up to" which is annoying.

well if you were an ISP you would do the exact same thing. You can't promise perfection. Another annoying thing these companies do is advertise their promo rates. They never want you to know what the price goes up to after that first 12 months is up. You have to probably call them and threaten to take them to court just to find out what their normal rate is...

[ABCbits]

Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

Very interesting. Is there some technology under consideration to replace the traditional "initial blockchain download", or some concrete research on one?

--snip--

I skimmed page you mentioned, but none of them mentioned UTXO commitment. I remember BCH community attempt to do that, but i never check whether they actually implement and use it. Although with new ~15 million UTXO due to BRC-20 hype, i wonder how well UTXO commitment works.

Although people who don't care about verify whole blockchain or can trust certain person could just use download snapshot of pruned node from website such as https://prunednode.today/.

In addition, ISP around the world would advertise their service with words such as "up to X Mbps". So if you get less than X, they couldn't be sued without very serious effort since they use term "up to" which is annoying.

well if you were an ISP you would do the exact same thing. You can't promise perfection. Another annoying thing these companies do is advertise their promo rates. They never want you to know what the price goes up to after that first 12 months is up. You have to probably call them and threaten to take them to court just to find out what their normal rate is...

I get your point. But it's annoying when a customer only get less half or less of what ISP advertised most of the time.

[larry_vw_1955]

I get your point. But it's annoying when a customer only get less half or less of what ISP advertised most of the time.

well if you're supposed to get say 30 Mbps down and you're not even getting 15 most of the time then I'd say that's a bigger problem than if you are supposed to get 100 and only get 50. But that's just an opinion...if someone has 50Mbps then life should be ok. at least they can do basic things. They won't be downloading games all day long but I think alot of ISPs have limits on abusive subscribers that download like crazy anyway.

[philipma1957]

I get your point. But it's annoying when a customer only get less half or less of what ISP advertised most of the time.

well if you're supposed to get say 30 Mbps down and you're not even getting 15 most of the time then I'd say that's a bigger problem than if you are supposed to get 100 and only get 50. But that's just an opinion...if someone has 50Mbps then life should be ok. at least they can do basic things. They won't be downloading games all day long but I think alot of ISPs have limits on abusive subscribers that download like crazy anyway.

I have 200 down and 30 up

when I do a full blockchain they slow me to about 90 down.

[larry_vw_1955]

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

there's only one way to fully validate the current utxo set and that is by downloading the entire blockchain from the genesis block. if someone wants to trust some third party then  i guess that's up to them but internet speeds and storage space seem like they will able to support blockchain growth perhaps indefinitely since technology is always improving and we already have 20+TB drives. That's about a 40:1 ratio of unused to used space. You can bet that's going to get bigger in the future. people can already have a 1Gbps internet speed. That should be sufficient far into the future for downloading the blockchain. Blockchain grows at 0.1TB per year max, it takes how many years to fill up a 20TB HDD? In 100 years the blockchain will be at most about 10TB. On a 1Gbps connection you can download that in just over 1 day. In 100 years, 1Gbps probably will be something everyone has. No one is still on dialup.

The day when you can't download and fully validate the blockchain from the genesys block if you so desire is the day that bitcoin becomes meaningless. Because you won't know if it goes all the way back to satoshi or not.

So not only do you have to worry that it might become unavailable, it'll be inevitable, except in the sense that perhaps there may be some archive someplace or another that has the historical chain and might make it available to you at some cost.  

I don't share that point of view. Not with regards to ordinals and not in the next 100 years.

[philipma1957]

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

there's only one way to fully validate the current utxo set and that is by downloading the entire blockchain from the genesis block. if someone wants to trust some third party then  i guess that's up to them but internet speeds and storage space seem like they will able to support blockchain growth perhaps indefinitely since technology is always improving and we already have 20+TB drives. That's about a 40:1 ratio of unused to used space. You can bet that's going to get bigger in the future. people can already have a 1Gbps internet speed. That should be sufficient far into the future for downloading the blockchain. Blockchain grows at 0.1TB per year max, it takes how many years to fill up a 20TB HDD? In 100 years the blockchain will be at most about 10TB. On a 1Gbps connection you can download that in just over 1 day. In 100 years, 1Gbps probably will be something everyone has. No one is still on dialup.

The day when you can't download and fully validate the blockchain from the genesys block if you so desire is the day that bitcoin becomes meaningless. Because you won't know if it goes all the way back to satoshi or not.

So not only do you have to worry that it might become unavailable, it'll be inevitable, except in the sense that perhaps there may be some archive someplace or another that has the historical chain and might make it available to you at some cost.  

I don't share that point of view. Not with regards to ordinals and not in the next 100 years.

well a lot depends on block size.  If developers panic and go to 32mb blocks fast vs 2mb blocks now the downloads would be terrible.

Which is one good argument to no allow ordinals or any block spam at all.

I can do a 500gb download pretty fast.

Even a 1tb download is not bad.

I have been lazy and should do a new core download.

[garlonicon]

I can do a 500gb download pretty fast.

The problem is: downloading blockchain data is not all what you have to do, to be a full node. You also have to verify that data. Verification time is much bigger bottleneck than blockchain size.

Some time ago, I saw that in practice in some altcoin. It was CPU-based, and had only 2 GB chain, or something around that. However, downloading 500 GB of Bitcoin was faster than downloading 2 GB of this altcoin, just because they switched from SHA-256 to some ASIC-resistant, CPU-mineable hash function. Even worse, they did it not only in block headers, but just everywhere, in every single place, which means they also replaced it in Merkle Tree, in Script opcodes like OP_SHA256, and in all other places. Then, I learned why using lightweight hash function like SHA-256 is important. I saw their chainwork, when mining a single block header, and getting 50 coins, required computing around 1000 hashes. I saw how validating a Merkle Tree with depth of ten levels was as hard as mining the next block.

And then, coming back to Bitcoin, you can read about possible attacks, that can slow down verification. Plugging a lot of OP_CHECKSIG opcodes, executing hash functions multiple times, sending strange P2P messages with complex data, etc. If the whole problem would be only about downloading speed, then we could go further than from 1 MB to 4 MB. However, if bootstrapping a new node from a server running 24/7, with static IP, and good connections to other nodes, can take a week, then I know the problem is not only about bandwidth, because I can see that in practice, when I read logs from my server, and compare network usage with CPU and disk usage.

[ABCbits]

--snip--

They won't be downloading games all day long but I think alot of ISPs have limits on abusive subscribers that download like crazy anyway.

And depending on the limitation, i would classify it as predatory behavior. For example, there are few ISP which advertise their internet with claim unlimited usage but also do one of these,
1. Very strict data caps/FUP[1] before your speed is slowed down significantly. In my country, i've seen few ISP which offer 50 Mbps with only 300GB monthly FUP. Even comcast (one of ISP in USA) has 1.2TB limit and then offer actual unlimited plan[2].
2. Threaten to terminate their service for customer who use lots of data[3].
3. Attempt to throttle VPN and Torrent[5] connection.

I can do a 500gb download pretty fast.

The problem is: downloading blockchain data is not all what you have to do, to be a full node. You also have to verify that data. Verification time is much bigger bottleneck than blockchain size.

--snip--

Exactly. Based on one of LoyceV testing[6], you need fairly decent setup (4 core CPU, NVMe SSD and 16GB RAM, even though Bitcoin Core only configured to use ~6GB RAM) to fully sync pruned node in 22 hours.

[1] https://selectra.in/guides/fup
[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/11/comcasts-data-cap-finally-goes-nationwide-in-expansion-to-12-more-states/
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/payvpu/new_isp_threatened_to_cut_off_my_connection/
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/VPN/comments/5jmgv8/can_an_isp_detect_a_vpn_and_throttle_your/
[5] https://www.zdnet.com/article/is-your-internet-provider-throttling-bittorrent-traffic-find-out/
[6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434679.msg61714795#msg61714795

[larry_vw_1955]

And depending on the limitation, i would classify it as predatory behavior. For example, there are few ISP which advertise their internet with claim unlimited usage but also do one of these,
1. Very strict data caps/FUP[1] before your speed is slowed down significantly. In my country, i've seen few ISP which offer 50 Mbps with only 300GB monthly FUP. Even comcast (one of ISP in USA) has 1.2TB limit and then offer actual unlimited plan[2].

1.2 terabyte is alot for a single day. a DVD-R disc is about 5GB right? that's like downloading over 200 DVD movies or something in a single day. i'd say 99% of people don't have that type of need. shouldn't have that type of need and if they do then they're on the wrong plan. but if they do offer a truely unlimited plan as you say then that's what that is for i guess.

2. Threaten to terminate their service for customer who use lots of data[3].

Homeboy downloaded about 18TB of data in one month and wonders why they threatened to cut him off. One mnth. 18 terabytes. you do the math. equals other people can't use their internet service because homeboy is downloading Linux ISO images like crazy. probably trying to sell them.

3. Attempt to throttle VPN and Torrent[5] connection.

personal internet service is not really meant to do things like share torrents. lets say Joe tries to run bittorrent 24/7, then people all over the globe are going to be hitting him up for pieces of files. so what just happened is all those people became non-paying customers of Joe's ISP. they don't like that.

unlimited is only unlimited to the extent that you don't cause a problem with other paying customers or the ISP thinks you might be. then you're not on unlimited anymore. 

[z0x0fily]

It's not only about BRC-20 which is usually under 1kb, people are inscribing much bigger files (https://www.ord.io/?contentType=video) at the moment for no apparent reason. I've almost never seen someone storing their NFT's collection files on Ethereum, but ORD community seems to encourage doing that on bitcoin and consider it innovative. I've seen one of the communities celebrate inscribing some of their used node_module packages on bitcoin a few hours ago.

[ABCbits]

And depending on the limitation, i would classify it as predatory behavior. For example, there are few ISP which advertise their internet with claim unlimited usage but also do one of these,
1. Very strict data caps/FUP[1] before your speed is slowed down significantly. In my country, i've seen few ISP which offer 50 Mbps with only 300GB monthly FUP. Even comcast (one of ISP in USA) has 1.2TB limit and then offer actual unlimited plan[2].

1.2 terabyte is alot for a single day. a DVD-R disc is about 5GB right? that's like downloading over 200 DVD movies or something in a single day. i'd say 99% of people don't have that type of need. shouldn't have that type of need and if they do then they're on the wrong plan. but if they do offer a truely unlimited plan as you say then that's what that is for i guess.

As stated on news source i mentioned, it's 1.2TB per month. While it's still sufficient for many people or contribute to Bitcoin network by running full node while allowing incoming connection, it's definitely not true unlimited. And 1.2TB isn't a lot when it's used by family for zoom meeting and video streaming on almost daily basis with HD or higher resolution. For reference, since 2021 (when COVID happen and people work/study from home) there are 14% customer who use more than 1TB/month[1].

2. Threaten to terminate their service for customer who use lots of data[3].

Homeboy downloaded about 18TB of data in one month and wonders why they threatened to cut him off. One mnth. 18 terabytes. you do the math. equals other people can't use their internet service because homeboy is downloading Linux ISO images like crazy. probably trying to sell them.

Example i mentioned is definitely extreme case. But since we're talking about 18TB, i would speculate he just collect every Linux ISO which is exist on internet. And i've seen few people claim they receive similar threat when they exceed 2TB of internet usage.

3. Attempt to throttle VPN and Torrent[5] connection.

personal internet service is not really meant to do things like share torrents. lets say Joe tries to run bittorrent 24/7, then people all over the globe are going to be hitting him up for pieces of files. so what just happened is all those people became non-paying customers of Joe's ISP. they don't like that.

I agree running bittorent 24/7 is a somehow extreme for home user. But those throttle also apply when you download files with bittorrent protocol. And as reminder, there's etiquette to have at least 1.0 or 1:1 ratio (e.g. if you download 1GB, you should also upload 1GB)[2], although some people say 0.5 ratio is acceptable.

unlimited is only unlimited to the extent that you don't cause a problem with other paying customers or the ISP thinks you might be. then you're not on unlimited anymore.  

Which IMO isn't true unlimited or isn't what customer expect when they see term "unlimited" on their advertising.

It's not only about BRC-20 which is usually under 1kb, people are inscribing much bigger files (https://www.ord.io/?contentType=video) at the moment for no apparent reason. I've almost never seen someone storing their NFT's collection files on Ethereum, but ORD community seems to encourage doing that on bitcoin and consider it innovative.

Both of them could be stored elsewhere. But i'd say BRC-20 is worse since it create many TX and UTXO.

I've seen one of the communities celebrate inscribing some of their used node_module packages on bitcoin a few hours ago.

Do you mind sharing the link?


[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/02/internet-use-soared-throughout-2020-helping-isps-cash-in-on-data-caps/
[2] https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-use-bittorrent

[z0x0fily]

Do you mind sharing the link?

Sure, this is an NFT collection that inscribed a couple of packages that are commonly used, https://twitter.com/OnChainMonkey/status/1668059991327248384. This came as a follow up on Recursive Inscriptions proposal, basically splitting the data over multiple inscriptions and reusing them, removing some of the limitation that they had. A flood of JS packages in transactions is probably about to happen so that they can use it in their HTML inscriptions.

[larry_vw_1955]

Which IMO isn't true unlimited or isn't what customer expect when they see term "unlimited" on their advertising.

true unlimited is only a theoretical thing. in practice it means whatever the company offering the service wants it to mean. we all know that. same with "unlimited lifetime cloud storage" snake oil for one time payment...maybe some newbies don't understand that but that's how it is.

[gmaxwell]

there's only one way to fully validate the current utxo set and that is by downloading the entire blockchain from the genesis block.

If that we're true you'd have a point, but the good news is that isn't.

It's possible using cryptography to construct proof for statements like "0xDEADBEEF is the hash of the tip of a blockchain starting at the genesis block where all rules pass, with total difficulty Y", where the proof is much smaller than the blockchain (in some cases only a few hundred bytes).

Such systems are already in production use for small programs today. Scaling them up to work over the whole bitcoin blockchain is a (considerable) engineering exercise, but I think it's inevitable-- well inevitable that the proof systems are developed to that extent.  If Bitcoin will deploy them or not will depend on if anyone is still willing to work on it.

(And you should hope these tools are developed, because we've already seen what people do when validating the history becomes too expensive-- they skip it)

Example i mentioned is definitely extreme case. But since we're talking about 18TB, i would speculate he just collect every Linux ISO which is exist on internet. And i've seen few people claim they receive similar threat when they exceed 2TB of internet usage.

Add me to the list. Downloading the 2.6TB archive of all historical reddit posts got me one.

[larry_vw_1955]

If that we're true you'd have a point, but the good news is that isn't.

It's possible using cryptography to construct proof for statements like "0xDEADBEEF is the hash of the tip of a blockchain starting at the genesis block where all rules pass, with total difficulty Y", where the proof is much smaller than the blockchain (in some cases only a few hundred bytes).

Such systems are already in production use for small programs today. Scaling them up to work over the whole bitcoin blockchain is a (considerable) engineering exercise, but I think it's inevitable-- well inevitable that the proof systems are developed to that extent.  If Bitcoin will deploy them or not will depend on if anyone is still willing to work on it.

(And you should hope these tools are developed, because we've already seen what people do when validating the history becomes too expensive-- they skip it)

i'm skeptical that such a system could work for bitcoin unless they changed up the structure of bitcoin blocks to include some type of utxo set commitment inside each block. but i guess if you did that, maybe it could work.

because the way it is right now, an individual block doesn't really tell you anything about what the existing utxo set is or any of its properties. that would need to change somehow.

[gmaxwell]

i'm skeptical that such a system could work for bitcoin unless they changed up the structure of bitcoin blocks to include some type of utxo set commitment inside each block. but i guess if you did that, maybe it could work.

because the way it is right now, an individual block doesn't really tell you anything about what the existing utxo set is or any of its properties. that would need to change somehow.

Nah.  That could be side information computed as part the proving process, it doesn't need to be part of the block commitment.

E.g. prove "block hash x with resulting utxo state hash xu is a valid successor to block y with utxo state hash yu".

And each block commits to every prior utxo set state by committing to the history of all blocks before it.  So, for example its possible to construct a proof that says "output 0xDEADBEEF:01 is a member of the utxo set at height 1000 of this chain with height 1001 hash Y" its just that the prover must process the whole chain up to height 1000 while constructing the proof.  The prover might be more efficient with an optimized commitment structure but it isn't necessary.  You can produce a proof for the output of ANY program. If a program can validate it, a proof can be provided.

[larry_vw_1955]

Nah.  That could be side information computed as part the proving process, it doesn't need to be part of the block commitment.

E.g. prove "block hash x with resulting utxo state hash xu is a valid successor to block y with utxo state hash yu".

And each block commits to every prior utxo set state by committing to the history of all blocks before it.  So, for example its possible to construct a proof that says "output 0xDEADBEEF:01 is a member of the utxo set at height 1000 of this chain with height 1001 hash Y" its just that the prover must process the whole chain up to height 1000 while constructing the proof.  The prover might be more efficient with an optimized commitment structure but it isn't necessary.  You can produce a proof for the output of ANY program. If a program can validate it, a proof can be provided.

it seems like such a huge problem for such a simple seeming thing. if everyone could just agree on the same utxo set at a certain block height they could jettison everything that came before that. kind of   and then it would be like restarting the entire blockchain from a new genisys block the only difference would be there was an existing utxo set not an empty one...that's how you solve the storage problem. every so often the chain has to be reset.
 

[gmaxwell]

If you're okay with the security implications of that, then fine! it's yet another explanation as to why there is very little to think the retrieveability of this data will be high far into the future.  My more elaborate answer only explains that even if you hold the security properties constant there is little reason to expect it.

[larry_vw_1955]

If you're okay with the security implications of that, then fine! it's yet another explanation as to why there is very little to think the retrieveability of this data will be high far into the future.  My more elaborate answer only explains that even if you hold the security properties constant there is little reason to expect it.

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

Seagate's HAMR hard drives will debut with a whopping 32TB capacity this year, 40TB to follow
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91797/seagates-hamr-hard-drives-will-debut-with-whopping-32tb-capacity-this-year-40tb-to-follow/index.html

I'm not so convinced its going to be necessary to do anything at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see. yes not everyone is going to have access to these things due to their location/financial situation but some people will.

[gmaxwell]

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

I see in the thread that several people have explained to you already that these claimed speeds are at best peak rates, and in practice are pretty much a lie.  Comcast, for example, sends termination threats to users with sustained rate of >=6.2 mbps averaged over a month (I got one last month).

It's already also been explained to you that embedded irrelevant data in Bitcoin is *already* getting people sued.  

Meanwhile, to the extent that it really is no big deal, then you should expect systems *designed* to store data for people to exist and be usable and get the job done.

Expecting Bitcoin which is expressly *not* designed to do this, doesn't do it efficiently (e.g. no affordance for distributing storage across multiple systems) and hardly even does it today (as mentioned: it doesn't provide arbitrary retrieval) to do it for you in the future is seems foolish indeed.

But hey, maybe mankind is just too fucking stupid to deserve Bitcoin and it'll get fucked up by abusive idiots that can't resist urinating in the public water fountain any time there isn't a physical barrier preventing them from doing it.  That would be sad, but it would be far from the first time it's happened.

[larry_vw_1955]

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

I see in the thread that several people have explained to you already that these claimed speeds are at best peak rates, and in practice are pretty much a lie.  Comcast, for example, sends termination threats to users with sustained rate of >=6.2 mbps averaged over a month (I got one last month).

It's already also been explained to you that embedded irrelevant data in Bitcoin is *already* getting people sued.  

Meanwhile, to the extent that it really is no big deal, then you should expect systems *designed* to store data for people to exist and be usable and get the job done.

Expecting Bitcoin which is expressly *not* designed to do this, doesn't do it efficiently (e.g. no affordance for distributing storage across multiple systems) and hardly even does it today (as mentioned: it doesn't provide arbitrary retrieval) to do it for you in the future is seems foolish indeed.

But hey, maybe mankind is just too fucking stupid to deserve Bitcoin and it'll get fucked up by abusive idiots that can't resist urinating in the public water fountain any time there isn't a physical barrier preventing them from doing it.  That would be sad, but it would be far from the first time it's happened.

i mean greg, if bitcoin permits it then how can you say it is wrong to do it? you're really coming down hard on me and i wasn't trying to argue with you at all. i was just pointing out that tech is progressing at a rapid rate.

i'm supposed to believe a few people posting here over an authoritative article let's look at part of what it said:


The Gigabit 2x plan will initially limit customers to uploading files at 200Mbps. However, starting in 2023, multi-gig symmetrical speeds will be possible, thanks to a technology called DOCSIS 4.0.

Comcast has been transitioning to the standard for the past few years. Once that work is complete, it will have the network in place to offer 10Gbps download speeds and 6Gbps upload speeds on the same connection. In turn, that would allow it to provide symmetrical speeds across many of its cable packages. That’s an area where cable has historically lagged compared to fiber optic internet.


it doesn't matter if bitcoin was designed to store data or not. all that matters is if people use it for that or not.

comparing using bitcoin to do something that is allowed by the rules as they currently exist and have existed since early this year to something illegal like urinating in a public water fountain yeah you need to update your logic...

now, if you'll excuse me i think i need to go do an internet speedtest to see if they're giving me what i'm supposed to be getting. all this talk about being ripped off by ISPs has me wanting to double check...

[Cricktor]

At first I feel it's kind of off-topic to talk about ISPs and their not uncommon bandwidth lies, but it has actually something to do with this thread's topic and concerns some have with this Ordinals and BRC-20 stuff.

I pay for VDSL internet connection with around 100MBit down- and 40MBit upstream and I get this bandwidth in both directions, multiple times tested to full extend. It's not the cheapest provider in my area (I'm first world citizen, btw) and I deliberately stay at my provider because I never had any severe issues with service delivery quality and reliability of my connection. I'm OK to pay more for that.
Monthly I create traffic between 300-400 GiB both down- and upstream, my average is usually somewhere in between 600-750 GiB/month combined. Very occasionally I have peaked this to over one TiB/month combined. I have no explicit volume cap in my contract nor did I ever receive any contract termination threat from my provider. In above volume there's some Youtube and other streaming included, but that part isn't much because I didn't stream a lot in the last few months.

Can I expect this to be the norm for others? Of course, not! And I don't know why @larry_vw_1955 thinks that his ISP "luxury" could be the norm for others everywhere. (I might over-exaggerate it a bit...)


Bigger HDDs or SSDs can easily hold the blockchain for years in the future but a constantly bloated blockchain still takes more time to transfer (puts more toll on those who provide blockchain data online and on the receiver side due to maybe bandwidth restrictions), takes probably more time to verify and the bloated space requirement is on everybody who wants or needs to hold a full copy of the blockchain (current pruning isn't ideal and doesn't help or work for all situations). Better newer hardware shouldn't be an excuse for bloating or missuse.

I simply don't think it's a good and worthy idea to be able to store up to nearly 4MB of arbitrary metadata into a Bitcoin transaction even if you have to pay the fee market price for it. I can't judge the pictures or other data that people throw into the blockchain with the Ordinals shit. The ability to easily do it is a flaw in my opinion and we all have to suffer the consequences of it.

[larry_vw_1955]

I pay for VDSL internet connection with around 100MBit down- and 40MBit upstream and I get this bandwidth in both directions, multiple times tested to full extend. It's not the cheapest provider in my area (I'm first world citizen, btw) and I deliberately stay at my provider because I never had any severe issues with service delivery quality and reliability of my connection. I'm OK to pay more for that.
Monthly I create traffic between 300-400 GiB both down- and upstream, my average is usually somewhere in between 600-750 GiB/month combined. Very occasionally I have peaked this to over one TiB/month combined. I have no explicit volume cap in my contract nor did I ever receive any contract termination threat from my provider. In above volume there's some Youtube and other streaming included, but that part isn't much because I didn't stream a lot in the last few months.

and you my friend are on the very low end of the internet speed continuum i would have to say. just a fact here in the usa.

Can I expect this to be the norm for others? Of course, not! And I don't know why @larry_vw_1955 thinks that his ISP "luxury" could be the norm for others everywhere. (I might over-exaggerate it a bit...)

it may not be the norm for others but if they expect to be in the digital age, then there's just some things they won't be able to do if they have a speed like yours even. yours is on the very low end of what someone might consider acceptable in this day and age. here in the USA particularly.

Better newer hardware shouldn't be an excuse for bloating or missuse.

IMO if someone has an issue with block size now vs pre-segwit then they have an issue with segwit. so they should direct their finger in that direction rather than people using the features of segwit to make blocks bigger than 1MB. whether someone considers segwit to be bloating or misusing the blockchain is their own opinion. hardware tech can handle it though and much more. kind of like someone that expects to be able to run a full linux distro using an old computer with a 200MB hard drive. they just need to get with the times. or suffer the consequences.

I simply don't think it's a good and worthy idea to be able to store up to nearly 4MB of arbitrary metadata into a Bitcoin transaction even if you have to pay the fee market price for it. I can't judge the pictures or other data that people throw into the blockchain with the Ordinals shit. The ability to easily do it is a flaw in my opinion and we all have to suffer the consequences of it.

well thats how bitcoin works. if you don't like the idea of storing other peoples' transactional information then maybe you don't want to run a full node. decentralized does not mean free or without any burden or responsibility...just my opinion. keep in mind, what business is it of yours what someone else's bitcoin transaction is for? none at all right? you shouldn't care or be concerned about it. because that's their business as long as their transaction follows the consensus rules it's none of anyone's business what the details of the transaction are. who sent it, who they send it to, none of that.

[Cricktor]

and you my friend are on the very low end of the internet speed continuum i would have to say. just a fact here in the usa.

My bandwidth plan isn't the max that my ISP offers, I could've more if I wanted, but frankly I don't need more and I don't see a reason to pay for more when I rarely even saturate my current bandwidth limits, YMMV though.

it may not be the norm for others but if they expect to be in the digital age, then there's just some things they won't be able to do if they have a speed like yours even. yours is on the very low end of what someone might consider acceptable in this day and age. here in the USA particularly.

I'm curious to learn what the tip of the digital age has bandwidth needs for. What am I missing out without even knowing it? Again, YMMV. I don't know why you constantly try to impose your bandwidth needs onto others. Or maybe I missinterpret it?

I had 50/10 MBit before and didn't feel too bad with the download speed, but the upload speed of 10MBit was sometimes a bit of a bottleneck. That's why I took  the opportunity to up my plan to 100+/40+ when there was a nice offer with some other nice options from my ISP. The next plan at my location would be 250/40 MBit which only would give me more download speed which I don't need maybe 95+% of the time.
Glass fiber is coming too, my ISP has done most of its part to provide it in my area, at least they claim it, but house owners and rental need to do their part that the building where I live gets FTTH installed. If and once this is done, there will be plans like 1000/200 MBit.

I'd still have to find applications in my household for such a bandwidth. Sure, it's nice to have, but it's not for free and I'd need to have a reason to pay for it, which I currently simply don't have. No need to waste money here.

IMO if someone has an issue with block size now vs pre-segwit then they have an issue with segwit. so they should direct their finger in that direction rather than people using the features of segwit to make blocks bigger than 1MB. whether someone considers segwit to be bloating or misusing the blockchain is their own opinion. hardware tech can handle it though and much more. kind of like someone that expects to be able to run a full linux distro using an old computer with a 200MB hard drive. they just need to get with the times. or suffer the consequences.

Where do you read in my posts that I have an issue with segwit block sizes or your other silly claims. I'm fine with and don't oppose Segwit block sizes. You make your false claims for what reason exactly?
My personal opinion is that I'm not OK with to exploit a loophole in Taproot which allows to arbitrarily fill witness data space until Segwit limits for even a single transaction, i.e. Ordinals crap filling the blockchain with some bullshit. You're right, it's not on me to judge what is bullshit or not. This arbitrarily added data has nothing to do with the transaction details like inputs and outputs itself.

well thats how bitcoin works. if you don't like the idea of storing other peoples' transactional information then maybe you don't want to run a full node. decentralized does not mean free or without any burden or responsibility...just my opinion. keep in mind, what business is it of yours what someone else's bitcoin transaction is for? none at all right? you shouldn't care or be concerned about it. because that's their business as long as their transaction follows the consensus rules it's none of anyone's business what the details of the transaction are. who sent it, who they send it to, none of that.

I assume your mental capacity allows you to distinguish between mandatory transaction content like inputs and outputs and superficially added arbitrary data that isn't necessary for a Bitcoin transaction. We might differ in opinions about that. And btw I don't oppose the OP_RETURN mechanism at all. This has sensible limits which were rarely abused like what we see now with Ordinals.
I don't care about others spent inputs and destination outputs of transactions. Sure, valid transactions have to follow consensus rules, that's not new. But it isn't the first time that some flaws show up in Bitcoin. It's rare but it happened in the past and in my opinion we have a flaw right now. If and how that is to be dealt with, it's not me alone to decide, no question.

[larry_vw_1955]

My bandwidth plan isn't the max that my ISP offers, I could've more if I wanted, but frankly I don't need more and I don't see a reason to pay for more when I rarely even saturate my current bandwidth limits, YMMV though.

I agree. For many use cases,  people don't need insane network speeds. Even something like 50mbps down and 5 up might work. But you're not going to be downloading the blockchain very fast that way. Nor will you be downloading things like Windows 10 very fast but I guess it could be done. Funny thing is, even with no bandwith limit on your side, the site you're trying to hit up might be slow which means you're still downloading slowly.

I'm curious to learn what the tip of the digital age has bandwidth needs for. What am I missing out without even knowing it? Again, YMMV. I don't know why you constantly try to impose your bandwidth needs onto others. Or maybe I missinterpret it?

this was like 4 or 5 years ago that I saw someone looking for people to upload videos for them. And guess what? They didn't want people with slow speeds. I think he might have said something like if you're lower than 128mbps on the upload then don't even bother. Probably plenty of people had higher than that. That was 4 or 5 years ago. Just imagine what he wants from them now. Probably 500 or more. So yeah, uploading videos...

I had 50/10 MBit before and didn't feel too bad with the download speed, but the upload speed of 10MBit was sometimes a bit of a bottleneck. That's why I took  the opportunity to up my plan to 100+/40+ when there was a nice offer with some other nice options from my ISP. The next plan at my location would be 250/40 MBit which only would give me more download speed which I don't need maybe 95+% of the time.

no one ever said people need to have 100/40. unless someone is doing something like uploading videos or downloading movies all the time or huge ISO images of Windows all the time I would think even less than 100/40 would be perfectly fine. Unless their job requires them to be doing HD videoconferencing or something. Not sure what that would require.

Glass fiber is coming too, my ISP has done most of its part to provide it in my area, at least they claim it, but house owners and rental need to do their part that the building where I live gets FTTH installed. If and once this is done, there will be plans like 1000/200 MBit.

And then most of the time it sits there unused except for a couple hours a day maybe when someone is browing the web or watching youtube. could be a complete waste of money. And then you have to ask how much data can they really transfer before they get booted?

I'd still have to find applications in my household for such a bandwidth. Sure, it's nice to have, but it's not for free and I'd need to have a reason to pay for it, which I currently simply don't have. No need to waste money here.

i agree. what the ISP industry is trying to do is get rid of the lower speed plans so they can charge more for the more expensive ones but still limit you to the same amount of data transfer per month. that's the real issue. people don't really need 1000/200. unless they're doing something specialized like uploading tons of videos.

[BrianH]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Integrating Ordinals into Bitcoin can be likened to the act of spraying neon graffiti on revered ancient monuments like the colosseum or the pyramids. These structures stand as architectural marvels and testaments of historical significance. Imagine them suddenly covered in flashy, modern neon spray paint.
...
In a similar vein, the introduction of Ordinals into Bitcoin feels like a significant misstep. It disrespects and distorts the foundational principles of Bitcoin, turning a groundbreaking financial innovation into a cluttered display of digital extravagance. This transformation not only undermines the original vision of Bitcoin but also challenges the very essence of what made it a monumental breakthrough in the digital world.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ordinals-put-digital-graffiti-bitcoin-blockchain
CoinTelegraph comes down hard on this vulnerability.

Take a look at recent Bitcoin fees. Just passed an all-time high, since the BRC-20 bug was introduced. BRC-20 spammers were rushing to spam the network with @#$% pics before they were cut off, but the Ordinals.com website was spammed! Haha how ironic. Karma.

[NotATether]

Take a look at recent Bitcoin fees. Just passed an all-time high, since the BRC-20 bug was introduced. BRC-20 spammers were rushing to spam the network with @#$% pics before they were cut off, but the Ordinals.com website was spammed! Haha how ironic. Karma.

So looks like the rumors of a hard fork really do seem more credible if this is going to be patched out.

The explosive fees have finally forced me to adopt the lightning network, and now I even got my own node.

I think in the future instead of running our own bitcoin nodes and putting c-lightning or LND on them, we will just rent out a node from a provider like Voltage. and then buy channels with Amboss.

But now with that sorted, yeah I'd like the madness on layer 1 to stop. They can make an inscriptions fork if they want, but I'm gonna be short-selling it. Cause it's going to fail anyway.

[Amphenomenon]

-Snip-

Please Ordinals should be totally scraped out of Bitcoin network, they said with time Mempool will be less congested but as time goes by its becoming more annoying and now what we use as free accelerator (ViaBTC) as been taken by bots, there is no such thing as equity here all they care about is either spamming or making money, there are no decentralisation here, just annoying folks who only cares about themselves

They are still accelerating 100 transactions per hour freely.
The problem is that ordinal scammers are abusing ViaBTC free accelerator with their bots and don't allow humans to submit their transactions.

If you check the last blocks mined by ViaBTC, you will see that they have included many low fee transactions.

Read the post I made in another thread.

but I'm starting to think Viabtc is no longer truly offering 100 tx per hour

I think they do.

Here are the latest two blocks mined by ViaBTC. Transactions are sorted by their fee rate in ascending order.
(Times are in UTC.)

• 823055 (19:31)
• 823066 (22:01)

Just visit the above links and see how many low fee transactions they have included.


According to above times, ViaBTC should have accelerated 300 transactions freely in block number 823066.
Let's check if they did so.


The minimum required fee rate for getting confirmation in block number 823066 was around 100 satoshi. ViaBTC included 312 transactions with the fee rate of less than 90 sat/vbyte. Click here to see all those transactions.
10 out of those 312 transactions were confirmed with CPFP and that means that 302 transactions were accelerated by ViaBTC. All those 302 transactions meet ViaBTC free accelerator requirements.

The problem is how ViaBTC free accelerator is being abused by bots. 294 out of 302 transactions are related to ordinals. They are all 1 input - 1 output transactions paying 23 sat/vbyte.

[serveria.com]

-Snip-

Please Ordinals should be totally scraped out of Bitcoin network, they said with time Mempool will be less congested but as time goes by its becoming more annoying and now what we use as free accelerator (ViaBTC) as been taken by bots, there is no such thing as equity here all they care about is either spamming or making money, there are no decentralisation here, just annoying folks who only cares about themselves

They are still accelerating 100 transactions per hour freely.
The problem is that ordinal scammers are abusing ViaBTC free accelerator with their bots and don't allow humans to submit their transactions.

If you check the last blocks mined by ViaBTC, you will see that they have included many low fee transactions.

Read the post I made in another thread.

but I'm starting to think Viabtc is no longer truly offering 100 tx per hour

I think they do.

Here are the latest two blocks mined by ViaBTC. Transactions are sorted by their fee rate in ascending order.
(Times are in UTC.)

• 823055 (19:31)
• 823066 (22:01)

Just visit the above links and see how many low fee transactions they have included.


According to above times, ViaBTC should have accelerated 300 transactions freely in block number 823066.
Let's check if they did so.


The minimum required fee rate for getting confirmation in block number 823066 was around 100 satoshi. ViaBTC included 312 transactions with the fee rate of less than 90 sat/vbyte. Click here to see all those transactions.
10 out of those 312 transactions were confirmed with CPFP and that means that 302 transactions were accelerated by ViaBTC. All those 302 transactions meet ViaBTC free accelerator requirements.

The problem is how ViaBTC free accelerator is being abused by bots. 294 out of 302 transactions are related to ordinals. They are all 1 input - 1 output transactions paying 23 sat/vbyte.

Yes, I can confirm ViaBTC is plagued by bots. They're offering to accelerate 100 transaction per hour but even if I refresh the page at 10:00, at 10:01 there are no free spots left. Due to ordinals/brc20 spam ddosing the sh*t out of the blockchain my transactions are sitting there 10-20mb from tip for days, even though the fees are quite ok (~100sat/byte). 

[tromp]

They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Except that they can't. By design, Bitcoin allows a fair amount of entropy even in the plainest of transactions, at least 32 bytes per output.

The harder that you try to censor the current ordinals encoding, the more you force it to adopt alternative encodings exploiting that entropy, that are indistinguishable from regular payments.

While that forces them to pay more in fees, that's clearly not going to stop them.

WORSE yet, by forcing their encodings to be indistinguishable from regular txs, you make it impossible to prune the ordinal data from a full node.

[Greg Tonoski]

Hardfork may not be necessary to keep spam in check. It is possible to bring back the incentives structure that existed before SegWit. Spam didn't benefit from discounted price for blockspace. Currently, legit transactions pay more for pushing bits on Bitcoin and so they are at disadvantage.

The root cause of the issue is so-called "witness discount" introduced in 2017. Everyone (including spammers) paid full price per bit beforehand. Nowadays, spam is privileged - the price for a bit of spam is lower (approx. half the price of a bit of a legit transaction). It is discounted under the so-called "witness data" in contrast to the alternative "OP_RETURN"). There are the details and real examples: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29146.

Why wasn't the discount vulnerability exploited before 2023? There is the additional limit that acts like "safety valve" but only for Segwit v0 type of transactions and not Segwit v1 (Taproot) which was introduced in late 2021.

Let's restore the incentive structure that existed before SegWit or level playing field. Legit transaction wouldn't be put at disadvantage and could outprice spam. A backward compatible change in Bitcoin Core will be enough to make it happen.

[Greg Tonoski]

WORSE yet, by forcing their encodings to be indistinguishable from regular txs, you make it impossible to prune the ordinal data from a full node.

Prunning the spam from a full node is less of a problem for me. Overpriced legit transaction is top severity issue, I think.

[NotATether]

Yes, I can confirm ViaBTC is plagued by bots. They're offering to accelerate 100 transaction per hour but even if I refresh the page at 10:00, at 10:01 there are no free spots left. Due to ordinals/brc20 spam ddosing the sh*t out of the blockchain my transactions are sitting there 10-20mb from tip for days, even though the fees are quite ok (~100sat/byte). 

A week ago I attempted to script a ViaBTC transaction broadcasting automatically using shell script, it was to wait until e.g. 8:00 sharp and then send a CURL request which I dumped from Google Chrome, the problem is that even that is not working because it complains about invalid captcha. This is despite the fact that I also copied the captcha headers and made sure they were fresh. So I don't know how these bots manage to do it really.

Even worse that it's ORDINALS transactions being broadcaster out of all things, you know, the very transactions that caused this mess in the first place.

[ABCbits]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

If you take a closer look, actually that website took information from MITRE.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Have you read discussion on GitHub Bitcoin Core, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408? Even if it's merged, it wont completely stop Ordinals TX.

[joker_josue]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

But from what I understand, this is just the opinion of some people in the developer group.
For things to really move forward, they will all need to support the idea and actually code something.

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

[pooya87]

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Interestingly enough a similar situation rose back in 2010 when people were trying to use bitcoin blockchain to store "arbitrary data" to be used for the project called BitDNS. His opinion about it is clear as he states that it should be separate and not in bitcoin blockchain. That is why a separate project called Namecoin was created.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

[cryptosize]

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Interestingly enough a similar situation rose back in 2010 when people were trying to use bitcoin blockchain to store "arbitrary data" to be used for the project called BitDNS. His opinion about it is clear as he states that it should be separate and not in bitcoin blockchain. That is why a separate project called Namecoin was created.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

They see it as a sci-fi totalitarian/all-seeing eye dystopia, where even camera video feeds will be stored in the blockchain with immutability.

People in tech communities always tend to have different goals/visions about a project, especially as a community grows more and more, more dissenting/divergent opinions will be formed. It's just human nature.

You won't understand what I'm saying, unless you've experienced it yourself in other communities too (such as metropolitan wireless networks, Linux distros etc.)

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM). Even Monero can store Ordinals: https://mordinals.org/

[Cricktor]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

No, it was not a mistake to quote the newspaper as this was needed to prove that the Genesis block and further blocks weren't pre-mined.

It was also to my knowledge the only time that Satoshi Nakamoto included such data into blocks he mined. He clearly didn't see the blockchain as something to store superfluous bullshit or bloat it with stuff that doesn't have much to do with Bitcoin transactions details.

[cryptosize]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

No, it was not a mistake to quote the newspaper as this was needed to prove that the Genesis block and further blocks weren't pre-mined.

It was also to my knowledge the only time that Satoshi Nakamoto included such data into blocks he mined. He clearly didn't see the blockchain as something to store superfluous bullshit or bloat it with stuff that doesn't have much to do with Bitcoin transactions details.

IIRC, he released the Bitcoin binaries after the Genesis block (maybe that's why those 50 BTC are unspendable).

His text message was a clear political stance IMHO... not that I mind text messages that much, since they're small by nature, but once you open that can of worms, then people can store literally everything.

Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.

[3dmlib]

It was a hype about NFTs on ethereum blockchain. What happened after it? A lot of people loose money on it and nobody using this now.
Now it on bitcoin blockchain... Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?

[joker_josue]

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Yes, you are right, Satoshi does not have any direct power in Bitcoin. But it still has its influence. This influence is still felt today, related to several aspects that have remained unchanged since the origin of Bitcoin, such as the size of blocks.

The point now is: why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network? 

Either way, you said the fundamental thing: Bitcoin was created with a payment system! And I think that was the main pillar that Bitcoin should continue to follow, and prevent other things from harming that pillar.

[garlonicon]

why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?

Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?

No. If developers would want to "make miners happy", then they could just increase default fee rates. Or, if you need a more covert way, do a transition from secp256k1 to something "bigger", that would be "quantum safe" (or whatever), which means "more complex", and of course "more expensive". But this is not the case: if it would be, then Ordinals could be just the part of Bitcoin Core, but as you can see, this is not included, and some developers even created some minority versions to reject Ordinals (but other developers didn't, because there are worse things than Ordinals, and thankfully, they are not yet present on-chain, as long as spammers are focused on Ordinals instead).

Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.

It is not that easy, if you quote what Satoshi said about "Lady Gaga videos", or about "BitDNS". Unless you say that those posts are not written by Satoshi, but those people are beyond saving.

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake

Today, that kind of message could be included as a commitment instead. But of course, there are many improvements, that could be done, if someone would want to reinvent Bitcoin. For example, if someone is going to create another altcoin, then there is no reason to have more than one address type. And if that would be the case, then the message from the Genesis Block, could be just included behind that public key, as a commitment.

based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

[Synchronice]

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

As far as I know, similar code was already written by other developers and is this a reinventing of bicycle? I also haven't found this article on other major crypto news websites. By the way, aren't Taproot Wizards the ones who wanted to make Bitcoin magical again by letting you to upload jpeg files on blockchain?

By the way, I recently read an article that states that Polygon version of Bitcoin Ordinals also significantly increased gas fees and I just have a logical question like normal human, how many ordinals/nfts are created each day and how many millions of people pay money in these NFTs? Maybe we all are stuck and missing something here while the world keeps moving on. What's going on?

[garlonicon]

Did anyone accidentally read this article?

Code:

ord_fingerprint="0063036f7264"

This patch is not enough. And also, it has a lot of flaws. Because:

1. It is possible to create a transaction, with non-Ordinal witness, that would be rejected by this patch.

For example: "020063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_CHECKSIG"
Another example: "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"

2. It is possible to create another flood, just by wrapping Ordinals in a new format, just to avoid those magic bytes, and it will not be censored.

For example: "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF OP_PUSH_3('ord')".

Just change "0063036f7264" into "0164036f7264", and then you can flood all nodes with such censorship. Now, it is too late for rules, which could be so simply evaded. It could be good one week or one month after Ordinals were introduced, but they are not sufficient here and now.

[joker_josue]

why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?

Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

I understand what you mean, but (I don't remember exactly when it was) I remember that a few years ago, there was a change that miners/pools weren't willing to support, and they ended up following this change because of the developers and community Bitcoin.

based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

Thank you for sharing these links, which clearly show Satoshi's position and opinion on this topic.
But, there he is, he is not the owner of Bitcoin, but I think that remembering his opinion can be helpful in making decisions.

[xiaolou86]

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.

BRC-20 made the network congested, and consumed too much storages.

[pooya87]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...
The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) ....

It's about size of the arbitrary data and its purpose.

Satoshi including a tiny message (a couple of bytes) in the coinbase of the very first mined block in an extremely restricted way (coinbase script size can not exceed 100 bytes) is very different from including any arbitrary data in any transaction in any block at any size without any restrictions.

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

[joker_josue]

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

Yes, and that is what cannot happen. Bitcoin is not a cloud hosting service, which allows you to store things forever, at an excellent cost.

But, I believe that a solution will soon emerge from the developers. Afterwards, the support of the entire bitcoin community will be needed to actually be able to implement it.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

[ABCbits]

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM). Even Monero can store Ordinals: https://mordinals.org/

FWIW it's possible on Monero mainly because it has TX_EXTRA field which sometimes used to interact across different cryptocurrency network.

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

Reject block? No sane people would do that since the block contain some non-ordinals TX. His script would make sense if it doesn't relay all Ordinals TX.

[nutildah]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen. An outright rejection of inscription activity imposed by devs is more likely to cause a chain split not in the favor of Ordinals Disrespectoors. We will have Bitcoin (BTC) as it is today and Ordinal Disrespectoor Coin (ODC), for maxi idealists that refuse to adapt to this new paradigm.

A middle ground, as I've been suggesting for months now, would be to place some kind of thoughtfully-placed limitation on taproot script length where things such as coinjoins are still under the data limit yet 1 MB monkey pictures are not.

[stompix]

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

Yeah, and it's going to have the same effect as vegans boycotting Dinosaur Bar-B-Que.

By rejecting all block that contain ordinals your node will simply become useless, and you can have 90% of the nodes doing the same, as long a no block with zero ordinals is mined all this solves zero, the nodes that do relay blocks with ordinals will keep doing so and miners will keep adding more to the chain, zero impact whatsoever.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

No, the opposite, we're going to have Bitcoin as we know it now and a dead coin from the start, something called Luke's vision or whatever.

[pooya87]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Creating a copyfork (called Bordi? lol) would create something less successful than the shitforks in the past (mainly 2017 era).

[Findingnemo]

We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

The actual reason for the creation of ordinal is just to make money with NFT shit and the person who created knew that it is going to get huge hype and that is why the thing is still in the trend and some investors do believe that this NFT token is going to be the next big, poor people who have no idea and still risk their money.

I just hope something can fix the ordinals that are exploiting the Bitcoin network while doing great harm and I don't know how long this can go on meanwhile shitcoins claim and convince Bitcoin is done and make some money for themselves.

[joker_josue]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

[tromp]

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM).

A pure Mimblewimble chain like Grin is very inscription resistant, but Beam has added many features, some of which (smart contracts in particular) can be used to store arbitrary data [1].

[1] https://forum.beam.mw/t/beam-inscriptions/822

[NotATether]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Or rather, there is no money to be made in a fork because if a hypothetical Ordinals coin was ever listed on an exchange it would be immediately short-sold.

While Bitcoin Cash was profitable to make at least initially for the miners because there was a sizable group of people who supported it.

[bitmover]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen.

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

[HmmMAA]

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

Nope , miners an pools will work in any case , either fees are low or high , of course profit maximization is a plus for them ( find me a business that's against that ) . Those that were looking forward for such high fees as a result of limited blocksize were those in the maxis camp . Btc just gets what maxis wanted , so you should look others than miners and pools to blame .

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees

[pooya87]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

[Wind_FURY]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".

[cryptosize]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)... they want less people making on-chain TX and way more KYC (no more privacy).

[nutildah]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)...

The only reason Ordinals is ever described as an aTtACk!!! is to trigger maxis tryhards into crying about it being an attack... It amuses the ordinals enjoooyors, and a few of you have swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is there is no attack on bitcoin; bitcoin continues to do its thing exactly the way it should. It gives zero fucks about what you think it should be doing. You're left with 3 choices:

1) Soldier on with the way things are.
2) Innovate.
3) Keep crying.

[cryptosize]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)...

The only reason Ordinals is ever described as an aTtACk!!! is to trigger maxis tryhards into crying about it being an attack... It amuses the ordinals enjoooyors, and a few of you have swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is there is no attack on bitcoin; bitcoin continues to do its thing exactly the way it should. It gives zero fucks about what you think it should be doing. You're left with 3 choices:

1) Soldier on with the way things are.
2) Innovate.
3) Keep crying.

Funny how you decided to omit the bold part, huh?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)... they want less people making on-chain TX and way more KYC (no more privacy).

Here's the whole link:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

Exchanges already charge exorbitant fees for withdrawing BTC (Binance -> $32), so people will feel inclined to keep their BTC on exchanges.

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

I reckon BlackRock will become even bigger than Binance, it will be the go-to place to buy BTC in 2024-2025.

Perhaps BTC will jump to 1 million USD, but nobody will make on-chain transactions anymore, except BlackRock and a few more big institutions... is that a win?

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

I remember people saying this wouldn't last too long, because it's expensive to keep making Ordinal transactions... and yet, here we are 2+ months later on.

If I were BlackRock, I would try to do the same. 51% attack is too costly to perform (you need to manufacture/buy tons of ASICs), so the next best thing is to clog the network with BRC-20.

[pooya87]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

As much as I like hearing what others say about this, I don't like speculating about who is behind this attack or why myself because the only thing that matters to me is that Bitcoin is currently under attack and we need to keep discussing ways to prevent it.

We had the same thing in 2017 too. People speculated about who is behind that attack, in the end the fee market stopped that spam attack by increasing the cost of it. This time it is slightly different since there is an exploit and there is an attached incentive to perform the attack (the market where the scammers meet to trade the arbitrary data).

[NotATether]

Here's the whole link:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

JFC, I knew world economic forum had a bad stink to it, but I never thought they were that crazy.

[goldenmonke]

Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchanges (see quote from Satoshi in sig). It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Ordinals are dumb. Why is this crap on L1? Bitcoin is being rendered unusable by shitty jpgs.

[joker_josue]

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

How are people going to continue to have the keys to their coins, if at this point the only minimally viable way to have BTC is to use exchange wallets, or third-party channels in the second layer? 

[nutildah]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

Its Venture Capitalists who want to get in on the action. They saw the potential behind it. They are the ones funding the infrastructure & marketing. Here's a few links to give you an idea of who they are:

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/10/17/bitcoin-magazine-owner-backs-first-ordinals-fund-which-bought-85k-rock/

https://www.theblock.co/post/263343/bitcoin-ordinals-startup-taproot-wizards-raises-7-5-million-in-seed-round

https://crypto.revuto.com/ordinals_1.pdf

These people see Ordinals as the next NFT rush, and thus far they haven't been wrong. Will it all pop & fade away with time? Most likely, yes, most of it will. But not all of it.

[HmmMAA]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .
Each ordi was inscribed for a couple of cents . Currently sitting at $80+ . That's more than 50000X return , that's a lot of ammo to continue considering that new inscriptions also make profit .
The point was to have a market created . That market is present and it will continue to grow as long as new money enter and speculation continues.

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

Current situation with fees will look like nothing compared to the situation that might occur if bitvm and other protocols start to emerge and give the opportunity to have DeFi on btc . Fees will skyrocket to 1000's of $'s .

Grab your popcorn and enjoy the ride . 2024 will be a very interesting year .


 

[cryptosize]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

^ Says the guy who believes Craig Wright is Satoshi, believes in NWO's all-seeing eye (your words, not mine) and to top it off, you believe that there's a conspiracy going on to hijack BTC via Mastercard/DCG who apparently control BlockStream (BTC core devs).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[cryptosize]

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

How are people going to continue to have the keys to their coins, if at this point the only minimally viable way to have BTC is to use exchange wallets, or third-party channels in the second layer? 

And that's exactly what the Davos elites want.

Zero ownership (BTC IOU), zero privacy (mandatory KYC) and most likely they will also tie BTC IOU on BlackRock (huge proponents of the ESG agenda) with social credit score and carbon credits.

Trust me, I wish someone can prove me wrong in the future, because I hate sci-fi dystopias (unlike HmmMAA who loves mass surveillance for the "greater good").

Bookmark/screenshot my post and let's talk again about it in 2030...

[Wind_FURY]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!

1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".

Shower thought. Although it might be a good idea to bring all Ordinals/BRC-20/NFT inscriptions/transactions to "Ordinal Chain", wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure? Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

It's probably better to implement an off-chain layer on top that will have little effect on the functions/operation of the Bitcoin network?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[vjudeu]

wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure?

No, because if you use Merged Mining, then you produce regular Bitcoin blocks. Just imagine that instead of discarding some shares, you store them on your own chain, and they are valid only there. In case of "cloud storage", you don't need to move any real coins, so you can use those shares to protect data, without any coins.

Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

No, because all coins will eventually land on-chain, which means, some Bitcoin miner will receive that. The only part that will land on the Ordinal Chain, would be the data, associated with those coins. Which also means, that the Ordinal Chain could contain a lot more UTXOs than Bitcoin, because it could be possible to send "data only", without transferring any coins.

It's probably better to implement an off-chain layer on top that will have little effect on the functions/operation of the Bitcoin network?

If you need to connect just some data, with a particular address, then all that is needed, is accepting a valid signature. Which means, you simply pick some UTXO, and sign any data you want, and post that into the Ordinal Chain. Note that you don't have to move any coins to do that. All you need is just to connect this data with this UTXO, and just put a commitment into that, into any on-chain transaction (even created by someone else).

Which means, every time you create any on-chain transaction, you can sell "commitment as a service" to anyone. Because then, you can just tweak R-value of your signature, and commit to any data, provided by someone else. And later, that commitment can be revealed anywhere outside Bitcoin (and even stored in a separate chain, if you want to track all revealed commitments). Then, zero additional on-chain bytes are needed, you just change one 256-bit number into another 256-bit number, and you can confirm any data you want.

So, as you can see, many things are possible. But I guess it will simply not happen, because this is not the goal of Ordinals users.

[coolcoinz]

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics

I try to be unbiased, but just as we can't put all actions performed by world organizations and known lobbyists into one and the same basket labelled "attack on bitcoin" we also can't do the opposite and put them all in the basked labelled "conspiracy theories with no proof." 
The most basic rule of every investigator is that the person who benefited from the crime might be involved in it and there's a bunch of organizations that can benefit from destroying bitcioin. The list includes the WEF, World Bank and a number of central banks. Also, it would be profitable for all parties involved in trading gold and the ones involved in designing CBDCs.

[HmmMAA]

I try to be unbiased, but just as we can't put all actions performed by world organizations and known lobbyists into one and the same basket labelled "attack on bitcoin" we also can't do the opposite and put them all in the basked labelled "conspiracy theories with no proof."  
The most basic rule of every investigator is that the person who benefited from the crime might be involved in it and there's a bunch of organizations that can benefit from destroying bitcioin. The list includes the WEF, World Bank and a number of central banks. Also, it would be profitable for all parties involved in trading gold and the ones involved in designing CBDCs.

First of all , to decide if something is an attack from someone you have to look at the evidence . There's no evidence connecting any of those entities with the "destruction" of btc . If there's any kindly point me to it , i'd be more than happy to change my view if serious evidence exist .

Second , if no rules are broken why is it attack ? For more than 6 months that fees were low and inscriptions were made most btc'ers were mocking and no one was talking about an attack . Now that it affects their pockets it has become one ?  

I won't stand with opinions of people that bring nothing to the table other than pure imagination . And that's what cryptosize does , not to mention that he always avoids the obvious if it doesn't fit his narratives .

[joker_josue]

Second , if no rules are broken why is it attack ? For more than 6 months that fees were low and inscriptions were made most btc'ers were mocking and no one was talking about an attack . Now that it affects their pockets it has become one ?  

But one thing is certain and we have to recognize it.
Something is not normal, there are so many transactions in which the rate is equal to or greater than the value transacted. Even more abnormal is that there are so many people who are not able to wait 20~30 minutes to take advantage of a rate of 50sat/vB for the next block, to pay double for low value transactions.
But then, everyone does what they want with the money.

I once heard a thief say in a commentary on his life: "The money that is easiest to get is also the easiest to spend."
And fortunately, many who are in the Bitcoin universe have made a lot of money with little effort. Therefore, it is easy to spend it.

[pooya87]

Second , if no rules are broken why is it attack ?

The same reason why sending a million requests to a website's server per second is not technically breaking any rules but it is an attack.

For more than 6 months that fees were low and inscriptions were made most btc'ers were mocking and no one was talking about an attack . Now that it affects their pockets it has become one ? 

Just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. We've been discussing this attack from the day it was created. Obviously regular users who don't deal with Bitcoin every day may not even be aware of the attack taking place and only find out about it when the severity of it has grown enough to affect them.

It's like that website that was being DDoS attacked for months but you only visited it after months to face the problems.

With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage. Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.

[DooMAD]

With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage.

2014 called and has questions about this statement.  Where were all your complaints then?  Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too?  

When I first read about people doing that, my reaction was "huh, that's kinda cool, I guess it's not just for money, it can do other stuff as well".  But now, almost a decade later, people seem to have suddenly decided against that outlook.  I'd argue, it's a bit late to be calling for it to stop now.  That ship has long since sailed.

Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.

Why do people keep saying this?  Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.  Various crappy forkcoins which didn't implement that change are also full of images and junk.  There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain.  And that's been the case since you first registered your account here.  You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that.  Don't go off the deep-end like him, please.  

You could argue the softfork made it more cost-effective to fill the chain with crap, but it's a complete myth to say the softfork made it possible.

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput.  What's your alternative?  Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?  'Cause I hear a lot of bitching about this, but not much in the way of an alternative path to explore.  Tell you what, when you create a functional time machine, or crystal ball, and you can accurately predict in advance when someone is going to use new functionality in a way that was never intended, maybe then your critiques can serve an actual purpose.  

[coolcoinz]

First of all , to decide if something is an attack from someone you have to look at the evidence . There's no evidence connecting any of those entities with the "destruction" of btc . If there's any kindly point me to it , i'd be more than happy to change my view if serious evidence exist .

I did not say anything about destruction, but I do see signs of conspiracy. Bitcoin was not destroyed, and I can't with 100% certainty say that it's being attacked, but it's very probable that an attack is taking place. I could use your argumentation and ask you to show me evidence. Can you prove beyond doubt that there's no a attack?

The way I see it, something strange is happening because during the congestion people were willing to pay 10 times the fee needed for a first block confirmation and that wasn't 1 or 2 transactions where someone made a mistake. It was done on a hourly basis. Why would you pay $150 in transaction fees when $40 allowed for a first block transaction and $20 allowed you to get a confirmation in less than an hour? Since nothing happens without a reason and people usually don't like to throw money away, this was done to pump fees and congest the network. Who benefits from high network fees and news headlines telling people that bitcoin is stupid because it costs you $50 to pay while VISA fee is 2%?

[cryptosize]

With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage.

2014 called and has questions about this statement.  Where were all your complaints then?  Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too?  

When I first read about people doing that, my reaction was "huh, that's kinda cool, I guess it's not just for money, it can do other stuff as well".  But now, almost a decade later, people seem to have suddenly decided against that outlook.  I'd argue, it's a bit late to be calling for it to stop now.  That ship has long since sailed.

Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.

Why do people keep saying this?  Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.  Various crappy forkcoins which didn't implement that change are also full of images and junk.  There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain.  And that's been the case since you first registered your account here.  You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that.  Don't go off the deep-end like him, please.  

You could argue the softfork made it more cost-effective to fill the chain with crap, but it's a complete myth to say the softfork made it possible.

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput.  What's your alternative?  Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?  'Cause I hear a lot of bitching about this, but not much in the way of an alternative path to explore.  Tell you what, when you create a functional time machine, or crystal ball, and you can accurately predict in advance when someone is going to use new functionality in a way that was never intended, maybe then your critiques can serve an actual purpose.  

I'm curious to read your opinion about this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.msg63430508#msg63430508
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.msg63430973#msg63430973

Freedom is nice and all, until it puts BTC into existential danger...

[pooya87]

2014 called and has questions about this statement.  Where were all your complaints then?  Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too? 

When I first read about people doing that, my reaction was "huh, that's kinda cool, I guess it's not just for money, it can do other stuff as well".  But now, almost a decade later, people seem to have suddenly decided against that outlook.  I'd argue, it's a bit late to be calling for it to stop now.  That ship has long since sailed.

There is a clear distinction here that I'm surprised you still don't want to see.

When a transaction is complying with consensus rules, standard rules and is behaving the way it is expected it is different from a transaction that is complying with consensus rules but not standard rules or the expected behavior.

In this case using the OP_RETURN output that is the expected way of inserting a teeny tiny arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain is a normal behavior.
On the other hand, using the oversight in witness verification to inject arbitrary size arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain is not normal or expected behavior hence it is an attack.

Edit: another major difference I forgot to mention is the fact that OP_RETURN outputs that are expected behavior can be pruned from UTXO database while the Ordinals spam which is an exploit keeps growing the UTXO database with dust outputs.

Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.

Possible? Not exactly. You see there is a difference between a valid transaction and a possible transaction (something that is easily relayed and mined).
It has always been "valid" to for example create an output that has a ~1 MB script containing arbitrary data but it was never possible to propagate that or get a miner to confirm it easily.

There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain.

And they are all extremely limited and controlled to prevent abuse and attacks such as Ordinals.

And that's been the case since you first registered your account here.

Wrong. It has been like that since long before that

You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that.  Don't go off the deep-end like him, please. 

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Create a legacy transaction that injects a large arbitrary data inside one script by using the same script as the Ordinals Attack and get majority of full nodes to accept that tx in their mempool and all miners to include it in their candid block without you contacting them behind curtains and paying an extra fee through another channel to get it "manually" included.
Now do the same using witness version 1 and see for yourself whether it has always been possible or not!

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput.  What's your alternative?  Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?

Now you're changing the topic of discussing entirely.

You seem to have talked to franky so much so that you see everything about SegWit as a whole. The problem is not the soft-fork(s), nor is it SegWit itself. We aren't even discussing SegWit version 0 and 1 here.
The problem is the oversight that left some rules "loose" and enabled this attack vector which Ordinals is exploiting to perform their attack.
The solution was simple too, all it took was including the same exact rules that existed in Bitcoin into the witness verification rules to continue preventing this type of abusive attacks.

[DooMAD]

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput.  What's your alternative?  Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?

Now you're changing the topic of discussing entirely.

(...)

The problem is the oversight that left some rules "loose" and enabled this attack vector which Ordinals is exploiting to perform their attack.

The two points are linked.  Scaling generally requires extensible code.  If you make it too rigid, there's nowhere to grow.  If you want a dinky little bonsai tree, then sure, strict and disciplined is the way to go.  But we need something bigger than a bonsai tree, here.

If you propose painting ourselves into a corner, development-wise, but the devs have other ideas on that matter, guess what the outcome is going to be.

It's all building blocks.  Incremental steps to better things.  Try not to let this incident cloud the big picture.

[joker_josue]

Another point that cannot be forgotten is this aspect mentioned here:

Is there any visible (not encrypted or external link) pedo pr0n jpeg in the BTC blockchain?

If so, all BTC nodes are illegal by definition.

Unfortunately, there are already much worse things on the Bitcoin blockchain:
Child abuse imagery found within bitcoin's blockchain (The Guardian)

I don't even want to imagine what a lot of Ordinals that have been moving/registered have...

So I guess it's illegal to have a BTC full node... I wonder why the authorities have done nothing about it.

It's because you can't easily access an illegal JPEG from pre-Ordinals days from the blockchain.

It's one thing for criminals to use bitcoin as financial resources for their crimes. Another is to turn bitcoin itself into a crime tool.

Is this what we want for the Bitcoin blockchain?

[pooya87]

The two points are linked.  Scaling generally requires extensible code.  If you make it too rigid, there's nowhere to grow.  If you want a dinky little bonsai tree, then sure, strict and disciplined is the way to go.  But we need something bigger than a bonsai tree, here.

If you propose painting ourselves into a corner, development-wise, but the devs have other ideas on that matter, guess what the outcome is going to be.

It's all building blocks.  Incremental steps to better things.  Try not to let this incident cloud the big picture.

Forward compatibility is a good thing and it has always been part and parcel of Bitcoin protocol. But there is a difference between leaving the protocol open for future improvements (like what we have in witness version 2+ or OP codes like OP_SUCCESS, etc.) and leaving the protocol wide open to abuse (like the removal of consensus critical script size restriction from Taproot and not even making it a standard rule, etc.).

The exploit used in the Ordinals Attack is proof of that distinction.

[vjudeu]

Why do people keep saying this?

Because of some limits, which were lifted in the source code: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5340900

Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.

It was possible, but it was more expensive than today, if you compare the space needed for that.

What's your alternative?

An alternative was to keep that limit, and raise it, when there will be a need to do so. Which means, it could be valid, but non-standard. Ordinals gave us so much trouble, because they are standard transactions (and for that reason, some people downgraded their nodes to reject all Taproot transactions, which halted some transitions into Taproot, which I planned before, because now those address types are rejected by some nodes).

Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?

Why do you think that raising the limit, and making it standard, when it will be needed, would be worse? It doesn't have to be there from the start. The same with OP_SUCCESS: now, if you want to make a contract, where some part of the TapScript is hidden, you have to require an additional proof, that it contains no OP_SUCCESS opcodes. Why OP_SUCCESS is not "non-standard"?

when you create a functional time machine, or crystal ball, and you can accurately predict in advance when someone is going to use new functionality in a way that was never intended

You don't need a crystal ball:

1. Block size limit: set to 1 MB. People reached that.
2. Witness limit: 4 MB. People reached that.
3. Transaction size limit: 100 kB (for witness: 400 kB). People reached that.
4. Sigops limit: 20,000 (for witness: 80,000). People reached that.

If you put "no limits" somewhere, then you can expect, that it will be abused, and then you can expect, that other limits will be the only reason, why your system will not explode.

If you make it too rigid, there's nowhere to grow.

You can leave some space for future rules. But why do you want to make it standard? Imagine, how better it would be, if Ordinals would be possible, but non-standard.

And if you think that lifting some rules is good, then why Segwit v2, v3, and so on, are non-standard, and were not lifted as well?

[cryptosize]

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

The main characteristic of a successful malicious attack on bitcoin is to get the bitcoin users to do it not yourself. Remember the nonsense called "stress test" years ago? It wasn't just one silly company spamming the network. They got bitcoiners to spam too by funding loads of addresses with small amounts then publishing their private keys. The result was nodes that were flooded by double spends and the mempool that was flooded with spam transactions that didn't come from a single attacker.
In that scenario CoinWallet was the origin of the attack but wasn't the lone attacker.

That is the main principle that the Ordinals Attack is using too. It is not one entity that performs the attack but they have fooled loads of people to participate in it by creating the parallel scam market and the tools to perform the attack.
In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

The principle is commonly used in color revolutions, which I dare say is what's been happening to Bitcoin. One of the signs is seeing old bitcoiners defending this exploit of the protocol in the name of Bitcoin principles such as censorship resistance!

Very interesting remark...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

"The aim of the colour revolutions was to establish Western-style liberal democracy in those countries"

[DooMAD]

Why do people keep saying this?

Because of some limits, which were lifted in the source code: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5340900

Yeah, I remember reading that topic around June time when gmaxwell posted.  It sounded very much as though devs had their reasons for doing this and I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But the prevailing view now appears to be that those reasons weren't sufficient.  

If you're all quite certain that:

a) plugging this loophole isn't going to jeopardise future scaling efforts

and

b) doing so doesn't set a precedent for future attack vectors where governments or regulators can successfully pressure devs into imposing stricter limits in order to deny transactions *they* don't like (because that could swiftly kill the entire project if we're not careful),

then perhaps I could be convinced to get on board with what people are suggesting.  I still urge extreme caution, though.  Do not leave the door wide open to governments and regulators to enact pressure on devs purely because people seem unable to look beyond the tx fees.  To say that the implications are potentially significant if people are wrong about this feels like an understatement.  

[vjudeu]

It sounded very much as though devs had their reasons for doing this

The reason was quite simple: developers were just tired of constant soft-forks, and they wanted to activate something "for the future", to avoid doing yet another soft-fork in the future. Is it a good reason? In my opinion not, because it is better to lift those limits with a new soft-fork, and not here and now, leaving the protocol wide open for making standard transactions in that way.

And, as you can recently noticed, in the latest version of Bitcoin Core 26.0, rules for regtest, testnet, and signet, were tightened to allow only standard transactions by default, and allow non-standard ones, only if the node operator explicitly change that.

plugging this loophole isn't going to jeopardise future scaling efforts

Of course not. There is a reason, why transactions could be non-standard, but still valid. And this is the way, how the protocol can be expanded, and historically, it was done in that way.

doing so doesn't set a precedent for future attack vectors where governments or regulators can successfully pressure devs into imposing stricter limits in order to deny transactions *they* don't like

This is debatable, and for that reason, there is no consensus for blocking the Ordinals entirely, by some kind of soft-fork. Because now, this is the only way, that would block them sufficiently. All those relay rules could suffice, when there was no software, that allowed Ordinals by default. But now, if you block them in some future version, then some people will simply not upgrade their clients. And now, you have the opposite: there is a minority, that tries to use downgraded clients, and unofficial ones, to block as much Ordinals, as they can. So, whatever will be done, some group will be disappointed.

And because the history is set in stone, then I think at this point, Ordinals should not be blocked. Instead, regular users should get some tools, to join their payments, to compete with Ordinals. Because it is easier to compress a lot of regular payments, than a lot of Ordinals (which could be compressed, if they would be turned into commitments, but this is not the goal of those users, as they explicitly want to always reveal everything on-chain, which means, they will sooner or later hit some barriers of data compression).

[pooya87]

and they wanted to activate something "for the future", to avoid doing yet another soft-fork in the future.

That sounds like a paradox, like having your cake and eating it too. To activate something means changing the consensus rules and that requires a fork and that fork could apply the previous needed changes too

[HmmMAA]

The same reason why sending a million requests to a website's server per second is not technically breaking any rules but it is an attack.

Even if you are a techy guy you seem to fail to understand that you are comparing different things . If i'm a legit user of a website i won't try to send 1 million requests per second . That's a DDos attack , and it's purpose is to take down a website and have a gain by either ransoms or financial gain for a competitor .
If 1 million customers per second were trying to use that website to buy stuff that can't be consider an attack , that website would be more than happy to upgrade it's infrastructure and maximize it's profits . Imagine if facebook or netflix or banks were calling an attack the use of their networks by millions of users . Wouldn't you laugh at them ?
That's the problem here , currently there are thousands of customers that want to use btc's chain because they see an opportunity . Btc has ruled that the ones that pay higher fees are eligible to enter their transactions faster in a block that it's capacity should be limited to be as valuable as it gets . If the fee model is flawed by default ( at least from my point of view ) then that's not making those willing to pay the price attackers . It's like the example of 1 million customers per second i gave above , the logical would be to upgrade the infrastructure . But , guys like you , now understand how wrong were they sticking to 1 MB limit and scarce block space and just try to blame others . Your magical solution of L2 doesn't work , and you're looking for enemies . What would happen if tomorrow morning 100 million users decided to use btc for their everyday needs transacting in a way proper of how you think network should work ? Would you call them attackers too ? In your sense everyone that's not using LN is an attacker , that's the problem .

Just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. We've been discussing this attack from the day it was created. Obviously regular users who don't deal with Bitcoin every day may not even be aware of the attack taking place and only find out about it when the severity of it has grown enough to affect them.

It's like that website that was being DDoS attacked for months but you only visited it after months to face the problems.

With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage. Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.

As i explained above you are the one that doesn't understand that this not an attack , it's a result of your premise that there should be a fee market and a limited scarce blocksize . You want a network that works on your needs , where full nodes decide how network will work . Well , from what i see , your full node that i guess is rejecting any "non-standard transaction" doesn't play any part on how blocks are building . Maybe it's time to understand how PoW consensus really works ?

[joker_josue]

As i explained above you are the one that doesn't understand that this not an attack , it's a result of your premise that there should be a fee market and a limited scarce blocksize . You want a network that works on your needs , where full nodes decide how network will work . Well , from what i see , your full node that i guess is rejecting any "non-standard transaction" doesn't play any part on how blocks are building . Maybe it's time to understand how PoW consensus really works ?

It really cannot be considered an attack, directly. But, this does not mean that it cannot be used as a tool for less-intentioned people to achieve their goals, which are less favorable for the network.

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm? Of course I'm just speculating, and I know that's not what happened. But, it could happen.

What I mean by this is that despite what is happening, it is not exactly an attack. It can be used to achieve certain purposes that are purely personal and not for the good of the network.

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

[vjudeu]

That sounds like a paradox, like having your cake and eating it too.

1. It is not that surprising, if you remember, how people argued about activation method for each soft-fork. It is still unclear, what exactly should be used, and with each soft-fork, there are the same problems. So, some people tried to code it in a way, where it would no longer be needed.

2. There were some posts on mailing list, which presented, how to achieve some features, by using long and complex scripts. By making it standard, it is now possible to test it in a standard way. But of course, it would be better, if that kind of testing would happen on any kind of testnet, and then would be standardized on mainnet.

3. Taproot was advertized as "self-upgradable". And some rules were relaxed, to switch features on and off at will. And it would be fine, as long as there would be less people smart enough, to misuse that. Which means, it was also some kind of test: "can we relax the rules, and use it to activate features in the future?". And Ordinals gave developers the answer: no, you cannot, it will be abused. So now, the decision is to put some limits back, and for example relay only standard transactions, even in test networks. And if Ordinals will keep abusing the chain, then next steps would be needed. Some of them are in progress, for example simplifications in Initial Blockchain Download, and I hope they would be enough, to discourage people, to store their data on-chain, if it will turn out, that more nodes will be bootstrapped in a new way, or will simply stop storing that data, and will focus instead on proofs, that they are just signed correctly, without knowing the content.

[pooya87]

If 1 million customers per second were trying to use that website to buy stuff
Imagine if facebook or netflix or banks were calling an attack the use of their networks by millions of users . Wouldn't you laugh at them ?
That's the problem here , currently there are thousands of customers that want to use btc's chain because they see an opportunity .

It is you who is comparing apples and oranges. In your both examples you used legitimate use cases of the service (buying stuff, users of Facebook, etc.) but when it comes to Bitcoin you are counting the attackers as legitimate use case!

Every system is made for a purpose and when you use it for something else or break the rules of that system, your actions would be counted as abuse. For example if you use your Facebook account to post some random stuff every 10 seconds, your account will be banned and nuked in matter of minutes.
It's the same in Bitcoin, when you try to exploit the protocol and turn Bitcoin into cloud storage, that's an abuse and it should be banned. The only difference between Bitcoin and a centralized service is that Bitcoin is decentralized so such decision makings are extremely slow.

not making those willing to pay the price attackers

As I've said a million times this is not about fees nor about what is being stored in chain. This is all about the fact that Bitcoin is being used as cloud storage whereas it is supposed to be a payment system. And it is ONLY possible through an EXPLOIT.

But , guys like you , now understand how wrong were they sticking to 1 MB limit...
.... it's a result of your premise that there should be a fee market and a limited scarce blocksize .

That's just outright wrong.
Ignoring the fact that block size hasn't been 1MB for years, for some reason you said all these stuff in previous pages to get here (I wonder what reason ) to say that "people using bitcoin as their cloud storage is OK and we should increase the block size so they can have access to a bigger "cloud space" for their arbitrary data!"

[mikeywith]

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm?

I think the two cases are slightly different. In the example you posted, the comparator receives direct benefit from attacking that website, and the cost of the attack compared to the potential reward makes a lot of sense. Imagine you have 10k clients that you may lose today if they managed to access that company's website. Spending 100% of what those 10k clients make you in a year might still make economic sense to you, especially considering that the number of companies offering the same service in your country is probably not more than a few, whereas in BTC the case is different.

If you would call Ordinals an attack, then you need to have a reasonable explanation of what the attackers are willing to achieve from it. Is it BSV folks trying to raise fees so that people would move to their chain? But then—there are a few thousand other blockchains out there. What if they move to ETH or something else? So, this has to be a coordinated attack by a few dozen altcoins, which also doesn't make a lot of sense.

You may call it "abuse" or "against Bitcoin best practice"; that would make more sense. I don't even think calling it "spam" makes a lot of sense. Spamming on bitcoin is rather expensive and useful. I wouldn't even call it "cloud storage" because there exists cheaper, faster, and more efficient cloud storage to store those funny pictures.

The way I see it is that someone or a group of people managed to exploit an opportunity to make money by creating value out of thin air. And now, greedy people want to make money by investing in these stupid projects. These people spend millions of dollars hoping to make more millions of dollars in profit—not to hurt bitcoin or make things worse for other people. They just want to sell their bags to the next person at a higher valuation. This is how I view the current situation.

[joker_josue]

If you would call Ordinals an attack, then you need to have a reasonable explanation of what the attackers are willing to achieve from it. Is it BSV folks trying to raise fees so that people would move to their chain? But then—there are a few thousand other blockchains out there. What if they move to ETH or something else? So, this has to be a coordinated attack by a few dozen altcoins, which also doesn't make a lot of sense.

But I gave an example, large pools artificially increase block fees.

If the 3 or 4 largest pools on the market align, they can create Ordinals transactions with high fees, knowing that they will get the money from these fees back in the blocks they mine.

Another way is for large pools to create Ordinal transactions, at the same time as reducing their hash, following a difficulty adjustment on the network. The network becomes clogged, generating a greater number of pending transactions in the mempool, which will generate fee increases.

Of course, I'm not saying that this is what's happening. Because it will be difficult to prove, even if it is happening. But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

[nutildah]

The way I see it is that someone or a group of people managed to exploit an opportunity to make money by creating value out of thin air. And now, greedy people want to make money by investing in these stupid projects. These people spend millions of dollars hoping to make more millions of dollars in profit—not to hurt bitcoin or make things worse for other people. They just want to sell their bags to the next person at a higher valuation. This is how I view the current situation.

As someone who knows a lot of people who are into Ordinals & constructed marketplaces for them, knows where the funding is coming from, and understands how crypto influencooring works, this is the correct take.

But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

What you're describing is a miner centralization problem and it has been an existential threat since the birth of the first mining pool.

[joker_josue]

But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

What you're describing is a miner centralization problem and it has been an existential threat since the birth of the first mining pool.

This is also true. But if we give it more tools, it gets worse.

But other scenarios can be constructed, how Ordinals can be used to try to harm Bitcoin. Now, that would be pure and mere speculation, which is not worth feeding into.
I just think that the first layer of the blockchain shouldn't be dealing with this type of content. I'm not against Ordinals, I just think they're operating in the wrong place.

[HmmMAA]

It really cannot be considered an attack, directly. But, this does not mean that it cannot be used as a tool for less-intentioned people to achieve their goals, which are less favorable for the network.

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm? Of course I'm just speculating, and I know that's not what happened. But, it could happen.

The only guarantee is to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the load . If these companies are selling a service and each click could be a potential client it would be idiotic to stand and look their website going down .

What I mean by this is that despite what is happening, it is not exactly an attack. It can be used to achieve certain purposes that are purely personal and not for the good of the network.

How do you define network ? That's what i'm arguing about .

5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the
chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

The network has to do with the infrastructure and it's defined in the whitepaper . It works fine . The users ( running a full node doesn't make you a part of the network , see the definition ) are the ones facing problems , and in real life they would never use something like what btc offers . No real world business would work with a model that limits the amount of users that can use it .

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time .
The whole point with ordinals and nft's was to have a market created . Since that market is created and the rewards are extremely high people will speculate . As always the first ones will be those that have maximum gains and will continue as long as it's profitable .  

It is you who is comparing apples and oranges. In your both examples you used legitimate use cases of the service (buying stuff, users of Facebook, etc.) but when it comes to Bitcoin you are counting the attackers as legitimate use case!

Every system is made for a purpose and when you use it for something else or break the rules of that system, your actions would be counted as abuse. For example if you use your Facebook account to post some random stuff every 10 seconds, your account will be banned and nuked in matter of minutes.
It's the same in Bitcoin, when you try to exploit the protocol and turn Bitcoin into cloud storage, that's an abuse and it should be banned. The only difference between Bitcoin and a centralized service is that Bitcoin is decentralized so such decision makings are extremely slow.

I'm glad that you took an example with the only company that your argument could stand but it is flawed . The problem is that in facebook you are the product they sell . It's easy , when you're not paying for a product you are the product .
How many clients of facebook ( advertisers ) have you heard getting banned for using their service ?  
Try another argument with netflix or banks , or whatever network that users who pay for using a service getting excluded or targeted for using it . Dude , grow up .

As I've said a million times this is not about fees nor about what is being stored in chain. This is all about the fact that Bitcoin is being used as cloud storage whereas it is supposed to be a payment system. And it is ONLY possible through an EXPLOIT.

You fail to understand what electronic cash means , that's why you insist it's an attack . In fact you have to understand what cash is : https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cash.asp .
Cash can be anything that can be turned into physical cash .  So , there has to be a market for it , and preferably it should be widely accepted . Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

That's just outright wrong.
Ignoring the fact that block size hasn't been 1MB for years, for some reason you said all these stuff in previous pages to get here (I wonder what reason ) to say that "people using bitcoin as their cloud storage is OK and we should increase the block size so they can have access to a bigger "cloud space" for their arbitrary data!"

I'm saying all these things because i see people complaining about things bitcoin has face in the past ( periods of insane fees ) . And for that you blame ordinals etc . There are no spammers as long as they pay fees , especially higher than your "normal transactions" . Try to think and blame those that are really responsible for that , and that's a part of core . No one else .

[pooya87]

Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

Whether you like or not coming up with fancy names for an attack like calling it Decentralized Finance, Ordinals, etc. doesn't make them real or valuable for that matter. None of it is part of the protocol, they are abusing the bitcoin blockchain as cloud storage only and the real deal happens on a centralized platform where a scam such as BRC-20 interprets the arbitrary data in the blockchain for you.

If anybody thinks something like that which is clearly centralized is worth something they don't even belong in the Bitcoin world!

[Wind_FURY]

wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure?

No, because if you use Merged Mining, then you produce regular Bitcoin blocks. Just imagine that instead of discarding some shares, you store them on your own chain, and they are valid only there. In case of "cloud storage", you don't need to move any real coins, so you can use those shares to protect data, without any coins.

OK, there's something to learn here. I have questions. Please be patient with me.

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

Does merged mining add extra work for miners to process more data and therefore is like a block size increase?

Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

No, because all coins will eventually land on-chain, which means, some Bitcoin miner will receive that. The only part that will land on the Ordinal Chain, would be the data, associated with those coins. Which also means, that the Ordinal Chain could contain a lot more UTXOs than Bitcoin, because it could be possible to send "data only", without transferring any coins.

If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all? Plus it would be better for the miners if Ordinals inscriptions stay in the Bitcoin blockchain/keep fees high.

[mikeywith]

But I gave an example, large pools artificially increase block fees.
If the 3 or 4 largest pools on the market align, they can create Ordinals transactions with high fees, knowing that they will get the money from these fees back in the blocks they mine.

Mining pools can attempt to "spam" the blockchain, a topic which we have discussed in the 2023 diff thread in the mining section, but they don't need Ordinals for that, in fact, it is easier for them to create non-Ordinals transactions that are larger in size.

But in regards to fees, Ordinals are just a currently living proof that the main chain is incapable of processing many transaction at low fees, the type of transactions is irrelevant to the fee, you may argue that the type of data they leave on the blockchain is useless and should not be on the blockchain, but fees would still be this high and worse if 1% of the population started using BTC on chain for daily payments.

[vjudeu]

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

It depends on the sidechain construction. If it is like NameCoin, which created its own tokens, out of thin air, then yes, this is just abusing 21 million coins limit, and then you have separate coins. But you can also have something like RSK, where all coins have 1:1 peg with BTC, and where nothing is created out of thin air.

Does merged mining add extra work for miners

If you mean "can the hashrate increase", then the answer is yes, because those miners are just mining regular Bitcoin blocks.

Edit: If you mean, "does the miner need to choose, which chain to mine", then it is not like that. You simply mine a regular Bitcoin blocks, which are also valid in another network. More than that: you can potentially mine blocks at lower difficulty, which is what P2Pool did (they had blocks every 30 seconds with 20 times lower difficulty, so they had 20 times more blocks, but most of them were present only on P2Pool chain, and other sidechains can use the same trick if they want).

and therefore is like a block size increase?

Not really, unless you make it mandatory for a full node to follow that chain, but then, you need a successful soft-fork to do that. But in case of additional data, there are no new consensus rules behind that. Those data are just huge OP_NOPs, which means, no additional Script needs to be enforced. Which means, there is no need for full nodes to follow that data, and download it. They only stop at verifying signatures, all data behind them are posted separately, and are not processed by full nodes, because it is not needed to determine, if a transaction is valid or not.

If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all?

The incentive is the same as with mining Bitcoin. Which means, you can mine Bitcoin only, or mine Bitcoin, and your own chain, at the same time.

Note that every time, when you create a transaction, you can commit any data into each of your signature, without increasing the size of your transaction.

Edit: Satoshi described exactly, what is the incentive for mining BitDNS, and the same is true for every properly-created sidechain:

seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?

The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.

While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?

If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.

You have one piece of work.  If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS.  In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree.  To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.

Plus it would be better for the miners if Ordinals inscriptions stay in the Bitcoin blockchain/keep fees high.

Miners can accept fees as they please. If miners would want to increase minimal fees into 1000 satoshis per virtual byte, then they could just apply those rules, and not include transactions into blocks, if fees are insufficient. Or, the biggest N pools could just secretly agree to flood mempools with their own transactions, just to increase minimal fees (because then, they will get those fees back in their own blocks they mine).

fees would still be this high and worse if 1% of the population started using BTC on chain for daily payments

That's why the solution is to handle N users per coin. Which means, if you have 0.01 BTC transaction fee, and there is one user behind that, then it is quite high cost. But if there are 1000 users behind transaction of the same size, then each of them has to pay only 1000 satoshis.

And because batching N users behind N-of-N multisig is easier than combining N ordinals (because if you combine signatures, then their size is not increased), it should be sufficient to give regular users a tool to compete with Ordinals.

[cryptosize]

That's why the solution is to handle N users per coin. Which means, if you have 0.01 BTC transaction fee, and there is one user behind that, then it is quite high cost. But if there are 1000 users behind transaction of the same size, then each of them has to pay only 1000 satoshis.

And because batching N users behind N-of-N multisig is easier than combining N ordinals (because if you combine signatures, then their size is not increased), it should be sufficient to give regular users a tool to compete with Ordinals.

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody. Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

Exchanges already utilize batching, even though their fees are absurd most of the time.

[NotATether]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

Its Venture Capitalists who want to get in on the action. They saw the potential behind it. They are the ones funding the infrastructure & marketing. Here's a few links to give you an idea of who they are:

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/10/17/bitcoin-magazine-owner-backs-first-ordinals-fund-which-bought-85k-rock/

https://www.theblock.co/post/263343/bitcoin-ordinals-startup-taproot-wizards-raises-7-5-million-in-seed-round

https://crypto.revuto.com/ordinals_1.pdf

These people see Ordinals as the next NFT rush, and thus far they haven't been wrong. Will it all pop & fade away with time? Most likely, yes, most of it will. But not all of it.

So what I'm seeing basically is this:

1) Make up some crap, doesn't matter if it has a real utility or not
2) Market it to potential investors
3) Sell

And this is actually a widely used business model, from shit-tokens created by exchanges like FTX and ponzi schemes, to literally forging a business by making up statistics, models and financials and then sucker some black suits to acquire it.

No wonder why this is annoying for people who use Bitcoin for real stuff.

[vjudeu]

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody.

First, we have altcoins like Grin, that can show you, that it is possible to combine everything into one huge transaction, by using Pedersen Commitments.

Second, we have Schnorr signatures, where N-of-N multisig can happen behind a single Taproot address, and you can spend by key to achieve that.

Third, we have Full-RBF, which means, that if you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions, for example Alice->Bob->Charlie, then it is possible to write a replacement Alice->Charlie, and preserve the same fees and amounts. Then, the size of the transaction will be smaller, the fee will stay the same, so the feerate per byte will increase.

Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

It can be done, but some things are needed before. For example, you need a working tools in Bitcoin Core, to handle N-of-N multisig addresses on Taproot.

[cryptosize]

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody.

First, we have altcoins like Grin, that can show you, that it is possible to combine everything into one huge transaction, by using Pedersen Commitments.

Second, we have Schnorr signatures, where N-of-N multisig can happen behind a single Taproot address, and you can spend by key to achieve that.

Third, we have Full-RBF, which means, that if you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions, for example Alice->Bob->Charlie, then it is possible to write a replacement Alice->Charlie, and preserve the same fees and amounts. Then, the size of the transaction will be smaller, the fee will stay the same, so the feerate per byte will increase.

Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

It can be done, but some things are needed before. For example, you need a working tools in Bitcoin Core, to handle N-of-N multisig addresses on Taproot.

Thanks for the detailed response.

GRIN (along with BEAM) use MimbleWimble, which is totally different compared to BTC. Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

[vjudeu]

Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

Yes, it is somewhat possible. Because it could require for example new sighashes. Which means, if you have a Pedersen Commitment, it looks like that:

Code:

rct=x*G+a*H(G)

rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)

rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G)

You can compare it to Schnorr signatures to see, that those things are similar. So, it could be possible, to for example take H(G) as the public key, which is revealed in the Taproot address, and then take some "x1" out of that, by providing a valid commitment. And that kind of construction could allow detaching any M people from N-of-N multisig, if it would be done properly.

By the way, some people from the mailing list think, that transactions can be smaller, than they currently are. For example, here is the latest mail about transaction compression: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2024-January/022269.html

[cryptosize]

Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

Yes, it is somewhat possible. Because it could require for example new sighashes. Which means, if you have a Pedersen Commitment, it looks like that:

Code:

rct=x*G+a*H(G)

rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)

rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G)

You can compare it to Schnorr signatures to see, that those things are similar. So, it could be possible, to for example take H(G) as the public key, which is revealed in the Taproot address, and then take some "x1" out of that, by providing a valid commitment. And that kind of construction could allow detaching any M people from N-of-N multisig, if it would be done properly.

By the way, some people from the mailing list think, that transactions can be smaller, than they currently are. For example, here is the latest mail about transaction compression: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2024-January/022269.html

Thanks again!

It seems there's a lot of development waiting to be done in the BTC ecosystem, as long as it doesn't require a hard fork of course...

[vjudeu]

as long as it doesn't require a hard fork of course

A lot of things can be done as a soft-fork (or a no-fork, for example transaction compression should be a no-fork).

Because, if you think about it, then you can note, that it is possible to include only the coinbase transaction, and then change entirely the structure of the block. More about it: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

The nearest hard-fork will probably be related to block timestamps (because of year 2038 problem, or year 2106 problem).

[mikeywith]

So what I'm seeing basically is this:
1) Make up some crap, doesn't matter if it has a real utility or not
2) Market it to potential investors
3) Sell

Exactly as I explained above, it is that simple. It's more like a Ponzi scheme, with a very small group of people who actually believe these things are worth something. Value is subjective, and with all due respect to Leonardo da Vinci, I would not buy the Mona Lisa for $200 if I couldn't sell it for $300. Someone else who "thinks they can see some magic on that painting" might be willing to trade it for their kidney.

Lord Varys in Game of Thrones made an outstanding statement:

Power resides where men believe it resides.

I believe that:

Value resides where men believe it resides.

You can see the same thing in all these famous brands. Some people would pay half their salary to buy a white T-shirt made by XYZ or buy a $50,000 watch that isn't any more accurate or better looking than a $50 watch. But then someone managed to convince them that these items have intrinsic value aside from their utility, and thus people are willing to pay for that value even if they don't actually see it.

Ordinals are no different. You would find some people who genuinely believe that Ordinals are pure art worth a lot, and then you would find other people who want to take advantage of the first group by selling them those "valuable pictures." In the surrounding context, the majority of people involved are in it for money.

Ordinals won't be the first or last "lie" to sell to people. The new trend might be: No-History coins are worth 5x those with history. So XYZ pool would now start selling fresh coins. You send your 1 BTC to XYZ pool, and they would include your address in the coinbase transaction of the next block they find. You get your new special 0.1 BTC that has not been "used" before by anyone else. A brand new input tailor-made for the VIPs. I won't be surprised if many people buy into that B.S and make something out of nothing.

Greed is a part of human nature. We all feed off it, just viewing things differently. But by the end of the day, everyone is greedy to a certain extent. As long as greed exists, scams will exist too, and history will never be enough to prove to human beings that the next "big thing" will end terribly like the previous "big thing." People will keep acting greedy for the rest of their lives.


@vjudeu, is the improvement you're talking about going to be built into the blockchain? In other words, will my grandmother not have to undergo any technical process to manage her transactions with someone else? Will she need to calculate anything, or else her transaction will be stuck? BTC is pretty complicated for the average person in its current state. Being a tech person like you and most others in this forum might think everything is easy to learn, but to most other people, setting up a wallet is scary enough. I'd bet that 90% of users don't even care to verify if their wallet is suggesting the best fee rate when they send anything; they probably don't even know how to do that. So, anything that requires additional steps to perform a simple transaction is most likely going to fail.

[vjudeu]

is the improvement you're talking about going to be built into the blockchain?

I don't know, if it will be there. I know it is technically possible to do so. But along the road, there could be many different proposals, and I don't know upfront, which technical solution will win, and will be merged.

In other words, will my grandmother not have to undergo any technical process to manage her transactions with someone else?

It is always "blockchain first, clients second". Which means, that for example here and now, you can use different sighashes than SIGHASH_ALL. You can for example sign only the first input, and the first output, if you really want, and then move that signature to a different transaction, without invalidating it. But: having something supported on a protocol level is one thing, and having it supported by the client is another thing.

There are many things out there, which are possible, but are not yet supported by the clients, and they have to be implemented first. For example, K-of-N multisig on Taproot would be nice to have.

Will she need to calculate anything, or else her transaction will be stuck?

I don't think so, because if you for example sign your transaction, you just click "Sign" button, instead of computing SHA-256 of your data manually.

So, anything that requires additional steps to perform a simple transaction is most likely going to fail.

Of course, but getting to the working solution is a long process: first, you have some discussions, then you write a proposal, then it is discussed, when it comes to all of the details, and then there is a BIP. Later, there is some code to be merged, and it is discussed even further. And if that code is a no-fork, it can be just merged. If it is a soft-fork, then you have to reach consensus, which is hard. And if it is a hard-fork, then you need a very good justification, like "all old clients will stop working without that change in 2106".

But here, in this subforum, we are in a "Development & Technical Discussion" board. Which means, that I assume (and that assumption may be wrong), that people are somewhat familiar with the code, and how it works. And they usually are, because if they are not, then more general topics can be created in other boards, where you have discussions on a more general level. But: if you want to change something, then you have to touch the details, sooner or later, because "the devil is in the details", and for example I could accept Ordinals, if they would be implemented as a commitments, where each TapScript would start with OP_RETURN, to prevent those data from being pushed on-chain (or better, where such commitment would be hidden behind a signature, to be compatible with all existing address types, and not only with Taproot).

Edit:

BTC is pretty complicated for the average person in its current state.

If something is too complicated, it can be automated. And it can be more user-friendly, but it would require some effort to get there. And the biggest challenge is to find some programmer, who will want to do so. Because you know, for many developers, things are obvious. They start with zero knowledge, and when they start, this is the time, when they know, how to improve things. And then, they learn more, more, and more. And then, they know enough, to use it properly. And sometimes, they no longer feel the need to improve things to be even more user-friendly, because they just learned, how to handle all of that stuff. Which also means, that there is a huge potential for user-friendly wallets, and I think that market is not yet fully taken, and there is a lot of room for many improvements.

Also, I agree that BTC is more developer-friendly, than user-friendly. Technical construction of Bitcoin is what bring me there, because it is something, that you cannot see in a typical software, which was written before. But it is probably a good take for another topic, if it is not already created in some General Discussion board.

[joker_josue]

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time.

Pools are like representatives of the miners who work with them. The higher the value of the mined block (base reward + fees), the more money everyone earns (miners and pool). Furthermore, only 2 pools represent +50% of the hash power. Therefore, the probability of undermining the block is much greater.

But, as I said, they shouldn't be doing that. Now, it is still a way to artificially increase fees (among others), whether with Ordinals or not.

Edit: Satoshi described exactly, what is the incentive for mining BitDNS, and the same is true for every properly-created sidechain:

Satoshi gave the recipe for everything to work in a stable and suitable way for everyone. But people prefer to reinvent the wheel...

It can be said that it is not mandatory to follow everything Satoshi said, as Bitcoin is not his. Yes it is true. But, I think there is nothing better than following the project creator's instructions, so that things go as smoothly as possible.

This is the same as buying a washing machine, and not wanting to follow the manufacturer's instructions, and instead of washing clothes you put dishes in the machine. Would the dishes be washed? Yes, but a lot of things would be broken.  

[highalch]

It can be said that it is not mandatory to follow everything Satoshi said, as Bitcoin is not his. Yes it is true. But, I think there is nothing better than following the project creator's instructions, so that things go as smoothly as possible.

I hate to break this to you, but Satoshi wrote about a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, and strictly following the whitepaper there's no mention that we should make bitcoin digital gold. Yet we did. We talk about store of value and price all the time, while the initial intention could've just been a medium of excange.

My only concern with inscriptions is that I don't see how on Earth would they help general bitcoin adoption, while I transact less on the base layer ever since fees are sky high. Inscriptors are free to do whatever they want unless they break the system and make it clogged for everyone else.

[Wind_FURY]

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

It depends on the sidechain construction. If it is like NameCoin, which created its own tokens, out of thin air, then yes, this is just abusing 21 million coins limit, and then you have separate coins. But you can also have something like RSK, where all coins have 1:1 peg with BTC, and where nothing is created out of thin air.

Does merged mining add extra work for miners

If you mean "can the hashrate increase", then the answer is yes, because those miners are just mining regular Bitcoin blocks.

Edit: If you mean, "does the miner need to choose, which chain to mine", then it is not like that. You simply mine a regular Bitcoin blocks, which are also valid in another network. More than that: you can potentially mine blocks at lower difficulty, which is what P2Pool did (they had blocks every 30 seconds with 20 times lower difficulty, so they had 20 times more blocks, but most of them were present only on P2Pool chain, and other sidechains can use the same trick if they want).

and therefore is like a block size increase?

Not really, unless you make it mandatory for a full node to follow that chain, but then, you need a successful soft-fork to do that. But in case of additional data, there are no new consensus rules behind that. Those data are just huge OP_NOPs, which means, no additional Script needs to be enforced. Which means, there is no need for full nodes to follow that data, and download it. They only stop at verifying signatures, all data behind them are posted separately, and are not processed by full nodes, because it is not needed to determine, if a transaction is valid or not.

OK, then the sidechain would be something like a cheap ledger for Ordinals instead of storing them in a "bank vault", which is the Bitcoin blockchain. Did I understand that right?

I believe that Ordinals' main value proposition is the fact that those dick pics and fart sounds reside in the Bitcoin blockchain. They might lose their perceived value if they're "not an actual part" of Bitcoin.

If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all?

The incentive is the same as with mining Bitcoin. Which means, you can mine Bitcoin only, or mine Bitcoin, and your own chain, at the same time.

Note that every time, when you create a transaction, you can commit any data into each of your signature, without increasing the size of your transaction.

But from the miners' viewpoint, it's not the same. They're not getting any incentives from the Ordinals sidechain at all, and it would be better for them if Ordinals remain in the Bitcoin blockchain because of the higher fees. Fees which are slowly becoming the main source of miner incentive after every halving.

[vjudeu]

Did I understand that right?

Somewhat, because yes, it would be the case initially. But every sometimes, when someone will need to do a regular Bitcoin payment, then that person will have the chance to confirm the whole sidechain, and to commit to that, so since then, it will be timestamped on Bitcoin.

Which means, there would be several steps:

1. Unconfirmed sidechain transaction.
2. Confirmed on sidechain only.
3. Committed into Bitcoin (with zero additional on-chain bytes, along with all pending commitments).

They might lose their perceived value if they're "not an actual part" of Bitcoin.

They will lose it anyway, if they will abuse nodes more than today, because then, people will have an incentive to apply "Reclaim Disk Space" from the whitepaper, also to the Initial Blockchain Download.

They're not getting any incentives from the Ordinals sidechain at all

They could "own" some Ordinals, by confirming those "tokens". Even more than that: it is possible to make a system, where mining could be the only way to create new Ordinal.

and it would be better for them if Ordinals remain in the Bitcoin blockchain because of the higher fees

There are better ways than Ordinals to increase fees.

[Siyamsk]

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

It depends on the side chain construction. If it is like Name Coin, which created its own tokens, out of thin air, then yes, this is just abusing 21 million coins limit, and then you have separate coins. But you can also have something like RSK, where all coins have 1:1 peg with BTC, and where nothing is created out of thin air.

Ok I understand it depends on the side chain construction.  But how to create your own tokens out of thin air?  How was the upuse of 21 million tokens and what are their benefits?

If you mean "can the hashrate increase", then the answer is yes, because those miners are just mining regular Bitcoin blocks.
Edit: If you mean, "does the miner need to choose, which chain to mine", then it is not like that. You simply mine a regular Bitcoin blocks, which are also valid in another network. More than that: you can potentially mine blocks at lower difficulty, which is what P2Pool did (they had blocks every 30 seconds with 20 times lower difficulty, so they had 20 times more blocks, but most of them were present only on P2Pool chain, and other sidechains can use the same trick if they want).

Yes you are right that mining bitcoin blocks requires something readily available.  It is valid through other networks.  And it's the only P2Pool that can or has done that.

[vjudeu]

But how to create your own tokens out of thin air?

It is very easy. For example, you can just start regtest, and then you can print a lot of "monopoly money". And if you disable the halving, then you can have unlimited money, created out of thin air. Or you can just lift the protection from Value Overflow Incident, and then use that overflow bug, to produce as many coins as you want.

How was the upuse of 21 million tokens and what are their benefits?

It doesn't matter if it is 21 million. What matters most, is that the amount is finite, so it doesn't lose value like fiat currencies. But of course, there are many altcoins, producing coins like crazy, and they can also be successful, because people are used to fiat-like systems, and they are also used to pump-and-dump speculation.

And it's the only P2Pool that can or has done that.

Anyone can do that. You can start even from regtest difficulty, if you want, and just let it adjust to your network. Which means, instead of making separate chain for any test network, it is possible to mine valid Bitcoin blocks at the same time. And I wonder, why for example signet or testnet3 is not designed like that. Because it is technically possible, and by checking the chainwork of some networks, I can see for example some testnet3 miners, producing a valid mainnet block from time to time.

[tromp]

It doesn't matter if it is 21 million. What matters most, is that the amount is finite, so it doesn't lose value like fiat currencies.

It doesn't matter if it's finite. Quoting from [1]:

It doesn’t take much to change a finite supply into an infinite one. Bitcoin’s block reward drops from 1 satoshi to 0 satoshi somewhere in the year 2140, completing a supply of approximately 21 million bitcoin. What if that final drop never happened?

Bitcoin would continue emitting a 1 satoshi block reward in perpetuity, yielding an infinite supply. It would eventually reach 21 million + 1 bitcoin. Let’s see when that happens. We need to wait an additional 100 million blocks, which takes approximately 10⁸/6/24/365 = 1902 years.

Would that make make Bitcoin any less hard a currency? I don’t think anyone would be willing to argue that. So what makes a currency hard, if not a capped supply? I think the answer is obvious. Eventual negligible inflation is what makes for hard currency. It is what distinguishes cryptocurrencies from fiat.

[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

[cryptosize]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5480574.msg63454673#msg63454673

Thoughts?

[vjudeu]

What if that final drop never happened?

It would be backward-incompatible.

Bitcoin would continue emitting a 1 satoshi block reward in perpetuity, yielding an infinite supply.

And all of those blocks would be ignored by old nodes.

Would that make make Bitcoin any less hard a currency?

Yes, because if you follow some invalid chain, then you can no longer be sure, that other rules are not broken as well. There are many things, which can be used to trick SPV nodes, which will not be followed by full nodes.

So what makes a currency hard, if not a capped supply?

You don't need an infinite supply, to do what you want to do. Just change the proportions. Instead of producing additional coins, just make a consensus rule to take single satoshis from users. Then, it will be a soft-fork. For example: if for each transaction, it would be mandatory to send 100% coins as fees, it would be a valid soft-fork. Because it is all about proportions, and not about having 21 million coins in particular.

Eventual negligible inflation is what makes for hard currency.

The current inflation is not "negligible", if you count, how many altcoins are there. And almost all of them can be used, to bypass 21 million coins limit. Which also means, that we already have enough coins. And burning them is quite popular on many chains, not because there are not enough coins, but rather because they produced too much earlier.

[tromp]

What if that final drop never happened?

It would be backward-incompatible.

The article considers a hypothetical alternate design that Satoshi could have chosen.
It does not propose any change to the existing design.

In fact, I consider any proposal of a tail emission for bitcoin to be a non-starter, as the 21M cap and immutability are the core essence of Bitcoin.

[larry_vw_1955]

In fact, I consider any proposal of a tail emission for bitcoin to be a non-starter, as the 21M cap and immutability are the core essence of Bitcoin.

I don't see how anyone could argue that bitcoin is "immutable". In what sense is it immutable? If we have developers that can modify bitcoin and put in new things like taproot, I don't see how anyone can consider it immutable.

The 21M hardcap has remained unmolested luckily. So, so far, that part has been immutable...

[vjudeu]

In what sense is it immutable?

Because you can change the code, but you cannot force the people to run your version. Which means, that if for example Bitcoin Core developers would try to do a hard-fork, and increase the amount of coins directly, just by using bigger numbers, then that would be strictly rejected by old nodes. And then, people could simply refuse to upgrade.

Note that there are many altcoins, where full nodes are just left unupgraded, and where people just use some old version for many years. Which means, that stopping upgrades, and forming another group of developers is possible, if people will stop trusting the current group. And for that reason, Bitcoin Core developers don't want to create hard-forks. They could simply lose control over Bitcoin, if they would do so, and include some controversial changes.

If we have developers that can modify bitcoin and put in new things like taproot, I don't see how anyone can consider it immutable.

But Taproot is compatible with old versions. In the past, there were some hard-forks, when the community was small, and when people put less money into the system. But as it grew, it became harder and harder to change things. If you want to do something like Segwit or Taproot, you have to contact with mining pools. Because if you don't, then those coins could be simply sweeped by any mining pool, just because they are spendable in the old version.

In case of altcoins, they can do a lot of hard-forks, because those coins are centralized, and often "immature". Which means, that developers can say "please upgrade", and simply say "if you don't upgrade, you are no longer using our coin". But in Bitcoin, that approach wouldn't work, because then, more conservative users would say "it is decentralized, and I will not upgrade, because you just created an altcoin". And what those developers would do then, if the economic majority would not follow their code?

So far, it turned out that many issues can be solved without any hard-fork. But I wonder, what will happen in 2038 or 2106. Because those two dates could cause 32-bit timestamp overflow, and some nodes could crash, so any "upgrade" would mean "hard-fork" from their perspective. But we will see.

[cryptosize]

So far, it turned out that many issues can be solved without any hard-fork. But I wonder, what will happen in 2038 or 2106. Because those two dates could cause 32-bit timestamp overflow, and some nodes could crash, so any "upgrade" would mean "hard-fork" from their perspective. But we will see.

So the earliest hard fork should happen around 2038?

And what's the motive behind 32-bit timestamps? Did Satoshi want Bitcoin to be compatible with 32-bit x86 CPUs? (could make sense back in 2009, not so much anymore)

[DooMAD]

I don't see how anyone could argue that bitcoin is "immutable". In what sense is it immutable? If we have developers that can modify bitcoin and put in new things like taproot, I don't see how anyone can consider it immutable.

The 21M hardcap has remained unmolested luckily. So, so far, that part has been immutable...

The past blocks in the blockchain are immutable.  Not the protocol.  No one can change the transaction history or who owns what sum of BTC without forking themselves off the network where they can't do any damage.

Certain aspects of the protocol could perhaps be described as "ossified" and very difficult to change.  

[vjudeu]

So the earliest hard fork should happen around 2038?

It shouldn't. But it may be the case. You can run your full node, and switch your system clock for example to 2040 or 2110. If your node will crash, or will stop accepting new blocks (for example in regtest mode), then you are affected. If it will keep producing new blocks, then it works as intended. So, instead of trusting me, you can just run it offline in regtest mode, and figure it out directly, on your computer (and because of regtest, you don't have to download existing chain).

And what's the motive behind 32-bit timestamps?

This is the size of the timestamp field in block headers. The 2038 year problem may happen, because it is converted between signed and unsigned integers. The 2106 year problem will happen, because then all 32 bits will be exhausted, and it will overflow into zero again. And yes, it can be solved for example by using time modulo 2^32 (because 136 years time accuracy is more than enough for 10 minute intervals), but even that simple change would mean, that old nodes could simply crash, or refuse to accept new blocks, and from their perspective, the chain will simply halt (which means, that users will have to upgrade, but it is hard to guess, to which version they would like to update).

Did Satoshi want Bitcoin to be compatible with 32-bit x86 CPUs?

Well, it is just a design mistake. Amount of coins use 64-bit values. So it was possible even then, to implement that differently, or to even use something like VarInt, to make it forward-compatible. Or, even better: it could be just VarInt, relative to the previous block. But it is what it is, and we have to deal with that somehow in the future.

Edit: If the size of the timestamp would be 8 bytes, instead of 4, then the size of the whole header would be 84 bytes, instead of 80 bytes. And note, how conveniently it is 84=21*4, so people could see the magic number "21" again (and also, it would be historically correct, because Satoshi changed coin supply from 20 millions in pre-release version, into 21 millions in the current one, by switching from 15 minutes block time, 100k blocks per halving, 30 days difficulty adjustment, and 100 BTC reward, into what we have today).

[mikeywith]

So the earliest hard fork should happen around 2038?

It shouldn't. But it may be the case. You can run your full node, and switch your system clock for example to 2040 or 2110. If your node will crash, or will stop accepting new blocks (for example in regtest mode), then you are affected. If it will keep producing new blocks, then it works as intended.

I believe this test is inaccurate, setting your clock forward into the future would not affect how your node verifies new blocks since all those blocks are still in the current time,  however, if you use getblocktemplate to create a new block with nTime = 4419702898 which corresponds to Monday, January 20, 2110 11:14:58 PM and is 33 bits, other nodes will reject your block.

Setting it to 2040 would also fail but not because of the UNIX time since nTime in block.f is declared as unsigned int which won't overflow post-year 2038, but because the block timestamp will be greater than 2 hours of the median time from the network-adjusted time, but then you may go around this by broadcasting the block to another node you have after changeing the MAX_FUTURE_BLOCK_TIME to some large value that would make a 2040 block valid.

Pull #26259 contains a test for 2106 block timestamps, have you tried it?

[vjudeu]

since all those blocks are still in the current time

Note that regtest has no chain, it is produced from scratch. Which means, that you are the one producing blocks, and you can use any timestamps you want, because they are taken from your system time. So, if you change your system clock, then you will get different timestamps in the blocks you produce.

to create a new block with nTime = 4419702898

I don't know, how do you want to fit that number into 32-bit variable.

but because the block timestamp will be greater than 2 hours of the median time from the network-adjusted time

In regtest, you can use any timestamps you want. I successfully set my clock into 2012, and produced 200k blocks in regtest. It has minimal difficulty, and can be done on every CPU.

Pull #26259 contains a test for 2106 block timestamps, have you tried it?

It is quite recent change. Some older clients, like 22.0, are still affected, and will stay affected. For example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5365359.msg58166985#msg58166985

Which means, that the oldest compatible version, will no longer be 0.8.6 or something, but rather something above 22.0. Which means, for all older clients, it will be a hard-fork. But of course, if enough versions will be used in between, then it wouldn't be a problem, if most nodes will have today's version or later, in 2038. Which means, in 2038, it may be a problem, but it shouldn't be. And 2106 problem is worse, because then, tricks like "time modulo 2^32" are needed, or something like that.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Do you guys know Luke Dashjr? A prominent Bitcoin developer. He always opposed the idea of BRC-20 and I recently saw an article on CoinmarketCap about it. It was written a month ago but I only read that a few days ago.

Luke Dashjr, founder and CTO of OCEAN mining pool, claimed that inscriptions used by Ordinals and BRC-20 creators to embed data on satoshis are “exploiting a vulnerability” in the Bitcoin Core network, resulting in "spamming the blockchain."

Dashjr explained that the Bitcoin Core code has allowed users to set limits on the size of extra data in transactions since 2013, but inscriptions bypass this limit by obfuscating their data as program code.

The bug that allows inscriptions to bypass this limit was recently fixed in the latest update to Bitcoin Knots, a derivative of Bitcoin Core ^[1]

If this happens in the next update, These Ordinals NFT holders will be fucked up. Most importantly, Bitcoiners will get a life.

[1] Bug Fix on Bitcoin Core Could End Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC-20 Token, According to Bitcoin Developer

[nutildah]

This has been brought up a few times in this thread already. Inscriptions don't "obfuscate" anything. It is data that is stored in the witness field of a transaction and decoded by external protocols. Bitcoin Knots is a little-used implementation of Bitcoin software designed by Luke. As of right now, there are ~64 nodes running Bitcoin Knots, as opposed to ~16,979 nodes running Bitcoin Core.

For the most part, Luke holds no sway over major changes to Bitcoin Core, and his request to "fix the bug" will be ignored. Bitcoin Knots can do all the updates it wants. It won't affect Ordinals in any way whatsoever.

[larry_vw_1955]

For the most part, Luke holds no sway over major changes to Bitcoin Core, and his request to "fix the bug" will be ignored. Bitcoin Knots can do all the updates it wants. It won't affect Ordinals in any way whatsoever.

Not only that but a miner who runs Bitcoin Knots is just hurting themself since they lose out on a larger mempool. Reducing the transaction fees they can earn. So I doubt any miner would use something so restrictive.

[nutildah]

For the most part, Luke holds no sway over major changes to Bitcoin Core, and his request to "fix the bug" will be ignored. Bitcoin Knots can do all the updates it wants. It won't affect Ordinals in any way whatsoever.

Not only that but a miner who runs Bitcoin Knots is just hurting themself since they lose out on a larger mempool. Reducing the transaction fees they can earn. So I doubt any miner would use something so restrictive.

This is true. It's an ideological-based decision to run Knots or participate in Luke's mining pool. The irony is Luke has been putting bible verses in mined blocks since 2011. At the time, he was also accused of "polluting the blockchain with nonsense." This, among other weird reasons, are why its hard to take him seriously.

Apparently his new pool, Ocean, has mined a whole 17 blocks since coming back late November, which is actually more than I thought they would. You can see on this page see which transactions their block template rejects from a block, kind of interesting:

[joker_josue]

This low fee face has been good.
But, I wonder why the Ordinals guys aren't making their moves now.
Why are you only interested in doing this during busy periods?

[nutildah]

This low fee face has been good.
But, I wonder why the Ordinals guys aren't making their moves now.
Why are you only interested in doing this during busy periods?

Well, they are/were the ones causing the busy periods. Ordinals activity is down across the board. It appears the hype is finally subsiding; however, last time I said that (in October) it came roaring back with a vengeance, so I don't want to jinx it.

It appears there market has reached an inflection between a saturation point and boredom; there's just too many ordinals + BRC-20 for sale out there and a finite amount of BTC to pay for them. If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours   insanity. No way it will last.

[larry_vw_1955]

If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours   insanity. No way it will last.

how do you even know all of that is real. maybe most of it is from the same person with different bitcoin addresses.  that's how i think is the recognized way of jumpstarting an nft project is the owner steps in and makes a bunch of fake purchases to get people looking that way. not saying this one in particular but i think alot of people do that. project owners that is. it costs them fees but not much else.

[pooya87]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

[Wind_FURY]

This low fee face has been good.

But, I wonder why the Ordinals guys aren't making their moves now.

Why are you only interested in doing this during busy periods?

Well, they are/were the ones causing the busy periods. Ordinals activity is down across the board. It appears the hype is finally subsiding; however, last time I said that (in October) it came roaring back with a vengeance, so I don't want to jinx it.

It appears there market has reached an inflection between a saturation point and boredom; there's just too many ordinals + BRC-20 for sale out there and a finite amount of BTC to pay for them. If anyone is interested, this is the collection that seems to be all the rage right now:

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes

The floor price is currently >0.4 BTC for them and 45.5 BTC in trading volume over the last 24 hours  insanity. No way it will last.

It will depend on their HODLers and if there's enough interest from people outside of their community. But it might not last. They're merely HODLing because they're incentivized when the price surges higher. People could ask how is "that" different from Bitcoin. The main difference is Bitcoin is an actual technology that acts as a backer of its ethos. It's no mere dick pick that those users like to keep in their wallets. It's a facilitator that can bring forth actual social and political change.

[nutildah]

how do you even know all of that is real. maybe most of it is from the same person with different bitcoin addresses.   that's how i think is the recognized way of jumpstarting an nft project is the owner steps in and makes a bunch of fake purchases to get people looking that way. not saying this one in particular but i think alot of people do that. project owners that is. it costs them fees but not much else.

It could be. But it would require someone to actually put the links together in a convincing manner, ala @zachxbt. I assume with majorly pumped n hyped projects like this there is a degree of wash trading going on, but its all hearsay without actual evidence. Meanwhile whats crazy is the floor price on these things has jumped to 0.73 BTC  

I can't get over the fact that they look like shit. Like, way worse than CryptoPunks.

Ordinals Attack

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you. Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.


Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you.

Even though we've had our disagreements with pooya in the past, I can understand him to an extent. The basic disagreement we've had was that he supported the notion that blockchain must not be used for anything beyond monetary, whereas I supported the notion that as long as you have enough money to waste, any kind of transaction that complies with the rules is acceptable. And --in general-- the monetary incentives and disincentives is what retains the game theory in practice, not arbitrary ethics.

However, it needs to be said that Ordinals could not have brought into existence (at least in that form) without the coincidental removal of the script size limit (which up to this date I feel as if it was not deliberate?).

[NotATether]

Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

OK this is just retarded especially the third comment: "I'm the artist who created this project with Peter and can confirm he holds no Bitcoin and likely never will." If he doesn't hold any Bitcoin then who is selling these ordinals? Heck who even owns them  there is no way he's got other people selling this stuff for him and they are not forwarding him at least some of the proceeds (In bitcoin) which means even if he gets it and then sells it on an exchange in a nanosecond, he admits to using Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Ordinals Attack

I think the war you are fighting is inside your head, because nobody else sees this battle but you. Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

Oh, BTW, this is fun. Peter Schiff has launched his own line of Ordinals, yet he still hates Bitcoin    you literally can't make this stuff up.

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[nutildah]

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

I suppose that's fair.

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

I'm actually quite surprised he didn't make SchiffCoin, that way he could have complete control over the project from the ground up. Maybe its because its sounds a bit too much like "Shitcoin".

[Flavatron]

The aspect of Ordinals I find most contentious is the application of Ordinal theory.  The concept that individual satoshis have a unique identifier based on their issuance order on the network (i.e., the first coinbase transaction being 0-50 billion sats) is intriguing to me. However, my main issue lies in the method used by Ordinals to store data. This method involves making the data appear like it is valid signature data and exploits a feature intended for multiple parties. As it stands, using this to store arbitrary data is similar to having an unlimited op_return—except for the overall blocksize/weight limit.

While op_returns, which are technically spent outputs, are a network-acknowledged method for storing arbitrary data, the debate continues over whether Bitcoin should be used for this purpose at all. However, between the two methods (op_return or hijacking the witness data), the one based on op_return is more widely accepted.

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

By requiring all data to be included directly in the input and UTXO for each transaction, the data transfer, fees, and network overhead remain high every time. Moreover, there's a lack of delta-encoding in Ordinals, exacerbating these issues.

Moving to a layer 2 solution could represent a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

I concur with others who view the capacity to store unlimited amounts of arbitrary data within the witness (limited only by the block size) as a potential attack vector.

[nutildah]

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

Nope, this part is not true. The inscription is attached (associated) with a particular ordinal (1 satoshi) via an off-chain protocol. When the ordinal is transferred, it is implied that ownership of the inscription data is also transferred. Of course, you cannot actually transfer witness data, but it does not need to be re-inscribed each time when the ordinal moves.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

[Wind_FURY]

Personally I believe pooya87 is right, but not in the way that he believes. Ordinals itself is not the attack, but an attack vector that could be used to launch an actual "attack", but which their maximum "damage" is merely maximum annoyance caused by high fees.

But that's also the fee market serving as a defense mechanism for such an "attack".

I suppose that's fair.

👍

Why doesn't he use the Gold blockchain for that and inscribe each drawing on a bar of Gold. Haha.

I'm actually quite surprised he didn't make SchiffCoin, that way he could have complete control over the project from the ground up. Maybe its because its sounds a bit too much like "Shitcoin".

It's probably better for Peter Schiff to be the official representative or "the face" of the forked-Bitcoin-shitcoin called "Bitcoin-Gold". The name fits with is "Gold Is Supreme" narrative, AND it has the word "Bitcoin" beside it.

"I don't own Bitcoin, but do you know what I own? BITCOIN-GOLD".

[Flavatron]

Currently, transferring ownership of an Ordinal is highly inefficient. Every time you want to send it to someone else, the entire weight of the data must be included in the transaction.

Nope, this part is not true. The inscription is attached (associated) with a particular ordinal (1 satoshi) via an off-chain protocol. When the ordinal is transferred, it is implied that ownership of the inscription data is also transferred. Of course, you cannot actually transfer witness data, but it does not need to be re-inscribed each time when the ordinal moves.

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

Gotcha! In effect then, this offchain protocol is really the one which will check a utxo back to it's coinbase tx. For in doing so, it can determine the ordinal range of the utxo(which is the part considered static)

The data is actually stored in the witness data, but when the utxo is move, like crafting a normal raw tx, there is no need for the data... so in effect the size of the tx becomes standard in regards to the inputs/outputs as normal( rather than the hijacked data in the original)

[Greg Tonoski]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

+1. More about it: https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/#high-fees-will-solve-spam.

[OgNasty]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

[pooya87]

Hope your side is winning, for the sake of your own mental wellness.

Oh my mental wellness, I'm so worried now

The aspect of Ordinals I find most contentious is the application of Ordinal theory.  The concept that individual satoshis have a unique identifier based on their issuance order on the network (i.e., the first coinbase transaction being 0-50 billion sats) is intriguing to me.

That is not entirely correct.
For starters Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. So it is not doing anything to those statoshis despite what the advertisement says.
Secondly because blockchain is an ordered database (it is a chain) with a timestamp, those satoshis already had a unique identifier attached to them with that timestamp and the block height of the block they're included in.

However, my main issue lies in the method used by Ordinals to store data. This method involves making the data appear like it is valid signature data and exploits a feature intended for multiple parties. As it stands, using this to store arbitrary data is similar to having an unlimited op_return—except for the overall blocksize/weight limit.

That is why I categorize Ordinals as an attack; it is exploiting the protocol. By the way OP_RETURN was never limited at the protocol level, you can have a perfectly valid transaction with an output that is as big as it can be (to fill an entire block). It was and still is the standard rules that is preventing OP_RETURN from being "exploited" to include arbitrary size data in the blockchain. Something that was lacking in the SegWit change and got exploited by this attack.

Moving to a layer 2 solution could represent a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

There is a flaw in this logic. Bitcoin should not and is not supposed to do everything and solve every problem. Read what the creator of Bitcoin says about this. If you want to create a token, use a token creation platform. They are designed to do exactly that in the right way not in a weak off the main chain thing that can work however the owners and controllers of it want.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

They are not even close.

In LN with all its shortcomings, you are sending actual bitcoins to your channel on-chain and then use that exact bitcoin in another layer to make any number of transactions you want with others who have done the same and at some point if you wished to, you can settle the final balance on chain again. It all depends 100% on what is happening inside Bitcoin and every single script in that process is part of the Bitcoin protocol, validated and enforced by the decentralized network of nodes and the security of this second layer is ensured by security of Bitcoin.
LN is also an actual network where you can run a node (as a peer) and enforce the rules of this network. In other words you know what the protocol is and you are enforcing its rules which can not change arbitrarily by some centralized entity.

That's not even close to what happens in the Ordinals Attack. In Ordinals you are just injecting an arbitrary data into the chain, and that is arbitrary data, not a script, not a token. Then there is a centralized database somewhere else where you can trade something they associate with this arbitrary data in a protocol they've defined, control and can change if they wanted to.
Ordinals is not a network, there is no node for you to run. You are not a peer in this system, you are just a user of this centralized database. It is not even linked to Bitcoin the way it may look like. In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

If you want to compare Ordinals with anything, you can compare it with Tether.
You inject an arbitrary data into bitcoin blockchain using OP_RETURN. There is this other centralized protocol that is only enforced and controlled by the company (iFinex?) and can change if they wished, your Tethers can also be seized by that company at any time because it is centralized. There is also no node for you to run as a peer, you are just a user in that network.

[ABCbits]

If the data which is actually stored in an Ordinal was nothing more than a pointer,  including a signature (witness) and a hash, CID, url or whatever of the actual full-fat data, the misuse of the blockchain could have been mitigated. As it stands it's like cramming in of data, with 0 regard on how that looks being moved around full-fat each time.

Setting a max size on taproot script length is the best chance of mitigating this "misuse," as it appears to me, anyway. What size should that be? I have no idea, but I'd hope that less than 20 kb would suffice.

I'd say 10KB, following limit of script size which used before Taproot exist. Although it won't impact BRC-20 while Ordinal already have protocol which split arbitrary data into multiple TX.

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

Aside from what @ pooya87 said, Ordinals encourage people to store all data on-chain, while LN generally only store initial and final state of the channel on-chain.

[Wind_FURY]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

They're the same that they were developed and built on top of Bitcoin without permission, BUT they are not the same thing because they technically function differently. The Lightning Network was built to give users another way of sending/receiving Bitcoin, and doing it cheaper than on-chain transactions. Although it has many critics, it's trying to solve a problem.

Ordinals? It isn't for the science/development of new technology, it's an inefficient way to use the network, it isn't trying to solve anything. What it's good for is shitcoinery/"trading" assets denomonated in Bitcoin to "maybe" make some profit in Bitcoin.

[philipma1957]

Considering how we are ~6 years after the ICO scam and it still hasn't died, there is no reason to expect the Ordinals scam and attack end without any intervention. The hype may decrease but wait until market enters big bull run phase and newcomers flood the market, and we'll see how Ordinals Attack increases again as they get fresh victims.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

[nutildah]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

[Wind_FURY]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

[Pmalek]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain. I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

[Wind_FURY]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain.

I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain.

Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.

I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works.

[cryptosize]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain.

I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain.

Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.

I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works.

For some strange reason it keeps going on for months and months since last year...

Maybe because some of these guys behind Ordinals/BRC-20 are actually OG Bitcoiners who jumped to the big block camp (BCH/BSV) and keep burning incessant amounts of BTC?

Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened.

[nutildah]

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

There is something like this in the works - I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread - and it could explain the reduction in Ordinals-related activity. The inscription part will still have to take place on-chain but in theory the ordinals themselves can be moved around in some kind of off-chain, second-layer mechanism, akin to Lightning. But the main reason they are doing this isn't to help anyone out, its so they can pay less fees when making ordinals transactions. Win/win situation nevertheless.

[Wind_FURY]

Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened.

Why exchange Bitcoin to a shitcoin? Merely they're followers sold their Bitcoins for a forked-shitcoin that's forked from a forked-shitcoin. It proved how naive people can be. Plus by HODLing BSV, they are losing units in Bitcoin.

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

There is something like this in the works - I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread - and it could explain the reduction in Ordinals-related activity. The inscription part will still have to take place on-chain but in theory the ordinals themselves can be moved around in some kind of off-chain, second-layer mechanism, akin to Lightning. But the main reason they are doing this isn't to help anyone out, its so they can pay less fees when making ordinals transactions. Win/win situation nevertheless.

Or merely stop using Ordinals, which is merely a system made up in Rodarmor's head, and use a more efficient system with better architecture, no? Because if users truly wanted to store and secure their dick pics in the blockchain, it's better to use Bitcoin Stamps.

[tread93]

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

Hey honestly it seems like a great way to solve the problem when you read it but its not that simple. There will be some sort of bug fix on this, eventually, in probably a couple of years time or something as the demand for ordinals increases etc. I am honeslty so pissed that I didn't get set up sooner and get in on that ordinals rune airdrop. Those flipping ordinals are starting at a floor price of like 4k, its just stupid. I feel stupid for having talked about doing it for so long and still yet again not following my better judgment and following through with it. Ugh. Need to get in on it. If anyone wants to drop me some runes send it to your boy tread93 lmao here is my ordinals addy     that I literally just made because I put it off for so long: bc1pz89d7xccj2klp4fw8777g9yhfg56cv8sgqn5jl0gcwhuzfepgjds09y3cs   

[pooya87]

If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.
They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

The best selling point of Ordinals is that they are embedded in the most secure and decentralized blockchain, Bitcoin's. They could be implemented much cheaper in a sidechain, or an altcoin, but this would result in just another useless token concept which would be forgotten after a couple of months. Think of an altcoin that can survive in the long term, allows you to embed trash and is equally censorship resistant such that its community would be highly discouraged from excluding that trash specifically. I don't think there is.

[Wind_FURY]

If the Ordinals scammers wanted to use layer two or rather a side-chain instead of inserting their arbitrary data into the Bitcoin main chain, they would have never used Bitcoin in first place because that would defeat their purpose which is to first spam Bitcoin chain and second to use Bitcoin's name to hype up their scam and get more victims.

They would have instead used an actual token creation platform such as ethereum to actually create actual tokens!

Although it's true that they're using Bitcoin "for NFTs" because it's "something new", what it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen. The Ordinals token ORDI had so much trading volume that made it surge more than ten times from October, 2023 to January, 2024. If you ask me, that's capital from holders who were waiting for something to do with their Bitcoins. You could call it spam and/or scam, but that truly doesn't matter because they paid for the fees and they're following the consensus rules.

Ordinals will not go away, and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

[DooMAD]

and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?  When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"?  I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits.  But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation.  Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?

[pooya87]

it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.

Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h

[Wind_FURY]

and I believe that it's starting to encourage developers to build applications for "Bitcoin DeFi". That would probably be the biggest narrative that's coming in the current bull cycle.

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc?  When did DeFi get butchered into meaning "Let's get fuckwits to trade worthless trash with each other"?  I'd be supportive of such a narrative if we could get back to more noble pursuits.  But it mostly just reeks of opportunism and exploitation.  Is anyone building anything someone rational would care about?

It will be the same reason why humans gamble. Whether "Bitcoin DeFi" will have real utility or not, it will be the next Bitcoin narrative. "Bitcoin DeFi" developers will make giant "casinos" on top of Bitcoin to unlock dormant capital. Jihan Wu might be a big player in this.

it also showed is that there's a huge amount of dormant capital that was waiting for something like Ordinals to happen.

Unless we can find some solid evidence of the origin of the funds that went into these junks we can't call it "dormant capital". I'd say there are two main sources for the funds that pumped Ordinal's fake tokens: (1) dedicated money to attack Bitcoin (2) the same old altcoin/token traders who take their capital from shitcoin to shitcoin every single day to make profit. Like this: https://www.coingecko.com/en/all-cryptocurrencies?sort_by=change24h

Although debatable if the volume on recent Ordinals activity were truly from "dormant capital, but ser I'm also literally talking about the Bitcoins HODLed in those wallets that have never moved for years. I believe at some point, they will be used. But when? When Bitcoin is at $2 trillion total market value, $5 trillion? Human society and prospecting have always gone side by side in modern human history.

[larry_vw_1955]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

[pooya87]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked". The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

[Wind_FURY]

Aging myself here, but does anyone else remember a time when DeFi was meant to accomplish disrupting legitimate industries such as notary services, remittances, etc? 

i can't quite recall back that far but i do remember how they used to proclaim how "defi" was going to save the "unbanked". imagine that. someone that doesn't even have a bank account, did that ever make sense how they would suddenly be able to transact on an expensive blockchain called ethereum just so they could do what? no one even takes ethereum as payment in the real world so there's that...but someone that doesn't even have a bank account probably doesn't even have a phone because there's tons of bank accounts you can sign up with BY PHONE...and actually use to buy things from places. unlike with ethereum.

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked". The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

But can dog poop in a pretty bag make one Bitcoin grow to two Bitcoin? Sometimes when an opportunity comes to earn using dormant capital merely stored in a wallet, we should probably take some risk, no? Bitcoin "DeFi" from Asia might be the largest narrative for Bitcoin this cycle. If the price surges to $100,000, what's the next prediction? $500,000? I will merely wash my hands after picking up then selling the dog poop.

[titular]

In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

This is incorrect. LN operates independently of Bitcoin and is not contingent upon its existence. LN possesses the capability to facilitate transactions across various blockchain platforms, not limited solely to Bitcoin. LN is not reliant on Bitcoin; were Bitcoin to cease to exist, the Lightning Network would continue to function autonomously.

[BlackHatCoiner]

[...]

Theoretically, lightning can work without Bitcoin, but practically, it has little to no purpose. I presume that's what pooya meant. You'd use lightning mostly to avoid paying an outrageous amount of money for a low-value Bitcoin transaction, but beyond that it isn't useful. Litecoin's mempool is mostly empty, micro-transactions can take place there cheaply and get confirmed soon enough. Needless to mention that most lightning software is written to work on Bitcoin and isn't tested anywhere else.

[cryptosize]

Interesting analysis:

https://www.theheldreport.com/p/bitcoin-runes-explainer

Casey launches his Runes token standard on the halving in April – at blockheight 840,000. It could be a giant boost in fees to Bitcoin miners at the very moment they need it the most!

[MusaMohamed]

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked".

The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account. They can have their own banks with Bitcoin with very simple condition nowadays.

Have Internet connection, and a device to download a Bitcoin wallet, create to use.

It's worthwhile to note to be their own banks with Bitcoin, they must.

- Use a non custodial wallet, open source.
- Verify it, to avoid phishing, fake wallets.
- Backup their wallets.
- Test backups for recovery.
- Fund that wallet with Bitcoin and use it to store their bitcoins, to broadcast bitcoin transaction for their trades.

The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.

If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.

[larry_vw_1955]

It all comes down to how you define Decentralized Finance. You could put Bitcoin and what it offers under the category of "Decentralized Finance" and it does offer a solution for the "unbanked".

i don't think bitcoin was designed to help people who were having difficulty because they were unable to get a traditional bank account. it will never replace that. pretty much no one takes bitcoin as payment...so for someone to think that bitcoin is the solution to them not having a bank account, all they are going to have is a private key on a piece of paper or some trezor but if they can't verify their ID and things like then no one is going to touch them with a 10 foot pole. including p2p exhcangers. because most p2p is not done face to face. unless they can find someone like that then they are stuck with bitcoin without a way to use it. and then what's even worse, begging people to take their bitcoin. "i have this bitcoin here...i'll give it to you at a discount..."

The problem is when these days people talk about "Decentralized Finance" they are referring to the DeFi token creation hype where they create an utterly useless token on a token creation platform like ethereum and pump and dump it. That's not Decentralized Finance at all! That's more like selling dog poop in a pretty bag!

hopefully that misleading term "defi" goes away since all it is really is a gateway word to scamming people that don't realize there is no such thing as them being their own bank and making 15% on top of that.  

The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account.

what issues are those exactly because they need to work them out so they can actually be a part of society. you cannot be a participating member of society without a bank account that's just the honest truth at least here in the usa. if they have money to buy bitcoin they have money to open a bank account.

[pooya87]

pretty much no one takes bitcoin as payment.

That's a bold guess.
You are basically claiming that the payment processor companies like Bitpay, Coinbase, etc. are dead and over 3 million users they have are fake, the thousands of "payments" they process per day is fake and so on!
And that's just centralized payment processors that only a small fraction of the Bitcoin world uses. The rest of the "payments" are direct and without middle men like Bitpay...

[Wind_FURY]

[...]

Theoretically, lightning can work without Bitcoin, but practically, it has little to no purpose. I presume that's what pooya meant. You'd use lightning mostly to avoid paying an outrageous amount of money for a low-value Bitcoin transaction, but beyond that it isn't useful. Litecoin's mempool is mostly empty, micro-transactions can take place there cheaply and get confirmed soon enough. Needless to mention that most lightning software is written to work on Bitcoin and isn't tested anywhere else.

What does that mean, ser? Practically those channels in the Lightning Network are actual Bitcoin transactions that haven't been settled on-chain yet. What Lightning could be is a sort of organized mempool where users could send and receive Bitcoin pre-confirmation.

Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[DooMAD]

Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?

It is fully built and functional on other chains, like Litecoin and Vertcoin.  It just doesn't see anywhere near the same level of usage.  170 public channels in LTC versus over 50000 BTC channels.  And no one can even be bothered to keep count of the ones on Vertcoin anymore because it's completely insignificant.

[cryptosize]

A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.

If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.

Just because ETH is centralized (even more so with PoS), it doesn't mean that every altcoin is centralized. That's a bit dismissive, don't you think?

Are Litecoin, Monero centralized? Just to name a few...

Regarding Lightning, necessity is the mother of invention.

When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2:

https://litecoinspace.org/

Bitcoin was like that 15 years ago...

If Litecoin became really popular, then it would face the exact same scaling issues.

[Wind_FURY]

A project that is centralized in Vitalik hands, was premined and was rolled back like Ethereum blockchain, is not a decentralized project and blockchain.

If Ethereum can not be decentralized, other altcoin projects and blockchain are only more centralized than Ethereum.

Just because ETH is centralized (even more so with PoS), it doesn't mean that every altcoin is centralized. That's a bit dismissive, don't you think?

Are Litecoin, Monero centralized? Just to name a few...

Regarding Lightning, necessity is the mother of invention.

When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2:

https://litecoinspace.org/

Bitcoin was like that 15 years ago...

If Litecoin became really popular, then it would face the exact same scaling issues.

There will always be a reason to use an off-chain layer on top of Bitcoin that utilizes actual Bitcoin transactions. I believe for those altcoins users that want Bitcoin HODLers to use their chains, prepare to be disappointed if your network won't incentivize HODLers with earning more units denominated in Bitcoin. Your network needs the liquidity more than Bitcoin needs your smaller liquidity. Plus if there isn't a bridge that doesn't rely on third parties to convert Bitcoin and use your chains, then let the "necessity is the mother of invention" build one.

[sherlockphone]

well, There are those who say that this problem will be solved in version 27.0 of bitcoin core:

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2023/12/btc-developer-luke-dashjr-2024-bitcoin-core-update-will-disrupt-ordinals-and-brc-20-tokens/

the only thing that is certain is that they are putting games in the Bitcoin blockchain:

https://decrypt.co/216677/bits-bitcoin-ordinals-game-deadfellaz-dfz-labs

https://ordinals.com/content/521f8eccffa4c41a3a7728dd012ea5a4a02feed81f41159231251ecf1e5c79dai0

what if some idiot puts malicious code into the blockchain and a bigger idiot in the government tries to outlaw the blockchain for some "national security" reasons or crap like that?

[MusaMohamed]

The unbanked are people who have issues to access bank system and can not have their bank account.

what issues are those exactly because they need to work them out so they can actually be a part of society. you cannot be a participating member of society without a bank account that's just the honest truth at least here in the usa. if they have money to buy bitcoin they have money to open a bank account.

It is true in all countries, not only in the USA.

Nowadays, even you are an old person, and you have a small business like a food store, a grocery store, you will have to install and accept many options for payments from your customers, cash most common payment option likely, bank transfer, e-wallet transaction and maybe Bitcoin, cryptocurrency too.

Bitcoin gives us a good option to reduce inconvenience of access to banks but through a long way, people will still have to use banks.

How Can Cryptocurrency Serve The Unbanked?

It is not an article about Bitcoin but has some insights.

[pooya87]

When on chain transactions are dirt cheap, there is absolutely no reason to use L2:

Although LN has been advertised by some as a solution to lower fees, it was never that. LN is a scaling solution to allow you to send large numbers of transactions very quickly and without needing on-chain settlement (without needing to wait for confirmation).

Imagine a trader who wants to move their fund immediately to the exchange and sell it. Without LN they'll have to either keep their coins on exchange and risk losing all of it or make a deposit and wait for 1-6 confirmation that can take up to an hour before they can sell. With LN that's a matter of seconds.

[ABCbits]

well, There are those who say that this problem will be solved in version 27.0 of bitcoin core:

https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1732204937466032285
https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2023/12/btc-developer-luke-dashjr-2024-bitcoin-core-update-will-disrupt-ordinals-and-brc-20-tokens/

It's somewhat old news and his idea got rejected, check https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408.

what if some idiot puts malicious code into the blockchain and a bigger idiot in the government tries to outlaw the blockchain for some "national security" reasons or crap like that?

Such thing already happen, check https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html. But for better or worse, it's not easy to extract the data.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?

That's what I meant, even though there is little to no reason to do it elsewhere.

Imagine a trader who wants to move their fund immediately to the exchange and sell it.

Actually, that's the most useful part of LN, in my opinion. Instant transactions are awesome, but that's rarely the reason I'm paying or receiving in lightning. The greatest property is that you can make nearly infinite transactions by creating just two UTXOs (for each channel). You can't DCA on-chain, with self-custody. You'll lose a lot in transaction fees, especially if you use a decentralized exchange like Bisq which requires at least 4 on-chain transactions for every trade.

Robosats is the best non-KYC, lightning exchange for that particular purpose.

[NotATether]

what if some idiot puts malicious code into the blockchain and a bigger idiot in the government tries to outlaw the blockchain for some "national security" reasons or crap like that?

Such thing already happen, check https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html. But for better or worse, it's not easy to extract the data.

Or even worse, staggering the malware code across multiple blocks after encoding it in binary. You could fit a lot of viruses or at least payloads into the blockchain like that.. It is quite damningly easy to pull off using Ordinals as long as you have a transaction parser that processes witness data and extracts it from the rest of the block.

All sorts of nasty and malicious things could be stored in the blockchain using this method. This is what the people spamming it with pepes, cypherpunks and dickbutts don't realize.

[ABCbits]

Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?

That's what I meant, even though there is little to no reason to do it elsewhere.

Don't forget it's possible to perform atomic swaps on LN.

what if some idiot puts malicious code into the blockchain and a bigger idiot in the government tries to outlaw the blockchain for some "national security" reasons or crap like that?

Such thing already happen, check https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html. But for better or worse, it's not easy to extract the data.

Or even worse, staggering the malware code across multiple blocks after encoding it in binary. You could fit a lot of viruses or at least payloads into the blockchain like that.. It is quite damningly easy to pull off using Ordinals as long as you have a transaction parser that processes witness data and extracts it from the rest of the block.

All sorts of nasty and malicious things could be stored in the blockchain using this method. This is what the people spamming it with pepes, cypherpunks and dickbutts don't realize.

I think it's also already happen, which is why Bitcoin Core perform XOR obfuscation on it's files.

[larry_vw_1955]

You are basically claiming that the payment processor companies like Bitpay, Coinbase, etc. are dead and over 3 million users they have are fake, the thousands of "payments" they process per day is fake and so on!
And that's just centralized payment processors that only a small fraction of the Bitcoin world uses. The rest of the "payments" are direct and without middle men like Bitpay...

are you seriouis that bitpay and coinbase are the best use cases for bitcoin you can think of just because they offer some type of crypto debit card that converts your bitcoin into fiat so you can actually buy something? you'll have to do better than that. find a more compelling use case.

in my opinion, all those people with bitpay and coinbase debit cards know that their crypto has no real world use. which is why they got the debit cards in the first place so they could actually get rid of it. and buy something from someone that would not take their crypto direcly...you know what i'm saying. to say nothing of the fact that how do you trust some company to hold your bitcoin for you while you go about figuring out ways to get rid of it by using a debit card?  

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

[pooya87]

are you seriouis that bitpay and coinbase are the best use cases for bitcoin....

Where did I say that?
I'm just responding to your speculation that "pretty much no one takes bitcoin as payment" with the most solid statistic that can be found which happens to be from centralized services.

Otherwise as I said in my comment above, a lot more transactions are happening on-chain (without these centralized middle men) where a lot or people are taking bitcoin as payment but there is no solid statistic about that because it is hard to analyze.

[ABCbits]

You are basically claiming that the payment processor companies like Bitpay, Coinbase, etc. are dead and over 3 million users they have are fake, the thousands of "payments" they process per day is fake and so on!
And that's just centralized payment processors that only a small fraction of the Bitcoin world uses. The rest of the "payments" are direct and without middle men like Bitpay...

are you seriouis that bitpay and coinbase are the best use cases for bitcoin you can think of just because they offer some type of crypto debit card that converts your bitcoin into fiat so you can actually buy something? you'll have to do better than that. find a more compelling use case.

I don't understand why you bring up debit card when he talked about payment processor where you can pay directly using Bitcoin and merchant can choose either keep the coin or convert the coin to fiat.

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

It's obvious they dropped it since it doesn't make them much money anymore.

[Wind_FURY]

Or did I simply misunderstand, and you're trying to say is Lightning "can be built" on top of other chains, not only Bitcoin?

That's what I meant, even though there is little to no reason to do it elsewhere.

No reason for off-chain unless the high demand for on-chain transactions fill the mempool and/or block space to its full capacity. Ethereum has built off-chain layers, which proves that on-chain, nothing can defy the limitations of hardware and bandwidth. Plus DYOR on Solana's congestion. Their assumptions flawed and laughable. Their developers are not telling their users/community the actual truth on how their design will not work unless they increase bandwidth and hardware requirements while block space demand surges- which would also centralize the network. A fee market must also exist to prevent attackers from spamming the network - currently the surge of spam in Solana is causing transaction failures.

[nutildah]

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

Crazy. I'm all for their decision of course. The reason why its crazy is this whole Runes thing was launched only a month or two ago and I guess its completely collapsed in popularity already. Looks like its finally the beginning of the end of the Ordinals Era in Bitcoin.

[larry_vw_1955]

I don't understand why you bring up debit card when he talked about payment processor where you can pay directly using Bitcoin and merchant can choose either keep the coin or convert the coin to fiat.

when you use the coinbase card, you're using fiat to buy something not crypto. they even say it right here on their website:
https://www.coinbase.com/card

Where is Coinbase Card accepted?
Coinbase Card is accepted anywhere Visa® debit cards are accepted, at over 40M+ merchants worldwide. If you choose to spend crypto, Coinbase will automatically convert all cryptocurrency to US Dollars for use in purchases and ATM withdrawals.


and guess why they have to do that conversion? that's right because NO ONE TAKES BTC. most merchants only take fiat. we all know that...but anyhow it's off topic to the thread i know.

Crazy. I'm all for their decision of course. The reason why its crazy is this whole Runes thing was launched only a month or two ago and I guess its completely collapsed in popularity already. Looks like its finally the beginning of the end of the Ordinals Era in Bitcoin.

i didn't even realize binance had ordinals the support was not longlasting! i think they just started supporting them in summer 2023. wow they really got rid of them quick! flash in the pan. but i guess binance was never one of the big ordinals marketplaces. there's still a handful and i am guessing opensea still supports them but i haven't looked in a long time.  

so people still looking to unload their monkeys probably have options but this is "bearish" news.

[nutildah]

i didn't even realize binance had ordinals the support was not longlasting! i think they just started supporting them in summer 2023. wow they really got rid of them quick! flash in the pan. but i guess binance was never one of the big ordinals marketplaces. there's still a handful and i am guessing opensea still supports them but i haven't looked in a long time.  

so people still looking to unload their monkeys probably have options but this is "bearish" news.

In hindsight it was obvious -- anyone involved in the NFT craze of 2021-2022 should have seen it coming. Liquidity dries up after the next new & shiny thing is no longer so new & shiny. What's interesting is the price of a Bored Ape (BAYC) is now almost back down to its mint price, meaning just about everybody who ever bought one is currently sitting on a loss. Casey tried to make Runes the next shiny thing but the gleam has already fallen off the cube, if that's an expression. The power of his head honcho influencer, Leonidas, is weaning by the day as more and more people finally figure out for themselves that he is not much more than a grifting scammer.

Anyways, its all good for normal bitcoin users, and even not so no normal bitcoin users themselves, like me, who have used Counterparty to make non-standard transactions for nearly a decade now and can see myself doing the same 10 years from now.

[ABCbits]

I don't understand why you bring up debit card when he talked about payment processor where you can pay directly using Bitcoin and merchant can choose either keep the coin or convert the coin to fiat.

when you use the coinbase card, you're using fiat to buy something not crypto. they even say it right here on their website:
https://www.coinbase.com/card

Where is Coinbase Card accepted?
Coinbase Card is accepted anywhere Visa® debit cards are accepted, at over 40M+ merchants worldwide. If you choose to spend crypto, Coinbase will automatically convert all cryptocurrency to US Dollars for use in purchases and ATM withdrawals.


and guess why they have to do that conversion? that's right because NO ONE TAKES BTC. most merchants only take fiat. we all know that...but anyhow it's off topic to the thread i know.

By payment processor, i think he refer to Coinbase Commerce[1] instead. Their help page state customer make payment with Bitcoin or other coin[2], while their FAQ state merchant can choose either self-managed (only merchant have control over received coin) or coinbase-managed (custodial service)[3]. If merchant decide to choose coinbase-managed, they can use auto conversation (cryptocurrency to USD) feature [3].

[1] https://www.coinbase.com/commerce
[2] https://help.coinbase.com/en/how-to-make-a-payment
[3] https://www.coinbase.com/commerce/faq

[GaloisField]

Any thoughts about Runes protocol in this topic? rodarmor.com/blog/runes
Halving is arriving in ~2k blocks and fees can be way higher than any brc20 previous wave. Do we have the same angry people?

[larry_vw_1955]

In hindsight it was obvious -- anyone involved in the NFT craze of 2021-2022 should have seen it coming. Liquidity dries up after the next new & shiny thing is no longer so new & shiny. What's interesting is the price of a Bored Ape (BAYC) is now almost back down to its mint price, meaning just about everybody who ever bought one is currently sitting on a loss. Casey tried to make Runes the next shiny thing but the gleam has already fallen off the cube, if that's an expression. The power of his head honcho influencer, Leonidas, is weaning by the day as more and more people finally figure out for themselves that he is not much more than a grifting scammer.

apparently the bored apes have dried up on almost every nft marketplace except for blur. take this ape for example:

https://blur.io/asset/0xbc4ca0eda7647a8ab7c2061c2e118a18a936f13d/9923

they paid 62 eth for it a year ago. but eth has doubled in price since that time. so to break even, the owner would need to be selling their monkey for about half as many eth, 31 eth but what are they doing? trying to sell it for 12.8 eth so they can lock in a solid loss....these people are about as dumb as the apes they are buying it seems like  

yeah i don't think casey is looked upon too favorably by people here any longer. its really too bad he could have used his talents to make bitcoin better but he did the opposite kind of.

Anyways, its all good for normal bitcoin users, and even not so no normal bitcoin users themselves, like me, who have used Counterparty to make non-standard transactions for nearly a decade now and can see myself doing the same 10 years from now.

what type of non-standard transactions if you don't mind me asking. 10 years is a long time !

[pooya87]

Any thoughts about Runes protocol in this topic?

Apart from the obvious (you can not create tokens in Bitcoin protocol since it doesn't support it) this is just history repeating itself over and over, each time with a different face. It's a story as old as Bitcoin and the alternative market where altcoins are pumped and dumped.
- It started by creating useless coins to be pumped
- To maximize profit it continued by creating premined coins
- As people stopped buying into that scam, in order to hide the premine the scam turned into shadow-mined shitcoins
- As that failed too the Initial Coin Offering scam started where they premined the shitcoin and sold it before the chain even started or the shitcoin even got listed on exchanges
- With introduction of token creation platforms all of these scams got cheaper and a lot easier. Instead of creating a stand-alone project with blockchain, mining and everything all you had to do was create a token on these platforms (like on ethereum) which was cheap and easy, so the token hype began
- As that failed they started changing the name to revive it (ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT)
...and the scam continues

It's the same with the Ordinals Scam. They need to keep pulling "rabbits out the hat" if they want to keep people's attention and get them to buy their garbage and continue the attack on Bitcoin.

Halving is arriving in ~2k blocks and fees can be way higher than any brc20 previous wave. Do we have the same angry people?

A lot of people are angry because Bitcoin protocol is being abused as they found an exploit and the chain is under a spam attack not just because of the fees.

[nutildah]

Any thoughts about Runes protocol in this topic? rodarmor.com/blog/runes
Halving is arriving in ~2k blocks and fees can be way higher than any brc20 previous wave. Do we have the same angry people?

Not going to read it -- I already get the gist of it -- its Ordinals 2.0. Apparently he wasn't satisfied with the money he made already, so he launched something nearly completely the same under a different name.

Here's the fact: Runes was DOA (Dead On Arrival) so there's nothing to be angry about. Nobody cares about it because nearly everyone involved in Ordinals has already figured out that their main influencooor, Leonidas, is a cheeseball scammer.

Don't really feel bad for anybody who loses money to this garbage: you should have figured out Leonidas was a scammer by now. If you haven't, well you know what they say about a fool and his money...

[larry_vw_1955]

It's the same with the Ordinals Scam. They need to keep pulling "rabbits out the hat" if they want to keep people's attention and get them to buy their garbage and continue the attack on Bitcoin.

it just struck me that if something is not a built in part of bitcoin then it probably is not a good thing to invest into in the bitcoin ecosystem. because someone has to maintain it and keep the software alive and working and it won't be the bitcoin developers. and eventually the software might not even be available to download except through some archive.org site at which time people will have long forgotten or found any use for the data it encodes. since it's not built into bitcoin, that's the fate they all will suffer. ordinals is just the latest one. but all the ones before it ways of encoding images and data they probably suffered the same fate but even quicker.

so if casey wants ordinals to last hes going to have to convince the developers to put his ordinals code directly into bitcoin core. else, its doomed.

[DooMAD]

It's the same with the Ordinals Scam. They need to keep pulling "rabbits out the hat" if they want to keep people's attention and get them to buy their garbage and continue the attack on Bitcoin.

it just struck me that if something is not a built in part of bitcoin then it probably is not a good thing to invest into in the bitcoin ecosystem. because someone has to maintain it and keep the software alive and working and it won't be the bitcoin developers. and eventually the software might not even be available to download except through some archive.org site at which time people will have long forgotten or found any use for the data it encodes. since it's not built into bitcoin, that's the fate they all will suffer. ordinals is just the latest one. but all the ones before it ways of encoding images and data they probably suffered the same fate but even quicker.

so if casey wants ordinals to last hes going to have to convince the developers to put his ordinals code directly into bitcoin core. else, its doomed.

If something is genuinely useful, you'd be surprised at the lengths people will go to preserve obscure software.  I keep a few non-bitcoin-related programs archived that are hard to find elsewhere on the web.  

It's less about whether is something is made by a recognised group of developers and more about not investing in ordinals purely because they're a load of crap.  

Oh, and "Runes" will be more of the same.  A turd with some glitter sprinkled on, so any fools will believe it to be shiny.

[ABCbits]

Any thoughts about Runes protocol in this topic? rodarmor.com/blog/runes
Halving is arriving in ~2k blocks and fees can be way higher than any brc20 previous wave. Do we have the same angry people?

I shared my short thought on this post,

--snip--

Have anyone see it's technical detail[1]? While ordinals use witness data and UTXO, runes use UTXO and OP_RETURN which create somewhat less bloat. And while ordinals idea looks fresh at it's time, both ordinals and runes looks outdated as Bitcoin sidechain/L2 gaining popularity. So yeah, i hope Runes lose it's popularity quickly.

[1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/

Besides, i expect there won't be many people would take risk following trend of Rune when Ordinal popularity doesn't last that long.

[nutildah]

Anyways, its all good for normal bitcoin users, and even not so no normal bitcoin users themselves, like me, who have used Counterparty to make non-standard transactions for nearly a decade now and can see myself doing the same 10 years from now.

what type of non-standard transactions if you don't mind me asking. 10 years is a long time !

Oh, I didn't see this question the first time around. In 10 days, it will mark the 10th anniversary of my account on the forum, and in about 10 weeks it will mark the first time I made a non-standard Bitcoin transaction, which was the creation of a Counterparty token (actually I had probably made trades on the Counterparty DEX even before that, but anyway).

Counterparty uses mainly OP_RETURN to store its data which is readable only by an external protocol (akin to Ordinals, except much more developed, secure, and blockchain space-friendly in every way imaginable). Some larger Counterparty transactions use multisig outputs, which are actually spendable.

[pooya87]

so if casey wants ordinals to last hes going to have to convince the developers to put his ordinals code directly into bitcoin core. else, its doomed.

That would require a hard-fork and fundamental changes in Bitcoin and its principles so that it is changed from a currency and a payment system into a token creation platform! Something that will never happen.
It is like going to a bank and trying to convince them that they should also serve food and become a restaurant on the side!

[Wind_FURY]

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

Crazy. I'm all for their decision of course. The reason why its crazy is this whole Runes thing was launched only a month or two ago and I guess its completely collapsed in popularity already. Looks like its finally the beginning of the end of the Ordinals Era in Bitcoin.

Binance probably believes that their resources should be invested somewhere else because OKX has a dominant position in Ordinals, and soon, the Runes market. I did some due diligence, and I believe that during its surge, the BRC-20 token ORDI had the most volume than all of the combined volume of Solana's NFT market. That was only from one asset.

Any thoughts about Runes protocol in this topic? rodarmor.com/blog/runes
Halving is arriving in ~2k blocks and fees can be way higher than any brc20 previous wave. Do we have the same angry people?

Not going to read it -- I already get the gist of it -- its Ordinals 2.0. Apparently he wasn't satisfied with the money he made already, so he launched something nearly completely the same under a different name.

Here's the fact: Runes was DOA (Dead On Arrival) so there's nothing to be angry about. Nobody cares about it because nearly everyone involved in Ordinals has already figured out that their main influencooor, Leonidas, is a cheeseball scammer.

Don't really feel bad for anybody who loses money to this garbage: you should have figured out Leonidas was a scammer by now. If you haven't, well you know what they say about a fool and his money...

Give it the benefit of the doubt and read it. Haha. Runes is not merely an upgrade to Ordinals, it's a new protocol for shitcoinery on top of Bitcoin.

"Balances are stored in UTXOs, which could be locked in HTCL", https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1774613900119699701

The Lightning Network may have found a new sort of "utility".

[Amphenomenon]

so if casey wants ordinals to last hes going to have to convince the developers to put his ordinals code directly into bitcoin core. else, its doomed.

That would require a hard-fork and fundamental changes in Bitcoin and its principles so that it is changed from a currency and a payment system into a token creation platform! Something that will never happen.
It is like going to a bank and trying to convince them that they should also serve food and become a restaurant on the side!

Oh but I guessed he already knew this after all but  still yet continued probably because he knows that he will milk out some ignorant folks who probably will invest in anything related to bitcoin because there are so many options like Ethereum, Solana and the likes that may allow this project or better creating its own blockchain for this.
anyway many have goals which are birthed from their own lusts or greed

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

Crazy. I'm all for their decision of course. The reason why its crazy is this whole Runes thing was launched only a month or two ago and I guess its completely collapsed in popularity already. Looks like its finally the beginning of the end of the Ordinals Era in Bitcoin.

Binance probably believes that their resources should be invested somewhere else because OKX has a dominant position in Ordinals, and soon, the Runes market. I did some due diligence, and I believe that during its surge, the BRC-20 token ORDI had the most volume than all of the combined volume of Solana's NFT market. That was only from one asset.

Like being said earlier people go  crazy for anything relating to Bitcoin but sadly they will come to know these BRC-20 is far from bitcoin itself

[Wind_FURY]

Anyhow, I thought you might be happy to know that binance has decided to no longer support Ordinals:

Binance to cease support for all Bitcoin NFTs
https://coinjournal.net/news/binance-to-ceases-support-for-all-bitcoin-nfts/


Binance announces end to Bitcoin NFTs support
A blog post published on Thursday noted that the trading of Bitcoin NFTs on the Binance NFT marketplace ends on April 18. The exchange has advised all users to to withdraw all their Bitcoin NFTs via the BTC network before May 18.

Crazy. I'm all for their decision of course. The reason why its crazy is this whole Runes thing was launched only a month or two ago and I guess its completely collapsed in popularity already. Looks like its finally the beginning of the end of the Ordinals Era in Bitcoin.

Binance probably believes that their resources should be invested somewhere else because OKX has a dominant position in Ordinals, and soon, the Runes market. I did some due diligence, and I believe that during its surge, the BRC-20 token ORDI had the most volume than all of the combined volume of Solana's NFT market. That was only from one asset.

Like being said earlier people go  crazy for anything relating to Bitcoin but sadly they will come to know these BRC-20 is far from bitcoin itself

But no one actually said BRC-20 = Bitcoin. BRC-20 is merely meme shitcoinery ser. BUT because "Runes" are stored in UTXOs, it will give these etched "Runes" a feature to make it liftable to the Lightning Network. It might have solved its own problem if the fees are high. Runes developers will build a solution to the high-fee-problem and utilize the Lightning Network. If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!

[pooya87]

~ If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!

Or better yet, if they actually want to develop anything and not just scam people they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want and stop exploiting the Bitcoin protocol

[vjudeu]

they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want

Exactly. Imagine how better the situation would be, if a new chain, made completely from scratch, would contain only Ordinals data, and just some SPV proofs, that a given data is connected with a given Bitcoin output. And then, that chain could actually execute all kinds of contracts, without asking Bitcoin developers about it, and could allow for example new token creation, without bloating the Bitcoin UTXO set.

Edit: Even better: instead of timestamping each and every Ordinal separately, one transaction per block could be used to timestamp the whole chain for Ordinals! And if you look at some proposed sidechain designs, then they are exactly like that: one commitment in the coinbase transaction per block is all that is needed (and I think it could be done even less frequently than once per block).

[Wind_FURY]

~ If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!

Or better yet, if they actually want to develop anything and not just scam people they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want and stop exploiting the Bitcoin protocol

They truly could, but because they're currently doing it in Bitcoin, and it can't be stopped - unless there's community consensus to hard fork and upgrade the network - then it's better if they're given the ability to use off-chain transactions, no? It might give the Lightning Network a new sort of utility. Dick pic and fart sound collectors don't want to pay for high fees too.

they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want

Exactly.

How?

[larry_vw_1955]

If something is genuinely useful, you'd be surprised at the lengths people will go to preserve obscure software.

i agree! but there's only so much people with their obscure software on ordinals would be able to do if say the ordinals.com website stopped being maintained. and not many exchanges supported ordinals nfts anymore. but is that the type of position someone would want to be in who paid alot of money for a monkey to have to download the ordinals software from github and run a full bitcoin node just so they can see their ordinal? at that point, i think some people would give up.

I keep a few non-bitcoin-related programs archived that are hard to find elsewhere on the web.  

sure! burn them to a usb stick or save it on google drive for easy retrieval.

It's less about whether is something is made by a recognised group of developers and more about not investing in ordinals purely because they're a load of crap.  

Oh, and "Runes" will be more of the same.  A turd with some glitter sprinkled on, so any fools will believe it to be shiny.

This is Inscription 68649697
https://ordinals.com/inscription/bb4735a5dba97c95de4a50c25e28c1938651b3b76d0a910c869572212f035575i0

That's the latest ordinal as of this time. So there's more than 68 million ordinals now. And they're still minting stupid images like they were in the very beginning. nothing has really changed from that perspective. it would seem.

Oh, I didn't see this question the first time around. In 10 days, it will mark the 10th anniversary of my account on the forum
, and in about 10 weeks it will mark the first time I made a non-standard Bitcoin transaction, which was the creation of a Counterparty (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.0) token (actually I had probably made trades on the Counterparty DEX even before that, but anyway).

Counterparty uses mainly OP_RETURN to store its data which is readable only by an external protocol (akin to Ordinals, except much more developed, secure, and blockchain space-friendly in every way imaginable). Some larger Counterparty transactions use multisig outputs, which are actually spendable.

10 years is a long time to have an account here. congrats. counterparty, unlike ordinals, looks like a very well designed thing based on that thread link you provided. casey could take notes. 

[pooya87]

They truly could, but because they're currently doing it in Bitcoin, and it can't be stopped - unless there's community consensus to hard fork and upgrade the network - then it's better if they're given the ability to use off-chain transactions, no? It might give the Lightning Network a new sort of utility. Dick pic and fart sound collectors don't want to pay for high fees too.

There are different ways of shutting this attack down, one of which is through the Bitcoin protocol. One way would be for those backing this attack to stop supporting it and the centralized market where the Ordinal scams are taking place to be shut down. After all those attacking bitcoin are accepting the high fees because they can have a chance of making some profit from those scams.
With the incentive gone, the attack would stop abruptly.

[vjudeu]

How?

...but just above, in the previous post, I described you exactly, how.

a new chain, made completely from scratch, would contain only Ordinals data, and just some SPV proofs, that a given data is connected with a given Bitcoin output

You know, what is "SPV proof", right? If you have for example a block header, then it takes only 80 bytes, no matter how big is the block behind it. And the same is true for Ordinals: they are hidden behind a single P2TR address, no matter how big they are, when you spend them, and reveal them on-chain. Which means, that you need to point at some 256-bit value on-chain, to prove, that it is connected with your data.

But: that's not all. By doing OP_RETURN, and adding some 32-byte data push, you would reveal, that some kind of commitment is there, and your transaction is not "only a payment". However, if you tweak R-value of your signature instead, then you don't need any additional bytes, for example inside OP_RETURN. Then, you just make a regular signature, using any address type, and just replace one signature with another, which can be used to also prove, that some data is attached into it.

And when it comes to technical details, then they were mentioned by Anthony Towns on the old mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-November/022176.html

Code:

Sign-to-contract looks like:

 * generate a secret random nonce r0
 * calculate the public version R0 = r0*G
 * calculate a derived nonce r = r0 + SHA256(R0, data), where "data"
   is what you want to commit to
 * generate your signature using public nonce R=r*G as usual

And then, if you just replace one signature with another, you can put the whole SPV proof on your own chain. Then, if one on-chain signature will commit to the whole chain of your choice, it will be sufficient to get it covered by Bitcoin's Proof of Work.

Also note, that if you need to put your commitment inside your output, instead of your input (for example if you want to put that in the coinbase transaction), then you can use exactly the same trick, because it works everywhere, where you can encounter any valid public key.

Edit: Also, if you want to understand it better, or preserve some kind of backward-compatibility, then in practice, you need only a small modification: just spend your Ordinals by key, not by TapScript. Or rather: spend them by key on Bitcoin, and spend them by TapScript on the separate chain, made just for Ordinals.

[Wind_FURY]

They truly could, but because they're currently doing it in Bitcoin, and it can't be stopped - unless there's community consensus to hard fork and upgrade the network - then it's better if they're given the ability to use off-chain transactions, no? It might give the Lightning Network a new sort of utility. Dick pic and fart sound collectors don't want to pay for high fees too.

There are different ways of shutting this attack down, one of which is through the Bitcoin protocol. One way would be for those backing this attack to stop supporting it and the centralized market where the Ordinal scams are taking place to be shut down. After all those attacking bitcoin are accepting the high fees because they can have a chance of making some profit from those scams.

With the incentive gone, the attack would stop abruptly.

I don't doubt those many ways of shutting this "attack" - according to your opinion - down. I'm asking actually HOW? Those are valid transactions that paid the fees/followed the consensus rules. It's a very dangerous path for the community if shutting it down gets consensus. Because that would start a cycle, in that, another group of people could also complain about some other use case and demand that it should be "shutdown".

How?

...but just above, in the previous post, I described you exactly, how.

a new chain, made completely from scratch, would contain only Ordinals data, and just some SPV proofs, that a given data is connected with a given Bitcoin output

You know, what is "SPV proof", right? If you have for example a block header, then it takes only 80 bytes, no matter how big is the block behind it. And the same is true for Ordinals: they are hidden behind a single P2TR address, no matter how big they are, when you spend them, and reveal them on-chain. Which means, that you need to point at some 256-bit value on-chain, to prove, that it is connected with your data.

But: that's not all. By doing OP_RETURN, and adding some 32-byte data push, you would reveal, that some kind of commitment is there, and your transaction is not "only a payment". However, if you tweak R-value of your signature instead, then you don't need any additional bytes, for example inside OP_RETURN. Then, you just make a regular signature, using any address type, and just replace one signature with another, which can be used to also prove, that some data is attached into it.

And when it comes to technical details, then they were mentioned by Anthony Towns on the old mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-November/022176.html

Code:

Sign-to-contract looks like:

 * generate a secret random nonce r0
 * calculate the public version R0 = r0*G
 * calculate a derived nonce r = r0 + SHA256(R0, data), where "data"
   is what you want to commit to
 * generate your signature using public nonce R=r*G as usual

And then, if you just replace one signature with another, you can put the whole SPV proof on your own chain. Then, if one on-chain signature will commit to the whole chain of your choice, it will be sufficient to get it covered by Bitcoin's Proof of Work.

Also note, that if you need to put your commitment inside your output, instead of your input (for example if you want to put that in the coinbase transaction), then you can use exactly the same trick, because it works everywhere, where you can encounter any valid public key.

Edit: Also, if you want to understand it better, or preserve some kind of backward-compatibility, then in practice, you need only a small modification: just spend your Ordinals by key, not by TapScript. Or rather: spend them by key on Bitcoin, and spend them by TapScript on the separate chain, made just for Ordinals.

That's the "what", not the "how". How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

[vjudeu]

How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

For example by not sharing the data behind historical signatures (which, by the way, leads us to the same model I described above, but just being forced, instead of being voluntary). Bitcoin is a payment system, which means, that pubkey-based functionality should be priority number one. Other use cases are of course possible, and you can create complex scripts, but it should not be the main use case, but just some "fallback" mechanism, intended to resolve conflicts. Which means, that if you have P2TR address, then spending by key is the main functionality, which should cover the majority of all cases, and spending by script is a "rescue mode", which is needed, if something goes wrong. However, if that "emergency path" is deeply confirmed, then it can be safely downgraded into key path again.

Which also means, that if new nodes wouldn't require downloading everything during Initial Blockchain Download, and would downgrade historical data into something like OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK, or into other kinds of proofs, then projects like Ordinals could no longer rely on their "huge OP_NOPs" being served by Bitcoin nodes, and would be forced into storing those kinds of data by themselves.

Another thing is transaction joining. If regular payments would be joined, then they could compete with Ordinals and other misuse. Because if you have some "payment-only" transactions, then it is easy to combine signatures, because you just add public keys. However, if you have "data-based" transactions, then compression is harder.

Also, I am not the only one thinking in that way. Another example:

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

Also note that for example chapter seven from the whitepaper, called "Reclaiming Disk Space" is still not applied on the Initial Blockchain Download stage, which means, that Satoshi's conclusions, expressed as "storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory" are not fulfilled, because you still have to download more data, than "just block headers". And also note, that we can get there gradually, for example by applying "just synchronize signatures-only" first, and see how that approach would be received by the community, before going further.

Also, the current model, where you have to download everything, is one of the reasons, why you cannot increase the size of the block by too much. Because then, you can get beyond verification time, which means, that blocks would be produced faster, than you could verify them. However, if anyone thinks that having bigger blocks is a good idea, then improving Initial Blockchain Download is the first step to get it done (and also other simplifications are needed, to not allow people for uploading videos, which could remove all advantages of higher on-chain transactions per second ratio).

[ABCbits]

~ If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!

Or better yet, if they actually want to develop anything and not just scam people they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want and stop exploiting the Bitcoin protocol

It's worth to remind you already can create NFT/token on LN using either Taproot Assets or RGB protocols. But using sidechain should be better option since you could avoid creating any transaction on Bitcoin blockchain.

That's the "what", not the "how". How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

IMO it's mostly not technical issue. If they still prefer using Bitcoin to create NFT even though it has slower confirmation time and far higher TX fee, there aren't many other option.

[Wind_FURY]

How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

For example by not sharing the data behind historical signatures (which, by the way, leads us to the same model I described above, but just being forced, instead of being voluntary). Bitcoin is a payment system,

Don't take it offensively, but let me stop you there. Because of its permissionless nature, the Bitcoin network is not merely a "payment system". "Our" use case doesn't have to be "their" use case. Satoshi may have wanted to design a censorship-resistant "payment network", but it doesn't look like it's its only use case.

That's the "what", not the "how". How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

IMO it's mostly not technical issue. If they still prefer using Bitcoin to create NFT even though it has slower confirmation time and far higher TX fee, there aren't many other option.

OK, then let's agree to disagree.

[pooya87]

I don't doubt those many ways of shutting this "attack" - according to your opinion - down. I'm asking actually HOW? Those are valid transactions that paid the fees/followed the consensus rules. It's a very dangerous path for the community if shutting it down gets consensus. Because that would start a cycle, in that, another group of people could also complain about some other use case and demand that it should be "shutdown".

I disagree because we're talking about an exploit not "use case" and we've been doing this for always and this is literally the first time the Bitcoin community is showing resistance against fixing an exploit in the protocol! Nobody ever called any of them "censorship" nor where they ever worried about it starting "a dangerous path"!

For example before SegWit soft-fork in 2017 you could exploit the protocol by abusing the dummy stack item in OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) ops to inject an arbitrary data to the chain. After the fork, this exploit was patched and such transactions are invalid now. Same with the conditional ops bool that is popped from the stack.
There are also countless examples of how we prevented a lot of different exploits through standard rules that we've already covered a thousand times such as the limits on OP_RETURN outputs.

[Wind_FURY]

I don't doubt those many ways of shutting this "attack" - according to your opinion - down. I'm asking actually HOW? Those are valid transactions that paid the fees/followed the consensus rules. It's a very dangerous path for the community if shutting it down gets consensus. Because that would start a cycle, in that, another group of people could also complain about some other use case and demand that it should be "shutdown".

I disagree because we're talking about an exploit not "use case" and we've been doing this for always and this is literally the first time the Bitcoin community is showing resistance against fixing an exploit in the protocol! Nobody ever called any of them "censorship" nor where they ever worried about it starting "a dangerous path"!

For example before SegWit soft-fork in 2017 you could exploit the protocol by abusing the dummy stack item in OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) ops to inject an arbitrary data to the chain. After the fork, this exploit was patched and such transactions are invalid now. Same with the conditional ops bool that is popped from the stack.
There are also countless examples of how we prevented a lot of different exploits through standard rules that we've already covered a thousand times such as the limits on OP_RETURN outputs.

You can call it an "exploit", or a "bug", or something else, but from the network's viewpoint those transactions followed the consensus rules, paid the fees, and miners are also incentivized to include them in their blocks because of that. You can have your opinion about what it is, but that's merely what it is. An Opinion. But if removing the "exploit/bug" gets community consensus through a soft/hard fork, then OK. Fork accepted.

[pooya87]

You can call it an "exploit", or a "bug", or something else, but from the network's viewpoint those transactions followed the consensus rules, paid the fees, and miners are also incentivized to include them in their blocks because of that. You can have your opinion about what it is, but that's merely what it is. An Opinion. But if removing the "exploit/bug" gets community consensus through a soft/hard fork, then OK. Fork accepted.

Being part of the consensus rule doesn't mean something is not a bug or exploitable. Read my two examples again, they were also part of the consensus rules and yet they were bugs in the protocol that could have been exploited.

[DooMAD]

Being part of the consensus rule doesn't mean something is not a bug or exploitable. Read my two examples again, they were also part of the consensus rules and yet they were bugs in the protocol that could have been exploited.

Your premise appears to be that any kind of data storage, unrelated to transactional data, isn't a valid use of Bitcoin.  But I'm not convinced developers see things in such black and white terms.  I've certainly seen some developer discussion relating to the standardisation of data storage, but I don't see any particular push to restrict it completely.  Perhaps the patches you're referring to weren't the correct format in which devs were looking to support data storage. 

Is it possible you might be working under the assumption that devs want to prevent data storage because they made those particular changes?  If so, I think you might be misinterpreting what they were looking to achieve.

[Wind_FURY]

You can call it an "exploit", or a "bug", or something else, but from the network's viewpoint those transactions followed the consensus rules, paid the fees, and miners are also incentivized to include them in their blocks because of that. You can have your opinion about what it is, but that's merely what it is. An Opinion. But if removing the "exploit/bug" gets community consensus through a soft/hard fork, then OK. Fork accepted.

Being part of the consensus rule doesn't mean something is not a bug or exploitable. Read my two examples again, they were also part of the consensus rules and yet they were bugs in the protocol that could have been exploited.

But from the viewpoint of the network, if a transaction paid for the fees and followed the consensus rules then those transactions are technically valid, and they will be included in the blocks. You can have an opinion on what to call it. It's an "exploit" according to your opinion? OK, but for dick pic/fart sound collectors, their usage of the blockchain is merely something you don't approve of.

[Cricktor]

There's the clear inequity under current rules that one byte of data in an OP_RETURN output is worth 4WU and one byte in witness data as exploited by inscriptions is only 1WU. If you want data on the blockchain to be treated equally, current rules simply don't do it and I consider this a fault/bug and/or ongoing exploit.

I'm not so much following discussions of Core devs, but frankly, my perception is a disturbing unwillingness to tackle this weight unit inequity.

I don't need to like what's "inscribed" to the blockchain, it's not my business to judge or censor. Bitcoin is not made to judge or censor.

[vjudeu]

There's the clear inequity under current rules that one byte of data in an OP_RETURN output is worth 4WU and one byte in witness data as exploited by inscriptions is only 1WU.

Guess what: on the mailing list, there was a topic about exactly this issue, and it was continued on Delving Bitcoin: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/bug-spammers-get-bitcoin-blockspace-at-discounted-price-lets-fix-it/327

But I think it won't be fixed, because of that line of thinking:

The byte size of transactions in the P2P protocol is an artifact of the encoding scheme used. It does matter, because it directly correlates with bandwidth and disk usage for non-pruned nodes, but if we really cared about the impact these had we could easily adopt more efficient encodings for transactions on the network or on disk that encodes some parts of transactions more compactly. If we would do that, the consensus rules (ignoring witness discount) would still count transaction sizes by their old encoding, which would then not correspond to anything physical at all. Would you then still say 1 byte = 1 byte?

And in general, I agree with that statement, but I also agree, that in the current model, not all bytes are counted properly. For example: there is an incentive to send coins into P2WPKH, but spend by key from P2TR. However, if you count the total on-chain footprint of P2WPKH, and compare it with P2TR with key-path spending, then P2WPKH is cheaper to send to, but it takes more on-chain bytes (and the cost is just moved to the recipient, so it is cheaper for the sender).

Also, if we would optimize things, and represent them on-chain differently, for example by saving raw public keys, and just using a single byte to indicate, that "this should use old DER encoding", and "this pubkey is wrapped in P2SH", then the whole chain could probably be much smaller, than it currently is. However, as compression is a no-fork, it can be always applied, so the only problem is standardizing the data, so then you can rely on other nodes, getting exactly the same results, and compressing data with the same algorithms. So, it is all about making "ZIP format for blockchain data": it is easier to send ZIP file, if you can unzip them in the same way on both computers. The same is true for historical blockchain data (and of course, some custom algorithm would be more effective, than just zipping it, because it could take into account, that you have to compress for example secp256k1 points, so it could efficiently use for example x-only-pubkeys, without having to build a weird auto-generated "dictionary" for that).

I've certainly seen some developer discussion relating to the standardisation of data storage, but I don't see any particular push to restrict it completely.

Well, if you want to simplify the current model, then standardisation is the first step in the right direction. And then, if you have for example some widely-deployed model, where you have a huge table of all public keys, which appeared on-chain, then you can generalize it, switch to a different model (utreexo), or view the scripting language from a different perspective: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/btc-lisp-as-an-alternative-to-script/682

So, I guess that it could be restricted, if the network will be abused too much, but people are currently focused on things, which needs to be done, no matter if you want to restrict it, or not. Because simply "the status quo" is the default, so if you work on a change, that does not require touching consensus, then it can be easily merged. But if you work on some serious soft-fork instead, then you may end up with some working code, that simply won't be merged. And of course, writing some code, which is not consensus-critical is still needed, and is often required as a dependency to your soft-fork (you need to have standardized data compression, to compress and decompress the chain reliably, and to "undo your pruning" if needed).

[pooya87]

Being part of the consensus rule doesn't mean something is not a bug or exploitable. Read my two examples again, they were also part of the consensus rules and yet they were bugs in the protocol that could have been exploited.

Your premise appears to be that any kind of data storage, unrelated to transactional data, isn't a valid use of Bitcoin.  But I'm not convinced developers see things in such black and white terms.  I've certainly seen some developer discussion relating to the standardisation of data storage, but I don't see any particular push to restrict it completely.  Perhaps the patches you're referring to weren't the correct format in which devs were looking to support data storage. 

Is it possible you might be working under the assumption that devs want to prevent data storage because they made those particular changes?  If so, I think you might be misinterpreting what they were looking to achieve.

My examples were about "exploits" and fixing them more than being about data storage. But I agree that in Bitcoin we are slightly "flexible" when it comes to data storage (but not that much). For example we already have OP_RETURN that is used for data storage and is the standard way but it is a limited way that is acceptable.

Keep in mind that bottom is that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage, it is a payment system.

[larry_vw_1955]

Keep in mind that bottom is that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage, it is a payment system.

well, all i can say about that is bitcoin is going to be LEFT BEHIND if it clings to some type of small block sizes when consumer hard drives end up being 250 TB in size.

Hard drives aren't dead yet as Seagate demos new multi-layer 3D magnetic tech with potential for 240TB capacities
https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/graphics-cards/hard-drives-arent-dead-yet-as-seagate-demos-new-multi-layer-3d-magnetic-tech-with-potential-for-240tb-capacities/

How would bitcoin continue to justify itself with only 400mb per year when people have 240TB hard drives? I just don't think it could. Adapt or die.

[pooya87]

Keep in mind that bottom is that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage, it is a payment system.

well, all i can say about that is bitcoin is going to be LEFT BEHIND if it clings to some type of small block sizes when consumer hard drives end up being 250 TB in size.

That's a completely different topic.
Regardless of what Bitcoin's block capacity is, whether it is 1 byte or 1 terabyte, Bitcoin should continue staying as a payment system and not a cloud storage.

[Wind_FURY]

There's the clear inequity under current rules that one byte of data in an OP_RETURN output is worth 4WU and one byte in witness data as exploited by inscriptions is only 1WU. If you want data on the blockchain to be treated equally, current rules simply don't do it and I consider this a fault/bug and/or ongoing exploit.

But from the viewpoint of the Ordinals/soon Runes users, if they have paid the fees and they're transactions are following the consensus rules, are they truly "exploiting" the system? It's not their fault it's there. They're merely using it because the system allows them to. Plus if it wasn't Casey Rodarmor, it would be another developer that would use this "hack/bug" and make something from it.

I'm not so much following discussions of Core devs, but frankly, my perception is a disturbing unwillingness to tackle this weight unit inequity.

I believe that they should be careful. It might start a hash war again.

I don't need to like what's "inscribed" to the blockchain, it's not my business to judge or censor. Bitcoin is not made to judge or censor.

I don't like it too, it's making on-transactions a little more expensive to use for plebs like us. But what can we do? Literally ANYONE can use Bitcoin the way it allows us to if we pay the fees and follow the consensus rules.

[vjudeu]

But from the viewpoint of the Ordinals/soon Runes users, if they have paid the fees and they're transactions are following the consensus rules, are they truly "exploiting" the system?

Yes. In the same way, you could try to copy-paste the whole chain from some altcoin into Bitcoin, by using "a coin in a coin" scheme. Or copy-paste all posts from bitcointalk and put it into Bitcoin transactions. Or even abandon GitHub, and copy-paste all commits behind "OP_SHA1 <commitHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY <developerPublicKey> OP_CHECKSIG". The purpose of Bitcoin is not to be "the global chain for every use case". As Satoshi said:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

And then he also continues:

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

So, if other use cases would use some separate chains for that data, it could be fine. They could build some honest, valuable protocol out of that. But the problem is, that they just decided not to, and abuse the Bitcoin network instead.

And yet another sentence, from the same post:

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Which means, that if you put all of those additional features on separate chains, then Bitcoin can still stay "easy for lots of users and small devices", and just take a role of "a notarization chain", providing Proof of Work to timestamp all other chains. But if you put "everything on Bitcoin" instead, then guess what: the current limits will take down existing payments. Because it is always a choice: confirm this payment, or this Ordinal. Which means, that if you allow using and abusing Bitcoin for everything else than the payment system, then it may stop being useful for payments, and lose its utility.

[Cricktor]

How would bitcoin continue to justify itself with only 400mb per year when people have 240TB hard drives? I just don't think it could. Adapt or die.

400MB per year is not the growth rate of Bitcoin's blockchain. A conservative estimate with approx. 1.5MB per block gives you a growth of roughly 2016 blocks per two weeks times 26 (for a year) times 1.5MB which equals 78,624MB per year, thus somewhere in the ballpark of 80GB growth per year at minimum.

I wonder where you got this 400MB figure from...

And those 240TB harddrives are still vaporware. Try an Initial Blockchain Download and node sync on a mechanical harddrive, it's a real fun^{not so much for the drive}. You can keep the irony if you detect it.

But from the viewpoint of the Ordinals/soon Runes users, if they have paid the fees and they're transactions are following the consensus rules, are they truly "exploiting" the system? It's not their fault it's there. They're merely using it because the system allows them to. Plus if it wasn't Casey Rodarmor, it would be another developer that would use this "hack/bug" and make something from it.

I'm not sure if I get it right, so excuse if I confuse consensus rules with something else. My standpoint is: it's a flaw in consensus rules to allow arbitrary sized witness data for an input in a transaction. There's likely no real need for this. It's an oversight which is now exploited. Can it be fixed easily without having weird or problematic side-effects. I don't know, that's a bit over my technical Bitcoin expertise.

I don't care who exploits it for whatever reason. The inscription shitheads and shit-token on Bitcoin blockchain morons exploit it and abuse the blockchain for storage of bullshit data. They don'c care about Bitcoin, period!

Sure, I'm exaggerating that it's bullshit of whatever flavor in my personal opinion. I don't expect anybody to agree on this with me. I'm free to have my own opinion and defend it.

I believe that they should be careful. It might start a hash war again.

Did you rather meant a blocksize war? I believe, yes, because I can't make up anything related to hash power with this topic.

I don't like it too, it's making on-transactions a little more expensive to use for plebs like us. But what can we do? Literally ANYONE can use Bitcoin the way it allows us to if we pay the fees and follow the consensus rules.

We can debate the magnitude of "more expensive" fees, but that's not what I dislike in particular. More adoption and more transactions would also fill up the mempool and make it more expensive for you and me. That's the fee market and I have no valid point to complain about it if more adoption and "normal" transaction volume were the reason for  mempool clogs.

OP_RETURN data costs 4WU per byte. I wouldn't be happy if people start to use it excessivly but at least they'd have to pay a fair fee for it. And it's limited in size for a reason. Someone who wants to pay for it could use as many OP_RETURN outputs in his transaction(s) as this someone feels (s)he needs to. Would I like it? Certainly no. But I'm pretty much sure, it wouldn't be exploited in the extend we see with the inscription shit.

This superfluous data burdens every archival node and because of arbitrary size within the limits of max. blocksize any exploiter can cram in data that could become a problem with law. OP_RETURN is somewhat similar but you have the 80 bytes limit, even if used in multiples, you have a segmentation of problematic data like pictures or movies that collide with law.
I hope that such a forced segmentation wouldn't allow to say there's a whole problematic picture, intact in it's entirety in the blockchain. (Yes, I'm aware that such things were attempted in the past or maybe also in the presence. Stupid data abusers...)

Another issue is the bloating of the UTXO set by idiots who like to send dust or more to the genesis block's coinbase or rather the derived P2PKH address of the P2PK coinbase public key or other "Patoshi" blocks. But that's another, entirely different topic, though it shows to some extend that many people simply don't care to look at the whole picture and consequences for all of us.

Sorry for the rant but such sort of asocial ego-centric <choose your own fitting curse word> narrow-bubbled beings piss me off from time to time.

[Wind_FURY]

But from the viewpoint of the Ordinals/soon Runes users, if they have paid the fees and they're transactions are following the consensus rules, are they truly "exploiting" the system?

Yes. In the same way, you could try to copy-paste the whole chain from some altcoin into Bitcoin, by using "a coin in a coin" scheme. Or copy-paste all posts from bitcointalk and put it into Bitcoin transactions. Or even abandon GitHub, and copy-paste all commits behind "OP_SHA1 <commitHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY <developerPublicKey> OP_CHECKSIG". The purpose of Bitcoin is not to be "the global chain for every use case".

Ser, I'm confused because none of what you have just said make sense. What matters is the protocol as is right NOW. Bitcoin is still a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant protocol isn't it? If the Core developers propose a "fix" for the "bug", it would need to go through the proper process, unless UASF.

As Satoshi said:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

And then he also continues:

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

So, if other use cases would use some separate chains for that data, it could be fine. They could build some honest, valuable protocol out of that. But the problem is, that they just decided not to, and abuse the Bitcoin network instead.

And yet another sentence, from the same post:

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Which means, that if you put all of those additional features on separate chains, then Bitcoin can still stay "easy for lots of users and small devices", and just take a role of "a notarization chain", providing Proof of Work to timestamp all other chains. But if you put "everything on Bitcoin" instead, then guess what: the current limits will take down existing payments. Because it is always a choice: confirm this payment, or this Ordinal. Which means, that if you allow using and abusing Bitcoin for everything else than the payment system, then it may stop being useful for payments, and lose its utility.

I'm not saying Satoshi is wrong, plus currently there are solutions being built/have been built, but it's irrelevant because if users want to inscribe/etch digital artifacts in the blockchain, and if they are willing to pay for the fees/follow the consensus rules, then who could stop them?

[ABCbits]

Try an Initial Blockchain Download and node sync on a mechanical harddrive, it's a real fun^{not so much for the drive}. You can keep the irony if you detect it.

It's generality true. But if you allocate enough RAM for all UTXO, then it's boring.

[larry_vw_1955]

That's a completely different topic.
Regardless of what Bitcoin's block capacity is, whether it is 1 byte or 1 terabyte, Bitcoin should continue staying as a payment system and not a cloud storage.

just imagine the day when everyone has 50TB hdds (yes that day is going to come) and bitcoin is only using 80GB per year. that seems like a serious problem but maybe no one else thinks so.

400MB per year is not the growth rate of Bitcoin's blockchain. A conservative estimate with approx. 1.5MB per block gives you a growth of roughly 2016 blocks per two weeks times 26 (for a year) times 1.5MB which equals 78,624MB per year, thus somewhere in the ballpark of 80GB growth per year at minimum.

I wonder where you got this 400MB figure from...

my mistake.

And those 240TB harddrives are still vaporware.

apparently there is a working prototype. not good enough for you? but expect to open up that wallet when they come to market. unless you're willing to wait for 10 years for prices to come down...

Try an Initial Blockchain Download and node sync on a mechanical harddrive, it's a real fun^{not so much for the drive}. You can keep the irony if you detect it.

no thanks. i'm not interested in downloading 450GB and then having to keep it in sync all the time. you're welcome. 

[vjudeu]

i'm not interested in downloading 450GB and then having to keep it in sync all the time.

This part is strange: many people want bigger blocks, but they don't want to run their own nodes to handle all of that traffic. Why? If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so. And the same is true for Ordinals: people want to use existing network (like Bitcoin), and put their data here, instead of maintaining their own chain, and participating honestly in all costs of storing additional data, on their own chain.

Also, if you would try running your own node with increased limits, and perform some testing, then you would know, that "downloading 450GB" is not the biggest problem. Storing it on your server is a bigger issue (because bandwidth is usually sufficient, but you need to rent additional disks), and verification is even bigger problem (because then you also need to rent more CPUs). And then, you would also know, that Initial Blockchain Download can currently take something around a week (it depends on your hardware), and if you increase the size of the block, then you could have a situation, which you can see on some altcoins: you can take some CPU-mineable altcoin, and download their chain very quickly, because it takes for example 10 GB, but verification time is something like a month.

But if you allocate enough RAM for all UTXO, then it's boring.

Currently, the size of the whole UTXO set is not limited by consensus rules, but I guess some people really want to abuse that, and force developers to introduce some limits there.

[DooMAD]

This part is strange: many people want bigger blocks, but they don't want to run their own nodes to handle all of that traffic. Why? If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so.

It's just the something-for-nothing brigade.  Happy for others to bear the burden, while getting a free ride.  And yet they don't realise that's precisely why blocksize hasn't magically increased just because they're moaning about it.

Pure sense of entitlement.  But it won't get them anywhere.  Tangible and practical factors will always take precedence over the noise of the rabble.  

Those securing the chain will almost certainly make the choice based on the impact it has on them.  The opinions of freeloaders won't be part of that assessment.

[LoyceV]

Currently, the size of the whole UTXO set is not limited by consensus rules, but I guess some people really want to abuse that, and force developers to introduce some limits there.

How? You can't really put a limit on UTXOs, that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

[vjudeu]

that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

It depends on underlying scripts. Because in the past, people mainly used single-key scripts, so a single person owned a single coin. Now, 2-of-2 multisig is quite popular, because of the Lightning Network, and in general, it seems to be a basic building block for many second layers. However, it doesn't have to stop there: since Taproot, you can make N-of-N multisig, behind a single public key. In that case, if you want to introduce someone else to the network, you could change it into (N+1)-of-(N+1) multisig, and that wouldn't increase the size of the UTXO set.

[Easteregg69]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

What. You gonna bring the Catholic with 11 children's up? Raving lunatic.

that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

It depends on underlying scripts. Because in the past, people mainly used single-key scripts, so a single person owned a single coin. Now, 2-of-2 multisig is quite popular, because of the Lightning Network, and in general, it seems to be a basic building block for many second layers. However, it doesn't have to stop there: since Taproot, you can make N-of-N multisig, behind a single public key. In that case, if you want to introduce someone else to the network, you could change it into (N+1)-of-(N+1) multisig, and that wouldn't increase the size of the UTXO set.

Your on another level. I be excused and find my beer. Cheers.

Mod note: Consecutive posts merged

[pooya87]

just imagine the day when everyone has 50TB hdds (yes that day is going to come) and bitcoin is only using 80GB per year. that seems like a serious problem but maybe no one else thinks so.

That's just unrelated to what I brought up and also unrelated to this topic which is about the Ordinals Attack. Otherwise I don't entire disagree with what you have in mind.
I have always said that at some point in near future Bitcoin needs a solid capacity increase where the block size is also increased. That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

[vjudeu]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Guess what: you don't need a blockchain to achieve that. If you want "uncensored communication", then what you probably care about, is to deliver your messages to your recipient. I guess you don't want to also broadcast your neighbours' conversations, and keep track of that. And there are some applications, which can provide it, and the common factor is that none of them use blockchain. Because you don't need it. You don't need "double-spending resistance" on your conversations. If Alice will say "hi", and Bob will reply with "hello", you don't need to keep track of that, to make sure, that nobody said "hello" twice.

Also note, that when Satoshi tried to bootstrap the first nodes, then he just used IRC, an existing communication protocol, which was there long before Bitcoin, and which you can use for "uncensored communication" even today. And also, he used SMTP (e-mail), another existing communication protocol. Which means, that if you say "I need instant communication", then the answer is not "BRC-20", but rather something like "IRC". And if you say "I want to receive messages, when I am offline", then again, you could use something like "SMTP", instead of "BRC-20".

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

[larry_vw_1955]

This part is strange: many people want bigger blocks, but they don't want to run their own nodes to handle all of that traffic. Why?

the same reason that end users of any product don't want or shouldn't have to involve themselves in how the back end works. if they pay the fee they expect the service.

If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so. And the same is true for Ordinals: people want to use existing network (like Bitcoin), and put their data here, instead of maintaining their own chain, and participating honestly in all costs of storing additional data, on their own chain.

lets not try and force people into running a bitcoin node for being critical of bitcon's capacity limits. as internet speeds, storage space and cpu power goes up so should bitcoin's transactions per second. and i'm not saying those should include people looking to store their home videos or pictures of monkeys.

That's just unrelated to what I brought up and also unrelated to this topic which is about the Ordinals Attack. Otherwise I don't entire disagree with what you have in mind.
I have always said that at some point in near future Bitcoin needs a solid capacity increase where the block size is also increased. That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

at least someone agrees with me. but back to the ordinals attack. it's a problem bitcoin caused for itself. so bitcoin needs to fix it. if not then there's no one to complain to.

[DooMAD]

If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so.

lets not try and force people into running a bitcoin node for being critical of bitcon's capacity limits.

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

You'll find that expecting altruism from total strangers is a swift road to disappointment.  

[larry_vw_1955]

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

i don't owe them anything either.

You'll find that expecting altruism from total strangers is a swift road to disappointment.  

yes i'm very disappointed in bitcoin how it only does 7 tps.

[ABCbits]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server?

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee.

[DooMAD]

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

i don't owe them anything either.

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

[Wind_FURY]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server?

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee.

Although that would truly make it cheaper and more efficient to open channels in Lightning, the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin. They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain. So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin. At the minimum, the transactions in those channels would not be mere IOUs of the cryprocurrency it's supposed to represent.

[vjudeu]

the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin

It depends on your implementation. If you have some data, which can be turned into valid Bitcoin transaction, and broadcasted into Bitcoin network, then it is technically Bitcoin.

They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain.

I wonder, why some people think, that transactions, which they create on LN, and are saved only on their local nodes, are Bitcoin, but if you put exactly the same transactions on the sidechain, then they suddenly are not. You can use exactly the same bytes, and just put them on sidechain, so the only difference is that instead of keeping things locally, you will share more of them with other nodes. But the data behind all of that, could contain exactly the same bytes. And if something is secret (for example some penalty transactions), then it could be encrypted, and shared, so if some node will see some old channel state, then that node will decrypt it, and act as a watchtower, by sharing the penalty transaction with everyone else.

So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin.

So, your argument is that "the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin", and your solution is to specifically use some altcoin, which definitely "would not be Bitcoin"?

[larry_vw_1955]

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I think there's a distinction to be made between asking more of people and asking more of bitcoin. I was asking more of bitcoin. And I think its a fair thing to ask. We'll see what happens in the future.

[DooMAD]

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I think there's a distinction to be made between asking more of people and asking more of bitcoin.  

There really isn't.  It's quite literally a network of people.  It doesn't work without them.

Ever notice how people refer to it as a "peer-to-peer network"?  Who do you think the peers are if not people?  

Asking more of Bitcoin is asking more of those who secure the network.  You're only ever going to get what they are prepared to offer.

I think its a fair thing to ask.

Those who aren't running a full node have no input in the matter.  You're effectively a passenger.  It isn't fair for a passenger who isn't driving to ask more of the driver who is giving them a free ride.  They're the one paying for everything.

[larry_vw_1955]

Those who aren't running a full node have no input in the matter.  You're effectively a passenger.  It isn't fair for a passenger who isn't driving to ask more of the driver who is giving them a free ride.  They're the one paying for everything.

well i certainly never thought of it as i'm being given a free ride when i paid a transaction fee to the network. maybe i need to learn how to submit my transactions directly a particular miner if that's the case because i dont want to hear people running full nodes complaining that they aren't getting compensated. who would want to have to listen to that?

 

and as for ordinals, i dont really feel like people running full nodes had any input into the matter of their hard drives being used to store monkeys. so at least in that case, more was demanded and required of them than many of them wanted to fulfill yet they had no choice, right?

[DooMAD]

and as for ordinals, i dont really feel like people running full nodes had any input into the matter of their hard drives being used to store monkeys. so at least in that case, more was demanded and required of them than many of them wanted to fulfill yet they had no choice, right?

And by asking them to increase throughput, they could be at risk of storing a larger volume of monkeys.  Storage and bandwidth requirements are always increasing, but if throughput is higher, then those costs increase at a faster rate.  So perhaps you understand their reluctance now?

[Wind_FURY]

the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin

It depends on your implementation. If you have some data, which can be turned into valid Bitcoin transaction, and broadcasted into Bitcoin network, then it is technically Bitcoin.

I don't know what you're inventing, but if it's from a sidechain that merely represents a Bitcoin, then it's an IOU of a Bitcoin.

They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain.

I wonder, why some people think, that transactions, which they create on LN, and are saved only on their local nodes, are Bitcoin, but if you put exactly the same transactions on the sidechain, then they suddenly are not. You can use exactly the same bytes, and just put them on sidechain, so the only difference is that instead of keeping things locally, you will share more of them with other nodes. But the data behind all of that, could contain exactly the same bytes. And if something is secret (for example some penalty transactions), then it could be encrypted, and shared, so if some node will see some old channel state, then that node will decrypt it, and act as a watchtower, by sharing the penalty transaction with everyone else.

OK, I may be wrong. But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.

So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin.

So, your argument is that "the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin", and your solution is to specifically use some altcoin, which definitely "would not be Bitcoin"?

The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin. The debate is not Bitcoin vs. "use some altcoin".

[vjudeu]

But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.

By using the same words, you could also say that about Lightning Network: "on-chain Bitcoins are locked" (behind 2-of-2 multisig), and also "then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted" (but here, it may be even worse, because of conversions between satoshis and millisatoshis, so you can "create millisatoshis out of thin air", because you cannot finalize them on-chain in the current version).

So, if you would have 2-of-2 multisig addresses on the sidechain, then what would be the difference? Because obviously, if you would have single-key addresses on the sidechain, then coins could be easily turned into IOU. However, if you would use exactly the same bytes as in LN, then where is the moment, when it is "not Bitcoin"?

The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin.

It only depends on your spending conditions. If you have single-key address, then it can be turned into IOU, but it also has some use cases (for example as a test network). However, if you use the same scripts, as in LN, then where is that IOU?

[larry_vw_1955]

And by asking them to increase throughput, they could be at risk of storing a larger volume of monkeys.  Storage and bandwidth requirements are always increasing, but if throughput is higher, then those costs increase at a faster rate.  So perhaps you understand their reluctance now?

yeah i guess so. the more storage requirements you place upon people running full nodes, the more centralized bitcoin becomes.

[LoyceV]

By using the same words, you could also say that about Lightning Network: "on-chain Bitcoins are locked" (behind 2-of-2 multisig), and also "then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted" (but here, it may be even worse, because of conversions between satoshis and millisatoshis, so you can "create millisatoshis out of thin air", because you cannot finalize them on-chain in the current version).

I don't care about millisatoshis, and I'm totally find rounding them when settling on-chain. That's franky's thing to bring up, and it's kinda pointless to even discuss if you pay an on-chain transaction fee that's a million times larger. And that's the problem with LN: I know it's locked, but what's the point if you can't afford the fee for on-chain settlement?

[Wind_FURY]

But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.

By using the same words, you could also say that about Lightning Network: "on-chain Bitcoins are locked" (behind 2-of-2 multisig), and also "then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted" (but here, it may be even worse, because of conversions between satoshis and millisatoshis, so you can "create millisatoshis out of thin air", because you cannot finalize them on-chain in the current version).

So, if you would have 2-of-2 multisig addresses on the sidechain, then what would be the difference? Because obviously, if you would have single-key addresses on the sidechain, then coins could be easily turned into IOU. However, if you would use exactly the same bytes as in LN, then where is the moment, when it is "not Bitcoin"?

OK, the frankandbeans debate.

I'm the stupid one in the forum, and I actually want to learn from the point you're making. Teach me. How are the Bitcoins in those payment channels in Lightning "IOUs"? Where/how are the coins stored/locked and how are the "IOUs" issued?

The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin.

It only depends on your spending conditions. If you have single-key address, then it can be turned into IOU, but it also has some use cases (for example as a test network). However, if you use the same scripts, as in LN, then where is that IOU?

I don't know. But, I'm confused, kindly explain to me how a Bitcoin-pegged-coin in a sidechain is an actual Bitcoin. What is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in a sidechain, and what is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in the Lightning Network.

[vjudeu]

That's franky's thing to bring up, and it's kinda pointless to even discuss if you pay an on-chain transaction fee that's a million times larger.

Yes, but it is not about the amount, but about the ownership: if you want to have millisatoshis on-chain, then in the current version, you can only have a large multisig, behind a single satoshi, so if you have 500 millisatoshis from Alice, and the same from Bob, then all you can do, is to use 2-of-2 multisig on a single satoshi.

How are the Bitcoins in those payment channels in Lightning "IOUs"?

I think they are not. But if people say that coins in sidechains are, then coins in LN should also be called in the same way, if we follow the same logic.

Where/how are the coins stored/locked and how are the "IOUs" issued?

You have IOUs only in centralized sidechains. For example: if you have a sidechain, where you have some large multisig, and you cannot be a miner, if you are not a part of some closed group, then those coins are IOUs. However, if you have decentralized sidechain, then you can use any scripts you want, because every block is covered only by hashrate, and not by some centrally-selected signature, like in signet.

But, I'm confused, kindly explain to me how a Bitcoin-pegged-coin in a sidechain is an actual Bitcoin.

1. If you have to provide a valid signature for a given coin, to transfer it from mainchain into sidechain, then it is based on real coins, and not some "coins created out of thin air".
2. If you have to move a given coin on the mainchain, to bring it back from the sidechain to the mainchain, then it is the same situation as with LN: you can always peg-out, without asking for anyone's permission.

And those two things alone: sign things to peg them in, and move them to peg them out, is sufficient to make a test network for decentralized sidechains. However, if you want to get the main network, then it is all about creating rules for the scripts, used to lock your coins. Which means, that if you have a single-key address, then you can test it alone, but no sane person will accept some coins, if the sender can always take them back, without losing anything. For that reason, the basic building block for decentralized sidechains is N-of-N multisig, where you can have a lot of people behind a single UTXO. And then, all kinds of improvements are focused on making "emergency scripts", to for example not require all N participants to be online, to change the state of the sidechain.

Because if you would have for example non-interactive transaction joining, then a single Taproot UTXO is all you need, to handle a single decentralized sidechain. And then, it is all about combining all signatures from that sidechain, and finalizing it as a simple commitment on-chain, which would have a constant size, regardless of how many people will use a given sidechain.

What is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in a sidechain, and what is the process of on-ramping Bitcoin in the Lightning Network.

It didn't change that much since the last time, when I wrote about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231460.msg61778369#msg61778369

[LoyceV]

Yes, but it is not about the amount, but about the ownership: if you want to have millisatoshis on-chain, then in the current version, you can only have a large multisig, behind a single satoshi, so if you have 500 millisatoshis from Alice, and the same from Bob, then all you can do, is to use 2-of-2 multisig on a single satoshi.

Why do you even care about receiving 0.5 sat from anyone? I don't care about fractions of cents, even though half a cent is worth a lot more than a whole satoshi. The exchanges I use count cents behind the decimal, and if I close my account, I lose them. That's fine.

2. If you have to move a given coin on the mainchain, to bring it back from the sidechain to the mainchain, then it is the same situation as with LN: you can always peg-out, without asking for anyone's permission.

If pegging out costs you $100 in transaction fees, it's only worth it for large amounts. Most people won't want to do it several times per month. That's rent money or food money.

[Wind_FURY]

How are the Bitcoins in those payment channels in Lightning "IOUs"?

I think they are not. But if people say that coins in sidechains are, then coins in LN should also be called in the same way, if we follow the same logic.

Where/how are the coins stored/locked and how are the "IOUs" issued?

You have IOUs only in centralized sidechains. For example: if you have a sidechain, where you have some large multisig, and you cannot be a miner, if you are not a part of some closed group, then those coins are IOUs. However, if you have decentralized sidechain, then you can use any scripts you want, because every block is covered only by hashrate, and not by some centrally-selected signature, like in signet.

OK, I actually have MANY questions for you. But before we go further, you're describing something like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains - BIP-300/ BIP-301?

But, I'm confused, kindly explain to me how a Bitcoin-pegged-coin in a sidechain is an actual Bitcoin.

1. If you have to provide a valid signature for a given coin, to transfer it from mainchain into sidechain, then it is based on real coins, and not some "coins created out of thin air".

2. If you have to move a given coin on the mainchain, to bring it back from the sidechain to the mainchain, then it is the same situation as with LN: you can always peg-out, without asking for anyone's permission.

And those two things alone: sign things to peg them in, and move them to peg them out, is sufficient to make a test network for decentralized sidechains. However, if you want to get the main network, then it is all about creating rules for the scripts, used to lock your coins. Which means, that if you have a single-key address, then you can test it alone, but no sane person will accept some coins, if the sender can always take them back, without losing anything. For that reason, the basic building block for decentralized sidechains is N-of-N multisig, where you can have a lot of people behind a single UTXO. And then, all kinds of improvements are focused on making "emergency scripts", to for example not require all N participants to be online, to change the state of the sidechain.

Because if you would have for example non-interactive transaction joining, then a single Taproot UTXO is all you need, to handle a single decentralized sidechain. And then, it is all about combining all signatures from that sidechain, and finalizing it as a simple commitment on-chain, which would have a constant size, regardless of how many people will use a given sidechain.

Although, who secures the decentralized sidechains, and I assume that they follow different consensus rules? I believe the answer to "If it's Bitcoin?", that's where everything starts to be more complicated

Plus is it possible for a sidechain to fork away from Bitcoin, and never return?

[vjudeu]

But before we go further, you're describing something like Paul Sztorc's Drivechains - BIP-300/ BIP-301?

Yes, something like that.

who secures the decentralized sidechains

The same miners, which secure Bitcoin. It is based on Merged Mining.

and I assume that they follow different consensus rules?

All new rules are expressed as a combination of existing ones, which means, that all mainchain rules are followed.

I believe the answer to "If it's Bitcoin?", that's where everything starts to be more complicated

The basic rules are simple: you sign your coins to peg them in, and move them to peg them out. And of course, it is Bitcoin, because every signature is compatible with Bitcoin. And if you have something new, then it is expressed as a combination of existing rules. If you think that it is not Bitcoin, then it applies to LN as well (because the main difference is that you don't have to open a channel, if you already have some shared output, and you can reuse existing LN transactions on such sidechain).

Plus is it possible for a sidechain to fork away from Bitcoin, and never return?

It depends, which forks you have in mind. When it comes to hard forks, then you can apply that on each and every coin, including Bitcoin, and you have some altcoins, which did exactly that (but it is not possible to stop anyone from trying to do, what for example BCH did). But if you think about soft-forks or no-forks, then things could co-exist, without losing a peg. Because it is all about following the chain of signatures: if you have a signature, that is valid on Bitcoin, and on the sidechain at the same time, then you cannot really tell, that "it forked away", because you can see exactly the same chain of signatures in both networks.

Even more interesting things are possible: if some altcoin or sidechain preserved enough rules, then you can recreate the same chain of signatures in both networks, if you reach identical coinbase transactions. Because their uniqueness is based only on a block number, and not for example on block hashes, so things can be duplicated. Some example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5479988.msg63437260#msg63437260

Which means, that "and never return?" is never the case, because there are no technical issues with recreating a peg in those chains, which lost it in the past. But the community just don't want to get that feature, which is why nobody implemented it. There is even a page about blockchain fusion, if you are interested: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/blockchain-fusion/

[sherlockphone]

And at this point, how to fix the problem? those of us who maintain nodes could have the option to accept or not these ordinals? or is it up to the miners?

[larry_vw_1955]

And at this point, how to fix the problem?

the only way you can fix it is to fix the code. so the exploit is not allowed anymore. but the devs haven't shown any inclination to doing that and they will never do it. so we're stuck with it unless we do some type of fork.

those of us who maintain nodes could have the option to accept or not these ordinals?

apparently you can run something called a pruned node:

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/behind-btc/nodes/pruned-node/

you don't even have to download the entire blockchain first if you download a snapshot from a "trusted" source.   we all trust everyone we download from so why not right?  

or is it up to the miners?

the miners could reject any type of transaction they want to but why would they? it will just cost them money.

[d5000]

And at this point, how to fix the problem?

the only way you can fix it is to fix the code. so the exploit is not allowed anymore. but the devs haven't shown any inclination to doing that and they will never do it. so we're stuck with it unless we do some type of fork.

Please don't repeat that again, we have discussed that extensively in this and another threads. It is simply wrong that it can be "fixed" (at least not easily, BTC would have to adopt the Monero or Grin protocol to "fix" it).

I have written an example in this post in another thread that you could encode a token like BRC-20 or Runes in a transaction with two simple P2(W)PKH outputs. How would you "fix" that "exploit"? It would be actually much worse than Runes and even Ordinals because it clutters the UTXO set.

I don't like Runes but they are at least a bit better than the BRC-20 bullshit.

those of us who maintain nodes could have the option to accept or not these ordinals? or is it up to the miners?

As a node operator you can choose to ignore transactions with a "datacarriersize" of more than an arbitrary number of bytes you can define yourself. On Bitcoin Core, this only affects data transactions using OP_RETURN, like Runes, while Luke Dashjr's "Bitcoin Knots" can detect Ordinals too. But of course if a miner accepts an Ordinals transaction and includes it into a block, then you have to add the block containing it to the blockchain.

You could change the code to fork away, i.e. some nodes -- and miners -- could unite to create a hard fork without any Taproot- or OP_RETURN-based "data transactions", but that would incentive the behaviour I have described in my answer to larry_vw_1955. And very likely it would be a minority hardfork.

[larry_vw_1955]

Please don't repeat that again, we have discussed that extensively in this and another threads. It is simply wrong that it can be "fixed" (at least not easily, BTC would have to adopt the Monero or Grin protocol to "fix" it).

you can always fix something especially if you're the one that caused it...

I have written an example in this post in another thread that you could encode a token like BRC-20 or Runes in a transaction with two simple P2(W)PKH outputs. How would you "fix" that "exploit"? It would be actually much worse than Runes and even Ordinals because it clutters the UTXO set.

ok then why aren't people doing that then? go ahead and answer. is it because it is too expensive or inconvenient or they just don't know about it.

I don't like Runes but they are at least a bit better than the BRC-20 bullshit.

see if i was the one that designed bitcoin i would have made it impossible for all these type of things to happen. my bitcoin would be a bit lean and mean. and if people wanted to pollute the utxo set then they would pay a hefty price for doing so. because there would be no data storage component.

[DooMAD]

Please don't repeat that again, we have discussed that extensively in this and another threads. It is simply wrong that it can be "fixed" (at least not easily, BTC would have to adopt the Monero or Grin protocol to "fix" it).

you can always fix something especially if you're the one that caused it...

"Cause" is a funny thing.  The inventors of the internet itself "caused" Ordinals just as much as Bitcoin devs did. People can use things in ways that were never anticipated.  You're using the Internet to spread misinformation and foolishness right now, for example.

Are car manufacturers responsible for "fixing" cars so that people can't use them to commit vehicular manslaughter?  Surely the manufacturers "caused" that, right?  

If you made something and then someone used it in a way that you never conceived it could be used, is it your responsibility to change the thing you made?  And then are you also obligated to "fix" every other possible way in which they could use it for some other purpose?  Are people not free to use the thing you made in the way they want to use it?  Is it your place to determine that?

It is not the developers' responsibility to police the globe.  First and foremost, it's not remotely practical to envision every way in which someone could abuse the protocol to embed crap or spam the network.  Second, if there were a way to lock the protocol down to prevent people from using it in unforseen ways, it would be far more difficult to maintain and develop the code.  And lastly, Devs have no interest in being the "thought police" and dictating to others what they can or can't do.

Please stop buying into the abject idiocy some people are talking about Ordinals.  You can't "fix" human propensity for greed and selfishness.  It would be a fool's errand to try.

see if i was the one that designed bitcoin i would have made it impossible for all these type of things to happen.

Ah, yes, the inevitable "I could do a better job" comment.  Go on, then.  Show us all how it's done.  Except you never will.

[ABCbits]

And at this point, how to fix the problem?

the only way you can fix it is to fix the code. so the exploit is not allowed anymore. but the devs haven't shown any inclination to doing that and they will never do it. so we're stuck with it unless we do some type of fork.

As i said previously, fork isn't really needed. You could just make Ordinal TX become non-standard. And few attempt to do that always rejected, see
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29769

those of us who maintain nodes could have the option to accept or not these ordinals?

apparently you can run something called a pruned node:

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/behind-btc/nodes/pruned-node/

you don't even have to download the entire blockchain first if you download a snapshot from a "trusted" source.   we all trust everyone we download from so why not right?

Even with pruned node, you can't avoid accepting valid block which may contain Ordinal TX.

[d5000]

ok then why aren't people doing that then? go ahead and answer. is it because it is too expensive or inconvenient or they just don't know about it.

The truth is that this has been done several times since 2013 or 2014, but never a "fad" developed around these early protocols. In fact, it was an intelligent move of the developers to make OP_RETURN standard in 2014, because as I wrote the earlier protocols clutter the UTXO set, while OP_RETURN outputs are not stored there (they can be safely pruned by nodes - @franky1 incoming saying "these are not full nodes" 3... 2... 1... ).

Stampchain tried to introduce a similar protocol called SRC-20 recently, embedding the tokens into "normal-looking" multisig transactions. Fortunately (for the UTXO set) they failed to get any adoption, probably due to Runes being already discussed at that time they launched.

Fads sometimes have strange behaviour. BRC-20 survived a lot despite much better and cheaper alternatives existed since before they were developed, and the reason was probably that it was conceived inside the NFT community which was too lazy to investigate better protocols. But in this case actually it's a blessing that a fad around Stampchain tokens or similar mechanisms never existed.

see if i was the one that designed bitcoin i would have made it impossible for all these type of things to happen. my bitcoin would be a bit lean and mean. and if people wanted to pollute the utxo set then they would pay a hefty price for doing so. because there would be no data storage component.

OK, so how is your plan?

The challenge is that you can actually not allow anything which can be used for arbitrary data. For example, probably publicly visible fields for values with a large number of digits could be enough. Public key hashes too, like I demonstrated in the post I linked above.

You could have forked Grin or Monero, but these protocols were developed years (Monero: 2014, Grin: 2018) after Bitcoin was. So you would have had to travel in time. And even these do allow some inscription mechanisms but you would have to link several transactions so they would be effectively more expensive than "payment" transactions. For example, for Monero Mordinals exists, and for grin at least a proof of concept was shown on Github.

[larry_vw_1955]

Ah, yes, the inevitable "I could do a better job" comment.  Go on, then.  Show us all how it's done.  Except you never will.

You had quite a long post there and i can't respond to every single question but i think you understand the issues involved.

Satoshi did a better job. If they would have just left it that way. But instead they had to introduce things like OP_RETURN, segwit and taproot. What do you think the end result of all that is going to be? that's right. a huge mess.

I don't hold satoshi responsible for all this mess though. If people want to store data on the blockchain, they should have to pay through the nose but then they would never do it in the first place most likely. Just like it never caught on before all these upgrades took place. "upgrades".

Satoshi showed us how it's done.

OK, so how is your plan?

Surprisingly, the plan would be similar to the original bitcoin. Only a few transaction types. No OP RETURN no nothing like that.

The challenge is that you can actually not allow anything which can be used for arbitrary data. For example, probably publicly visible fields for values with a large number of digits could be enough. Public key hashes too, like I demonstrated in the post I linked above.

Only have one transaction type. Pay to public key hash. That really is all I would have. The simpler the better and less exploitable it is. No upgrades for higher level functionality, nothing like that. Only bug fixes if necessary. But no new "features". Doing one thing and doing it well is all that really is necessary. Bitcoin has kind of lost that with all these ugrades and things. And we see the end result.

Thank you for the question.

[pooya87]

Please don't repeat that again, we have discussed that extensively in this and another threads. It is simply wrong that it can be "fixed" (at least not easily, BTC would have to adopt the Monero or Grin protocol to "fix" it).

Let's first define the exploit and the problem then see if it can be fixed or not.

The exploit is that the Bitcoin protocol previously had strict rules about stack item sizes and script sizes. These rules were loosened for witnesses and that means the attackers can now inject an arbitrary size data in their witness without the tx becoming invalid.
This can and should be fixed.

What you are explaining is another attack vector that had existed from day one and was also exploited in early days leading to introduction of OP_RETURN rules and said "exploits" were moved into said output types.
As I've said before, in a decentralized blockchain we can not prevent abuse. What we can do is to make it harder and more expensive. For example we could never make a spam attack impossible (like the so called "stress test" pre-2017) but with fee market we can make it harder and more expensive.

[ABCbits]

Ah, yes, the inevitable "I could do a better job" comment.  Go on, then.  Show us all how it's done.  Except you never will.

You had quite a long post there and i can't respond to every single question but i think you understand the issues involved.

Satoshi did a better job. If they would have just left it that way. But instead they had to introduce things like OP_RETURN, segwit and taproot. What do you think the end result of all that is going to be? that's right. a huge mess.

I don't hold satoshi responsible for all this mess though. If people want to store data on the blockchain, they should have to pay through the nose but then they would never do it in the first place most likely. Just like it never caught on before all these upgrades took place. "upgrades".

Satoshi showed us how it's done.

You talk as if OP_RETURN, segwit and taproot bring no advantage. Should we remind you to few of these facts?
1. OP_RETURN created mainly to reduce P2PKH abuse by encoding 20-byte of arbitrary data as public key hash. It means less UTXO which will never be used.
2. SegWit practically solve transaction malleability and quadratic sighash problem.
3. Taproot let you only reveal part of the script. It means slightly better privacy and less TX size.

OK, so how is your plan?

Surprisingly, the plan would be similar to the original bitcoin. Only a few transaction types. No OP RETURN no nothing like that.

The challenge is that you can actually not allow anything which can be used for arbitrary data. For example, probably publicly visible fields for values with a large number of digits could be enough. Public key hashes too, like I demonstrated in the post I linked above.

Only have one transaction type. Pay to public key hash. That really is all I would have. The simpler the better and less exploitable it is. No upgrades for higher level functionality, nothing like that. Only bug fixes if necessary. But no new "features". Doing one thing and doing it well is all that really is necessary. Bitcoin has kind of lost that with all these ugrades and things. And we see the end result.

Thank you for the question.

Only P2PKH? I guess we should say goodbye to multi-signature address, address with "inheritance" feature, LN, sidechain and other innovations.

[vjudeu]

Only have one transaction type. Pay to public key hash.

1. Why not pay to compressed public key, without any hashing?
2. Why not restrict it to only valid public key coordinates, to have all existing UTXOs always "mathematically spendable"?

In case of hashes, it is possible, that some particular value could be simply unreachable, and then you won't know, if a given UTXO will ever be spent or not.

Only P2PKH? I guess we should say goodbye to multi-signature address, address with "inheritance" feature, LN, sidechain and other innovations.

As I said in some other topic, if I would want to create a new altcoin from scratch, then it would be based only on public keys and signatures. Because it is possible to add a Script later, just like TapScript is connected with the Taproot public key. Which means, that a new chain could contain only public keys, and operations on them (for example: a signature is a relation between two public keys, formed by addition and multiplication by some known numbers; in general: R=Q*first+second, both for classical ECDSA, and for Schnorr signatures, just different formulas are hidden behind "first" and "second").

Which means, that if you have some P2TR address, and you spend only by key, then multi-signature can work fine on top of that. In case of sidechains, they could be based on top of any scripts, including N-of-N multisig. And if by "inheritance" you mean applying some kind of locktime, then it is outside of the Script, just as the last field of the transaction. Also, in case of Segwit, if you create things from scratch, then you don't have to include signatures in transaction hashes (but unfortunately, Satoshi put that model even in the whitepaper, but for new coins, built from scratch, they could have separated signatures from the very beginning, for each and every transaction; and also that new altcoin could make hashing a transaction much easier, than it is done today by "FindAndReplace" or by Segwit/Taproot partial hashing of some chunks, and combining it).

[larry_vw_1955]

Only have one transaction type. Pay to public key hash.

1. Why not pay to compressed public key, without any hashing?
2. Why not restrict it to only valid public key coordinates, to have all existing UTXOs always "mathematically spendable"?

In case of hashes, it is possible, that some particular value could be simply unreachable, and then you won't know, if a given UTXO will ever be spent or not.

of course you are right. that would all be EVEN SIMPLER. and the simpler the better. as long as we agree not to worry about theoretical quantum computing attacks on published public keys. they're not a thing right now. but if was designing a brand new crypto system i think i might need to make it quantum resistant somehow.

You talk as if OP_RETURN, segwit and taproot bring no advantage. Should we remind you to few of these facts?

leave "memos" (aka OP_RETURN) to yellow sticky notes on your refrigerator. i wouldn't have it my crypto system.
Yes SegWit did solve the transaction malleability issue and improved signature verification time but i don't have an issue with those bug fixes. i don't think an entirely new address type was needed though. we need to keep things SIMPLE.
I don't find Taproot to be a compelling argument. or necessity.
but thanks for your insights.

1. OP_RETURN created mainly to reduce P2PKH abuse by encoding 20-byte of arbitrary data as public key hash. It means less UTXO which will never be used.
2. SegWit practically solve transaction malleability and quadratic sighash problem.
3. Taproot let you only reveal part of the script. It means slightly better privacy and less TX size.

if as vjudeu pointed out we used just P2PK instead of P2PKH, you can ensure that every utxo is spendable and not just some burn address. so i might agree to his idea...

As I've said before, in a decentralized blockchain we can not prevent abuse. What we can do is to make it harder and more expensive. For example we could never make a spam attack impossible (like the so called "stress test" pre-2017) but with fee market we can make it harder and more expensive.

this is certainly the bottom line. and a reasonable one at that. i WOULD give you a merit poooya but i think i'm out of them at the moment.  

i was thinking about a way to get rid of unspendable spam in the utxo set what you could do is have different tiers of utxo sets. the longer they go without being spent, they keep moving down to lower and lower tiers until finally it is going to cost alot to spend them. since nodes could decide which tiers they wanted to store. not all nodes would store all tiers. and the ones that did are going to certainly want compensation if they are a miner. a fee market tier structure on the utxo set...

[d5000]

Only have one transaction type. Pay to public key hash.

Did you read the post I linked to show how P2(W)PKH can be "exploited" too? Seems not. P2PK would also be affected by this. Again: A fad based on P2PKH tokens would be much more disastrous for BTC than one based on OP_RETURN tokens.

2. Why not restrict it to only valid public key coordinates, to have all existing UTXOs always "mathematically spendable"?

This is interesting and I have thought also about a related idea, but can it be proven that a private key exists for a given public key?

My related idea was a kind of "invitation-only" coin: that you have to derive a key always from another key and announce this derivation with a mathematic proof that it is spendable before you can transact value to them (i.e. create a challenge based on that PK). This would allow that only "spendable" keys could be created. But first, I'm unsure about the math, and second, that would not be really an "open", "free" cryptocurrency.

Perhaps also a proof that a public key is spendable is possible without deriving the key from an existing one?

However I believe even that can be used for data storage, but it would already make it more difficult (not necessarily more expensive though).

The exploit is that the Bitcoin protocol previously had strict rules about stack item sizes and script sizes. These rules were loosened for witnesses and that means the attackers can now inject an arbitrary size data in their witness without the tx becoming invalid.

I'd have no problem if this particular problem is "fixed". However, the bigger inscriptions were only a problem for a short time in early 2023. Since then the focus has shifted to BRC-20, which is also the topic of this thread by the way, and BRC-20s were "compliant" to script size rules established before. In other words, for tokens like BRC-20, the "lifting" of the size limit in Taproot is irrelevant. This was also extensively discussed here.  

Now we have Runes, which are also compliant, but have cluttered a couple of blocks. I said already that I don't like their economic model. But I'm relatively "happy" that they exist and have driven BRC-20 out of the market, because they should take 30-40% less space if we consider how inefficient BRC-20 was. I think we'll soon see "blue" (<10 sat/vbyte) fee rates again.

[vjudeu]

as long as we agree not to worry about theoretical quantum computing attacks on published public keys

We don't have to worry about that, even in a chain with only public keys, and nothing else. Because in case of some quantum attack, all of those inputs would behave just like OP_TRUE. Which means, that if you require a valid signature in spend-by-key path, and add a new requirement to accept only spend-by-new-signature-path, then it would be possible to upgrade the system in a backward-compatible way.

For example: imagine that someone could easily break all public keys. If the new system would require a valid signature in the old style, and a new stack push, where SHA-256(newData) would be equal to the x-value of that public key, then guess what: breaking ECDSA alone would not give the attacker any advantage here, because it would be needed to also break for example SHA-256 (but you can apply any not-yet-broken hash function there instead, if SHA-256 will be too weak at that time).

P2PK would also be affected by this.

There are two things: one is simplifying address types, and another one is preventing spam. For the former, something like P2PK looks fine (but it would be closer into spend-by-key in P2TR in practice, with some modifications, like prefixing keys with 02 and 03). For the latter, you would need transaction joining on the protocol level. Because if you cannot join public keys and signatures, then you cannot prevent spam. But if you can do so, then nobody can abuse the system with a lot of random public keys, because then all of them are added, and committed to a single public key, so it no longer matters if you create one UTXO or thousands of them (the on-chain size remains the same, only public keys are tweaked, to commit to your data). And in that kind of system, the only space for abuse is left in the block headers, but you would need some blockstorm, like in testnet3, to get there.

Again: A fad based on P2PKH tokens would be much more disastrous for BTC than one based on OP_RETURN tokens.

Yes. But there are two separate topics here: one is to make BTC better, and fix the system, which is already deployed. Another is to make something from scratch. And the latter is much easier than the former. But because some questions were about making simple things from scratch, then I think it is definitely possible to create a new system, that is resistant to those spam attacks.

When it comes to fixing existing system, then it is about simplifying Initial Blockchain Download, and compressing existing data. In that case, people would still need to pay the same fees as today, but it would be possible to not store and process some data, if they are not used in consensus rules.

but can it be proven that a private key exists for a given public key?

Yes. If you have any public key, and you know (x,y) coordinates, then if the equation y^2=x^3+7 is valid, when you apply modulo p-value, then it is 100% guaranteed, that there is some private key, which allows moving those funds. If you have some smaller elliptic curve, then you can brute force all of those keys. If you have slightly bigger one, then you can get a distance between any two public keys, in a reasonable time. For serious, huge elliptic curves, you cannot brute force it, but you can prove, how many points are there, because it is needed to create a valid curve in the first place, and calculate n-value, based on p-value. And if you can compute it, then you can also prove, that there are exactly N valid keys.

you have to derive a key always from another key and announce this derivation with a mathematic proof that it is spendable before you can transact value to them

It is always possible to create "trap public keys" in such system. Even more than that: in Bitcoin, you can move some coins from public keys, where nobody knows the private key, but the signature is valid, because of SIGHASH_SINGLE bug. Some example: https://mempool.space/testnet/tx/3952b35bde53eb3f4871824f0b6b8c5ad25ca84ce83f04eb1c1d69b83ad6e448

Related topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373858.0
You have this address: https://mempool.space/testnet/address/032baf163f5e27261ab3228e61fb86dc98054abd514751fce93d7444e8fbc6a293

Nobody knows the private key, but as you can see, it was spent in testnet3. And similar tricks can be used, to prove, that something is spendable during initialization, but never move that coin later in another way. However, if your public key will be committed, instead of being revealed, then creating thousands of UTXOs will have the same on-chain size, as creating a single UTXO. The only needed thing is transaction joining in non-interactive way, enforced on a protocol level (and if you create something from scratch, then it can be introduced, without worrying about backward-compatibility).

Perhaps also a proof that a public key is spendable is possible without deriving the key from an existing one?

Even if something is spendable, then the creator could simply generate private keys, move coins into public keys, and throw away those private keys. Which means, that the problem of abusing space is related more to data compression and transaction joining, than to preventing the ability to make some unspendable UTXO. But of course, having all UTXOs mathematically spendable is a nice property to have, if you want to design something new.

[ABCbits]

You talk as if OP_RETURN, segwit and taproot bring no advantage. Should we remind you to few of these facts?

leave "memos" (aka OP_RETURN) to yellow sticky notes on your refrigerator. i wouldn't have it my crypto system.
Yes SegWit did solve the transaction malleability issue and improved signature verification time but i don't have an issue with those bug fixes. i don't think an entirely new address type was needed though. we need to keep things SIMPLE.
I don't find Taproot to be a compelling argument. or necessity.
but thanks for your insights.

But on long term, witness version on Bech32m address format makes it's easier to deploy new feature or technology. Legacy address doesn't offer such thing, where you're forced to "wrap stuff" inside P2SH address which is less simple than using Bech32m. I also forget to mention Taproot upgrade also bring aggregated signature feature which also reduce TX size.

2. Why not restrict it to only valid public key coordinates, to have all existing UTXOs always "mathematically spendable"?

This is interesting and I have thought also about a related idea, but can it be proven that a private key exists for a given public key?

My related idea was a kind of "invitation-only" coin: that you have to derive a key always from another key and announce this derivation with a mathematic proof that it is spendable before you can transact value to them (i.e. create a challenge based on that PK). This would allow that only "spendable" keys could be created. But first, I'm unsure about the math, and second, that would not be really an "open", "free" cryptocurrency.

Perhaps also a proof that a public key is spendable is possible without deriving the key from an existing one?

However I believe even that can be used for data storage, but it would already make it more difficult (not necessarily more expensive though).

I also wonder whether it could be exploited as new form of DoS attack to SPV client and full node.

[Wind_FURY]

Please don't repeat that again, we have discussed that extensively in this and another threads. It is simply wrong that it can be "fixed" (at least not easily, BTC would have to adopt the Monero or Grin protocol to "fix" it).

Let's first define the exploit and the problem then see if it can be fixed or not.

The exploit is that the Bitcoin protocol previously had strict rules about stack item sizes and script sizes. These rules were loosened for witnesses and that means the attackers can now inject an arbitrary size data in their witness without the tx becoming invalid.

This can and should be fixed.

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

What you are explaining is another attack vector that had existed from day one and was also exploited in early days leading to introduction of OP_RETURN rules and said "exploits" were moved into said output types.
As I've said before, in a decentralized blockchain we can not prevent abuse. What we can do is to make it harder and more expensive. For example we could never make a spam attack impossible (like the so called "stress test" pre-2017) but with fee market we can make it harder and more expensive.

It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?

[pooya87]

I'd have no problem if this particular problem is "fixed". However, the bigger inscriptions were only a problem for a short time in early 2023. Since then the focus has shifted to BRC-20, which is also the topic of this thread by the way, and BRC-20s were "compliant" to script size rules established before. In other words, for tokens like BRC-20, the "lifting" of the size limit in Taproot is irrelevant. This was also extensively discussed here.

That's true but they are still exploiting the protocol in the same manner regardless of what size they occupy (the same OP_FALSE OP_IF exploit) to inject an arbitrary size data into the chain.

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

There is an accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable. Other methods are not acceptable and are damaging like creating an unspendable output that can not be purged from the UTXO set so it remains there forever.

It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?

The same "we" that has been deciding what can or can not be done up to the Ordinals Attack!
For example the same "we" that didn't allow you to inject an arbitrary data as that dummy item that is popped from the stack in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) op codes.

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

yeah they probably could but using OP_RETURN. limited to 80 bytes. so people can't go crazy. or it will cost them more than its worth to them. a self regulating mechanism.

It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?

thats a good point. but if we make the basic assumption that bitcoin was meant to do financial transactions and not to store peoples' private data then we is everybody.

[LoyceV]

There is an accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable.

To me, this was acceptable until it reached thousands of OP_RETURN transactions per block. See Mempool Goggles. The larger spam transactions are now replaced by many more small transactions. It's still spam and takes up block space that could have been used by real Bitcoin users.

[Wind_FURY]

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

There is an accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable. Other methods are not acceptable and are damaging like creating an unspendable output that can not be purged from the UTXO set so it remains there forever.

It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?

The same "we" that has been deciding what can or can not be done up to the Ordinals Attack!
For example the same "we" that didn't allow you to inject an arbitrary data as that dummy item that is popped from the stack in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) op codes.

OK, then what do the "we" propose do to effectively get rid of the "Ordinals Attack"?

Plus have there been proposals from the Core Developers?

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

yeah they probably could but using OP_RETURN. limited to 80 bytes. so people can't go crazy. or it will cost them more than its worth to them. a self regulating mechanism.

It might be a very dangerous path because, who is "we", and does "we" speak for the whole community?

thats a good point. but if we make the basic assumption that bitcoin was meant to do financial transactions and not to store peoples' private data then we is everybody.

But currently, does that basic assumption actually hold true for everyone?

There is an accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable.

To me, this was acceptable until it reached thousands of OP_RETURN transactions per block. See Mempool Goggles. The larger spam transactions are now replaced by many more small transactions. It's still spam and takes up block space that could have been used by real Bitcoin users.

A person who uses Bitcoin in a way that you don't approve of, but paid the fees for block space, and followed the consensus rules is not a real Bitcoin user?

[graphite]

Are ordinals just an attempt to increase fees to secure the network? Hard to see any other reason for why they were added.

[LoyceV]

A person who uses Bitcoin in a way that you don't approve of, but paid the fees for block space, and followed the consensus rules is not a real Bitcoin user?

In this case: yes! I'm pretty sure it's just one guy creating the massive spam, and selling it to gullible people with FOMO. If I'm right, none of the "buyers" even use Bitcoin. It's like saying someone who pays a spammer to send 10 million emails "uses email".

[ABCbits]

I'm genuinely asking to learn. - But couldn't developers already store arbitrary data within the blocks if they wanted to before Segwit? I remember there was a marriage certificate "in the blockchain"  and other arbitrary data.

Yes, through OP_RETURN, fake address and other means. If you also interested with the historical usage, check https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html.

Plus have there been proposals from the Core Developers?

Have you forget these PR?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29769
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408

A person who uses Bitcoin in a way that you don't approve of, but paid the fees for block space, and followed the consensus rules is not a real Bitcoin user?

Whether they're real Bitcoin user or not, it's clear their transaction isn't created with goal of sending Bitcoin to someone else.

[Synchronice]

A person who uses Bitcoin in a way that you don't approve of, but paid the fees for block space, and followed the consensus rules is not a real Bitcoin user?

What is a Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash that allows online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. This is the number one rule of Bitcoin. Now tell me, where do we see P2P version of electronic cash in Bitcoin Ordinals? They abuse Bitcoin and use it to earn money from made up thing, earn money from pixelated dumb ape images on Bitcoin Blockchain network. If Bitcoin Ordinals creators Bitcoin for purely p2p version of electronic cash payments, then they are welcome. What they do right now, is definitely an abuse of Bitcoin, a shitshow to scam people and make money from pixelated dumb ape images.

[pooya87]

OK, then what do the "we" propose do to effectively get rid of the "Ordinals Attack"?

A LONG time ago when the attack was starting, I said that the Ordinals Attack is something that needs to be "nipped in the bud" because it is effectively creating an incentive to regular newbies to participate in the attack. At that time simple standard rules would have slowed down this cancer

Now however, the scam market has grown and a lot of brainless gamblers are buying into this crap which makes it that much harder to stop.

Add to that the fact that devs didn't bother with thinking about a solution for the attack until way into the attack and the fact that even later nothing serious happened (as seen by the PRs @ABCbits shared that only address part of the problem) then we have ourselves a mess.

At this point I think the only remaining hope is for some third party creating a side-chain to create this garbage there and then pump it so that the gamblers actually bother going there. That way we can "transfer the cancer" out of Bitcoin and let it die there instead of it metastasizing here.
The "pumping" part is important...