(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[BlackHatCoiner]

well yeah obviously, there's got to be some limits but no one is doing larger than M=N=15 most likely and i doubt people even do anything that big. But there might be 5 of 7 but i think bitcoin stamps only does 2 of 3.

Define "bitcoin stamps". It is completely valid to spend from a 15-of-15 multi-sig.

so there's not going to be any justification for saying that 2 of 3 multisig transactions even the ones from bitcoin stamps are not welcome on the bitcoin network. 

I still don't understand the point you're making. There is no justification to ban something if it can't be an attack vector for the network, therefore banning Ordinals the way they work, so they switch to being stored at the UTXO, is an unreasonable statement to make.

for example, say you changed bitcoin transaction format so that there had to be an extra second signature on top of the first signature. the second signature would be from a node that validated the first signature. the node that did the validation would get a small reward if the transaction they signed and validated made it into a block.

if a node didn't want to participate in the signing process they could just broadcast it out to other nodes and let them sign it. so it could be like an opt-in system for nodes who are looking to pick up a small amount of spare cash.

My friend, you really don't find anything flawed with this? 

[ABCbits]

well yeah obviously, there's got to be some limits but no one is doing larger than M=N=15 most likely and i doubt people even do anything that big. But there might be 5 of 7 but i think bitcoin stamps only does 2 of 3.

Define "bitcoin stamps". It is completely valid to spend from a 15-of-15 multi-sig.

I think he's talking about SRC-20. Check this technical documentation, https://github.com/stampchain-io/stamps_sdk/blob/main/docs/src20specs.md.

so there's not going to be any justification for saying that 2 of 3 multisig transactions even the ones from bitcoin stamps are not welcome on the bitcoin network. 

I still don't understand the point you're making. There is no justification to ban something if it can't be an attack vector for the network, therefore banning Ordinals the way they work, so they switch to being stored at the UTXO, is an unreasonable statement to make.

If Ordinals is banned, those people would use Rune first rather than resorting to UTXO/fake address.

[larry_vw_1955]

I still don't understand the point you're making. There is no justification to ban something if it can't be an attack vector for the network, therefore banning Ordinals the way they work, so they switch to being stored at the UTXO, is an unreasonable statement to make.

i just don't buy your argument that if ordinals were "banned", that would force people to use bitcoin stamps (or something like it) which stores things in the utxo set. that's just a big assumption. i think what you would find is most people would not do it. but those that did should be welcomed with open arms.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_CHECKMULTISIG

and it should be none of our business, what they are using that op code for.

This makes no sense. Every node has to validate every transaction. If a node earns money from signing, miners will sign everything by themselves and take the money.

it was just an idea. that's all.  

[Wind_FURY]

Everyone is still debating whether it should or shouldn't be "banned"? It's too late in my opinion.

Personally, and as everyone has already noticed from my posting history about Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes, I am agnostic about them and/or what's being built with them. But for those Bitcoiners who continue talking about it because they hate it, I believe they should study the Streisand Effect. Those people actually did all the "marketing" that Ordinals needed to bootstrap the project. If they ignored it, then everyone would have ignored it/it wouldn't have a lot of attention.

[BlackHatCoiner]

i just don't buy your argument that if ordinals were "banned", that would force people to use bitcoin stamps (or something like it) which stores things in the utxo set

I was careful with my wording. I said incentivize, not force. Besides, are you banning something with the mindset that its supporters won't attempt to bypass your measures? What would be your excuse if they move to UTXO set? "Yo, we banned that tapscript type to stop Ordinals, but it didn't work out, our bad".

and it should be none of our business, what they are using that op code for.

If the manner in which they use that OP code is none of our business, then the manner in which they've designed to store trash in the chain is neither our business.

[larry_vw_1955]

I was careful with my wording. I said incentivize, not force.

but clearly you believe that banning ordinals would result in a mad rush on using something like bitcoin stamps that's very clear from how you've been talking here.  

Besides, are you banning something with the mindset that its supporters won't attempt to bypass your measures? What would be your excuse if they move to UTXO set? "Yo, we banned that tapscript type to stop Ordinals, but it didn't work out, our bad".

as long as they are not allowed to store data without limit and hog up the entire block AND get a 75% discount on the size of their data, they can do whatever they want to. but incentivizing people to store large amounts of data that way is just not ideal.

If the manner in which they use that OP code is none of our business, then the manner in which they've designed to store trash in the chain is neither our business.

OP_CHECKMULTISIG was explicitly designed to allow people to do multisig transactions. where is the opcode and bip for ordinals? that's right. there is none. big difference.

clearly the developers were asleep at the wheel and didn't realize that someone would be able to hog up all the space in an entire block using a single transaction. they just didn't realize that could happen. now they don't know what to do so they're not doing anything. but bitcoin is a mess because of it, kind of. and no one wants to admit anything.

Personally, and as everyone has already noticed from my posting history about Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes, I am agnostic about them and/or what's being built with them.

you do realize that these people storing data using ordinals are getting a 75% discount on their fees. i disagree with that. if they were paying the full fee that might be different. but even then, obviously it is nice if you limit how much data can be stored per transaction. there's a precedent for doing that you know...

[pooya87]

But for those Bitcoiners who continue talking about it because they hate it, I believe they should study the Streisand Effect. Those people actually did all the "marketing" that Ordinals needed to bootstrap the project. If they ignored it, then everyone would have ignored it/it wouldn't have a lot of attention.

The scam market where these junks are being pumped and dumped and the people's greed thinking they can make a lot of money buying garbage advertised it not what people say about it on the internet. In fact I can bet that majority of those newbies who have been buying these don't even read what we're saying about them.

[LoyceV]

The scam market where these junks are being pumped and dumped and the people's greed thinking they can make a lot of money buying garbage advertised it not what people say about it on the internet. In fact I can bet that majority of those newbies who have been buying these don't even read what we're saying about them.

As Warren Buffet said: "Don't invest in something you don't understand". That doesn't really work for the FOMO-people.

[BlackHatCoiner]

but clearly you believe that banning ordinals would result in a mad rush on using something like bitcoin stamps that's very clear from how you've been talking here.

Yes, I do, and I'm honestly curious why you don't think that either. There are people out there willing to trade $2M for a satoshi, and you think it's difficult for them to slightly change their protocol?

as long as they are not allowed to store data without limit and hog up the entire block AND get a 75% discount on the size of their data, they can do whatever they want to.

Nice of you who's being permissive. 

OP_CHECKMULTISIG was explicitly designed to allow people to do multisig transactions. where is the opcode and bip for ordinals? that's right. there is none. big difference.

Bitcoin was explicitly designed for peer-to-peer transactions. Where is the BIP that proposes using centralized exchanges and forfeiting custody when using bitcoin? Oh, right. People have the freedom to choose how to use it.

[larry_vw_1955]

Yes, I do, and I'm honestly curious why you don't think that either. There are people out there willing to trade $2M for a satoshi, and you think it's difficult for them to slightly change their protocol?

take a look: https://stampchain.io

it looks like we have about half a million bitcoin stamps so far. have they impacted the bitcoin network at all? is anyone complaining about them?

people that use the blockchain properly are always welcome to do so. and their transactions will not be pruned out of peoples' nodes like a piece of garbage needing to be discarded into the nearest trash can. you really do get what you pay for.  

pay a little extra and do it the right way. of course, that's easier said than done for the cheapos. who are worried about how much it is going to cost...

oh thats right, that's why they use segwit so they can store a large amount of data for less. as though that makes any sense that people would want them doing that. just saying.

[LoyceV]

take a look: ~

No I won't. I'm not going to encourage that shit.

it looks like we have about half a million bitcoin stamps so far. have they impacted the bitcoin network at all? is anyone complaining about them?

I don't care what they call it, all I see is on-chain spam.

pay a little extra and do it the right way. of course, that's easier said than done for the cheapos. who are worried about how much it is going to cost...

Tell me: how many on-chain Bitcoin transactions have you made this year?

[Synchronice]

Everyone is still debating whether it should or shouldn't be "banned"? It's too late in my opinion.

Personally, and as everyone has already noticed from my posting history about Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes, I am agnostic about them and/or what's being built with them. But for those Bitcoiners who continue talking about it because they hate it, I believe they should study the Streisand Effect. Those people actually did all the "marketing" that Ordinals needed to bootstrap the project. If they ignored it, then everyone would have ignored it/it wouldn't have a lot of attention.

It's not really debatable. If we read the Bitcoin whitepaper and respect it, then we can say that Bitcoin purely p2p version of electronic cash that allows us to send money from one party to another. Ordinals simply is the opposite of Bitcoin. Ordinals simply are data attached to an individual satoshi, this is clearly not an electronic version of cash and this is clearly not used for p2p money transfer. So, fundamentally and from every aspect, ordinals ruin the functionality of Bitcoin as an electronic version of cash and as a p2p payment method.

As Warren Buffet said: "Don't invest in something you don't understand". That doesn't really work for the FOMO-people.

That's debatable but for the majority of people, it's a good advice.

[Wind_FURY]

Personally, and as everyone has already noticed from my posting history about Ordinals, BRC-20, and Runes, I am agnostic about them and/or what's being built with them.

you do realize that these people storing data using ordinals are getting a 75% discount on their fees. i disagree with that. if they were paying the full fee that might be different. but even then, obviously it is nice if you limit how much data can be stored per transaction. there's a precedent for doing that you know...

But you do realize that technically, no matter how stupid or "wrong" you may think they are, those users both pay for the transaction fees and they don't break the consensus rules. It's your right to have an opinion/disagreement, as it is their right to have their opinion/disagreement. BUT my point was if everyone simply ignored what they were doing, then there wouldn't be a Streisand Effect that gave them the free marketing that they needed to help bootstrap their "projects".

I believe like Bitcoin itself, Casey Rodarmor opened a Pandora's Box, never to be closed. Shitcoinery in Bitcoin might be here to stay.

[larry_vw_1955]

No I won't. I'm not going to encourage that shit.

it's more well thought out than "ordinals" in my opinion plus it has a very limited data size. i dont see the point of storing tiny 20x20 pixel png images but that's about all it allows. how is that hurting anybody? plus it's paying non-segwit transaction fees. so it's not really abusing anything. i'm not recommending it but it's better than ordinals from a spam/network perspective.

I don't care what they call it, all I see is on-chain spam.

start with ordinals and clean that up. then we can talk about less abusive things.

Tell me: how many on-chain Bitcoin transactions have you made this year?

none.

But you do realize that technically, no matter how stupid or "wrong" you may think they are, those users both pay for the transaction fees and they don't break the consensus rules.

i realize that. the problem is not with the users. the problem is with the particular consensus rule that didn't really undergo enough scrutiny before they just unleashed it. you're going to give a single transaction UNLIMITED size capability up to the entire block size and not only that but you also will let the data be weighted as 1 weight unit per byte rather than the standard 4 weight units per byte. how is that not going to end in disaster?

I believe like Bitcoin itself, Casey Rodarmor opened a Pandora's Box, never to be closed. Shitcoinery in Bitcoin might be here to stay.

it sure seems like it. i'm not sure who would want it though. but i guess the community wants it otherwise they would get rid of it right? or at least the developers want it. i'm not too impressed with whoever developed taproot and thought it was a good idea that the witness data could be unlimited in size.

[LoyceV]

But you do realize that technically, no matter how stupid or "wrong" you may think they are, those users both pay for the transaction fees and they don't break the consensus rules.

That doesn't mean the consensus rules can't be changed

my point was if everyone simply ignored what they were doing, then there wouldn't be a Streisand Effect that gave them the free marketing that they needed to help bootstrap their "projects".

I was truely amazed to see people here on Bitcointalk post they want to "check it out".

I believe like Bitcoin itself, Casey Rodarmor opened a Pandora's Box, never to be closed. Shitcoinery in Bitcoin might be here to stay.

I'm kinda expecting people to get arrested over this at some point. This isn't 2017 anymore, when anyone could create an ICO and get rich from gullible people without consequences. Software developers are now being prosecuted. Add some money laundering to the NFT market and I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen.

[garlonicon]

It is harmful. A large multisig, done with OP_CHECKMULTISIG is harmful

I am not the only one, thinking in this way. For example, in TapScript, OP_CHECKMULTISIG is disabled. Instead, OP_CHECKSIGADD was created, to provide a similar functionality. Which means, that no matter if you like it or not, we are going towards single Schnorr signatures, to handle N-of-N multisig, and we are not going back into pushing each and every signature individually on the stack, and doing O(n^2) signature checking on that, to only check, if some multisig is valid or not. Instead, we are going into batch verification, cross-input aggregation, into simplified sighashes, and other approaches, which are far better than OP_CHECKMULTISIG.

Also, don't be surprised if large multisigs will be discouraged in the future, and if there would be some kind of limit, to avoid spamming the chain with 1-of-3 multisigs, where you can achieve the same outcome by using a single public key with a single signature, and not even reveal the fact, that there are three keys involved.

if there is some issue about bitcoin multisig then that's the developers fault not people trying to use the feature however they want to. that's kind of my opinion.

Yes, it is "the developers fault", but guess who created OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and who messed up with the stack, so it consumes one more stack element, than it should. Of course, bare multisig was created by Satoshi, early developers only made it standard, but miners could always use it in their non-standard transactions, since 2009. Which means, that if you want to "fix" it, then all you can do, is to improve it in a new version. But you cannot touch the old one, which is already deployed, because you don't want to mess up with existing outputs, which use OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and exist on-chain.

If you really just want something conditionally redeemable by one person or another, I would recommend the transaction type I recommend for reality keys:

Reality keys will reveal private key A if a true/false fact is true, and private key B if it's false.

Alice and Bob want to make a contract to hedge the outcome of a fact because they each have opposing short positions relative to the fact.  Alice will be paid if the fact is true, Bob will be paid if the fact is false.

Reality keys publishes the pubkey pairs  a := gA ; b := gB

Alice has private key X and corresponding pubkey x, Bob has private key Y and corresponding pubkey y.

Alice and Bob compute new pubkeys  q:=x+a  and r:=y+b  and they send their coins to a 1 of 2 multisig of those new pubkeys, q,r.

The values q,r are zero-knoweldge indistinguishable from a and b unless you know x and/or y, so no one except alice and bob, not even reality keys can tell which transaction on the network is mediated by the release of A vs B.

Later, realitykeys releases A or B,  lets say alice wins.  She computes a new private key X+A, and uses it to redeem the multisig.  Bob cannot redeem the multisig because he knows neither X or B.

This looks like a perfectly boring transaction to everyone else. Alice and Bob collectively cannot be robbed by a third party, though they could be held up or if realitykeys conspires with Alice or Bob then there could be cheating. This risk could be reduced by using a threshold of multiple observers— which this scheme naturally extends to.

[Wind_FURY]

But you do realize that technically, no matter how stupid or "wrong" you may think they are, those users both pay for the transaction fees and they don't break the consensus rules.

That doesn't mean the consensus rules can't be changed

A User Activated Soft Fork? Good luck, truly.

my point was if everyone simply ignored what they were doing, then there wouldn't be a Streisand Effect that gave them the free marketing that they needed to help bootstrap their "projects".

I was truely amazed to see people here on Bitcointalk post they want to "check it out".

There will be the curious and the inquisitive, but in my opinion if it was merely ignored, there wouldn't be a Streisand Effect that accelerated curiosity more than it should be.

I believe like Bitcoin itself, Casey Rodarmor opened a Pandora's Box, never to be closed. Shitcoinery in Bitcoin might be here to stay.

I'm kinda expecting people to get arrested over this at some point. This isn't 2017 anymore, when anyone could create an ICO and get rich from gullible people without consequences. Software developers are now being prosecuted. Add some money laundering to the NFT market and I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen.

Perhaps, but it won't stop the shitcoinery like it never stopped the shitcoinery in other blockchains.

[larry_vw_1955]

Also, don't be surprised if large multisigs will be discouraged in the future, and if there would be some kind of limit, to avoid spamming the chain with 1-of-3 multisigs, where you can achieve the same outcome by using a single public key with a single signature, and not even reveal the fact, that there are three keys involved.

i'm sure no one encourages something like 5 of 7 multisigs but 2 of 3 is quite standard and i can't see that ever being taken away. which makes something like bitcoin stamps pretty future proof. well thought out. unlike ordinals which are not well thought out.

Yes, it is "the developers fault", but guess who created OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and who messed up with the stack, so it consumes one more stack element, than it should. Of course, bare multisig was created by Satoshi, early developers only made it standard, but miners could always use it in their non-standard transactions, since 2009. Which means, that if you want to "fix" it, then all you can do, is to improve it in a new version. But you cannot touch the old one, which is already deployed, because you don't want to mess up with existing outputs, which use OP_CHECKMULTISIG, and exist on-chain.

that's right. imagine that OP_CHECKMULTISIG became deprecated to the extent that very few nodes would accept a transaction of that type. that's when bitcoin becomes a scam. because then people couldn't easily spend existing utxos! developers need to be careful they don't veer bitcoin into the scam territory like that by always coming up with new toys that work "better" and telling people not to use the old ones...

obviously a better solution is to implement some feature once and do it right the first time. so that it never needs to be changed. i am sure people will say "easier said than done". as though that's an excuse to not adhere to that philosophy, anyhow. back to ordinals...

[takuma sato]

Looks like the market is removing Ordinals itself. There is no real demand for this to the point it would clutter the blockchain it seems, so it's just a fad. Maybe in the future there are other use cases. For now those that want to play around with tokens are using centralized pretend-decentralized Solana, this is where all the memecoins happen nowadays, since ETH failed to do that themselves since it doesn't scale. Im just hoping no more nonsense is added on BTC. Just leave the money alone.

[LoyceV]

Looks like the market is removing Ordinals itself. There is no real demand for this

Have you looked at Mempool Goggles > Data recently? The spam continues. Maybe it moved from "Ordinals" to "Runes", but that's just a different name for the same scam.