(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[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.

[1714319957]

1714319957

[1714319957]

1714319957

[1714319957]

1714319957

[1714319957]

1714319957

[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.