(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[TryNinja]

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

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

[NotATether]

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

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

It is best to ignore him completely about this.

[larry_vw_1955]

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

It is best to ignore him completely about this.

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

[gmaxwell]

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

[nutildah]

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

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

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

[NotATether]

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

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

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

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

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

[gmaxwell]

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

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

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

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

[originlegacy2323]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[larry_vw_1955]

So how can we ask for a fork?

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

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

it depends how far you want to rollback the blockchain.

[nutildah]

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

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

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

[larry_vw_1955]

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

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

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

[stompix]

Let's combine a bit the replies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[darkv0rt3x]

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

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

A retarded commenting on retarded things! lol

Let's combine a bit the replies!

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

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

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

[larry_vw_1955]

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

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

[nutildah]

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

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

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

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


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

[larry_vw_1955]

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

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

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

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


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

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

[Dimitri94]

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

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

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

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

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

[pooya87]

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

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

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

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

[larry_vw_1955]

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

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

[NotATether]

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

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

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