(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[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!

[1715126398]

1715126398

[1715126398]

1715126398

[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.