(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?

[1714139819]

1714139819

[1714139819]

1714139819

[1714139819]

1714139819

[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.