(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[ABCbits]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

If you take a closer look, actually that website took information from MITRE.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Have you read discussion on GitHub Bitcoin Core, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408? Even if it's merged, it wont completely stop Ordinals TX.

[1714692974]

1714692974

[1714692974]

1714692974

[1714692974]

1714692974

[1714692974]

1714692974

[joker_josue]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

But from what I understand, this is just the opinion of some people in the developer group.
For things to really move forward, they will all need to support the idea and actually code something.

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

[pooya87]

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Interestingly enough a similar situation rose back in 2010 when people were trying to use bitcoin blockchain to store "arbitrary data" to be used for the project called BitDNS. His opinion about it is clear as he states that it should be separate and not in bitcoin blockchain. That is why a separate project called Namecoin was created.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

[cryptosize]

The question that arises is: based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Interestingly enough a similar situation rose back in 2010 when people were trying to use bitcoin blockchain to store "arbitrary data" to be used for the project called BitDNS. His opinion about it is clear as he states that it should be separate and not in bitcoin blockchain. That is why a separate project called Namecoin was created.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

They see it as a sci-fi totalitarian/all-seeing eye dystopia, where even camera video feeds will be stored in the blockchain with immutability.

People in tech communities always tend to have different goals/visions about a project, especially as a community grows more and more, more dissenting/divergent opinions will be formed. It's just human nature.

You won't understand what I'm saying, unless you've experienced it yourself in other communities too (such as metropolitan wireless networks, Linux distros etc.)

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM). Even Monero can store Ordinals: https://mordinals.org/

[Cricktor]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

No, it was not a mistake to quote the newspaper as this was needed to prove that the Genesis block and further blocks weren't pre-mined.

It was also to my knowledge the only time that Satoshi Nakamoto included such data into blocks he mined. He clearly didn't see the blockchain as something to store superfluous bullshit or bloat it with stuff that doesn't have much to do with Bitcoin transactions details.

[cryptosize]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

No, it was not a mistake to quote the newspaper as this was needed to prove that the Genesis block and further blocks weren't pre-mined.

It was also to my knowledge the only time that Satoshi Nakamoto included such data into blocks he mined. He clearly didn't see the blockchain as something to store superfluous bullshit or bloat it with stuff that doesn't have much to do with Bitcoin transactions details.

IIRC, he released the Bitcoin binaries after the Genesis block (maybe that's why those 50 BTC are unspendable).

His text message was a clear political stance IMHO... not that I mind text messages that much, since they're small by nature, but once you open that can of worms, then people can store literally everything.

Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.

[3dmlib]

It was a hype about NFTs on ethereum blockchain. What happened after it? A lot of people loose money on it and nobody using this now.
Now it on bitcoin blockchain... Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?

[joker_josue]

Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Yes, you are right, Satoshi does not have any direct power in Bitcoin. But it still has its influence. This influence is still felt today, related to several aspects that have remained unchanged since the origin of Bitcoin, such as the size of blocks.

The point now is: why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network? 

Either way, you said the fundamental thing: Bitcoin was created with a payment system! And I think that was the main pillar that Bitcoin should continue to follow, and prevent other things from harming that pillar.

[garlonicon]

why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?

Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?

No. If developers would want to "make miners happy", then they could just increase default fee rates. Or, if you need a more covert way, do a transition from secp256k1 to something "bigger", that would be "quantum safe" (or whatever), which means "more complex", and of course "more expensive". But this is not the case: if it would be, then Ordinals could be just the part of Bitcoin Core, but as you can see, this is not included, and some developers even created some minority versions to reject Ordinals (but other developers didn't, because there are worse things than Ordinals, and thankfully, they are not yet present on-chain, as long as spammers are focused on Ordinals instead).

Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.

It is not that easy, if you quote what Satoshi said about "Lady Gaga videos", or about "BitDNS". Unless you say that those posts are not written by Satoshi, but those people are beyond saving.

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake

Today, that kind of message could be included as a commitment instead. But of course, there are many improvements, that could be done, if someone would want to reinvent Bitcoin. For example, if someone is going to create another altcoin, then there is no reason to have more than one address type. And if that would be the case, then the message from the Genesis Block, could be just included behind that public key, as a commitment.

based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

[Synchronice]

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

As far as I know, similar code was already written by other developers and is this a reinventing of bicycle? I also haven't found this article on other major crypto news websites. By the way, aren't Taproot Wizards the ones who wanted to make Bitcoin magical again by letting you to upload jpeg files on blockchain?

By the way, I recently read an article that states that Polygon version of Bitcoin Ordinals also significantly increased gas fees and I just have a logical question like normal human, how many ordinals/nfts are created each day and how many millions of people pay money in these NFTs? Maybe we all are stuck and missing something here while the world keeps moving on. What's going on?

[garlonicon]

Did anyone accidentally read this article?

Code:

ord_fingerprint="0063036f7264"

This patch is not enough. And also, it has a lot of flaws. Because:

1. It is possible to create a transaction, with non-Ordinal witness, that would be rejected by this patch.

For example: "020063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_CHECKSIG"
Another example: "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"

2. It is possible to create another flood, just by wrapping Ordinals in a new format, just to avoid those magic bytes, and it will not be censored.

For example: "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF OP_PUSH_3('ord')".

Just change "0063036f7264" into "0164036f7264", and then you can flood all nodes with such censorship. Now, it is too late for rules, which could be so simply evaded. It could be good one week or one month after Ordinals were introduced, but they are not sufficient here and now.

[joker_josue]

why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?

Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

I understand what you mean, but (I don't remember exactly when it was) I remember that a few years ago, there was a change that miners/pools weren't willing to support, and they ended up following this change because of the developers and community Bitcoin.

based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1617#msg1617
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917

Thank you for sharing these links, which clearly show Satoshi's position and opinion on this topic.
But, there he is, he is not the owner of Bitcoin, but I think that remembering his opinion can be helpful in making decisions.

[xiaolou86]

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.

BRC-20 made the network congested, and consumed too much storages.

[pooya87]

But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...
The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) ....

It's about size of the arbitrary data and its purpose.

Satoshi including a tiny message (a couple of bytes) in the coinbase of the very first mined block in an extremely restricted way (coinbase script size can not exceed 100 bytes) is very different from including any arbitrary data in any transaction in any block at any size without any restrictions.

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

[joker_josue]

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

Yes, and that is what cannot happen. Bitcoin is not a cloud hosting service, which allows you to store things forever, at an excellent cost.

But, I believe that a solution will soon emerge from the developers. Afterwards, the support of the entire bitcoin community will be needed to actually be able to implement it.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

[ABCbits]

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM). Even Monero can store Ordinals: https://mordinals.org/

FWIW it's possible on Monero mainly because it has TX_EXTRA field which sometimes used to interact across different cryptocurrency network.

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

Reject block? No sane people would do that since the block contain some non-ordinals TX. His script would make sense if it doesn't relay all Ordinals TX.

[nutildah]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen. An outright rejection of inscription activity imposed by devs is more likely to cause a chain split not in the favor of Ordinals Disrespectoors. We will have Bitcoin (BTC) as it is today and Ordinal Disrespectoor Coin (ODC), for maxi idealists that refuse to adapt to this new paradigm.

A middle ground, as I've been suggesting for months now, would be to place some kind of thoughtfully-placed limitation on taproot script length where things such as coinjoins are still under the data limit yet 1 MB monkey pictures are not.

[stompix]

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

Yeah, and it's going to have the same effect as vegans boycotting Dinosaur Bar-B-Que.

By rejecting all block that contain ordinals your node will simply become useless, and you can have 90% of the nodes doing the same, as long a no block with zero ordinals is mined all this solves zero, the nodes that do relay blocks with ordinals will keep doing so and miners will keep adding more to the chain, zero impact whatsoever.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

No, the opposite, we're going to have Bitcoin as we know it now and a dead coin from the start, something called Luke's vision or whatever.

[pooya87]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Creating a copyfork (called Bordi? lol) would create something less successful than the shitforks in the past (mainly 2017 era).

[Findingnemo]

We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

The actual reason for the creation of ordinal is just to make money with NFT shit and the person who created knew that it is going to get huge hype and that is why the thing is still in the trend and some investors do believe that this NFT token is going to be the next big, poor people who have no idea and still risk their money.

I just hope something can fix the ordinals that are exploiting the Bitcoin network while doing great harm and I don't know how long this can go on meanwhile shitcoins claim and convince Bitcoin is done and make some money for themselves.