(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[joker_josue]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

[1714565441]

1714565441

[1714565441]

1714565441

[1714565441]

1714565441

[tromp]

The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM).

A pure Mimblewimble chain like Grin is very inscription resistant, but Beam has added many features, some of which (smart contracts in particular) can be used to store arbitrary data [1].

[1] https://forum.beam.mw/t/beam-inscriptions/822

[NotATether]

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.

Or rather, there is no money to be made in a fork because if a hypothetical Ordinals coin was ever listed on an exchange it would be immediately short-sold.

While Bitcoin Cash was profitable to make at least initially for the miners because there was a sizable group of people who supported it.

[bitmover]

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.

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

[HmmMAA]

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

Nope , miners an pools will work in any case , either fees are low or high , of course profit maximization is a plus for them ( find me a business that's against that ) . Those that were looking forward for such high fees as a result of limited blocksize were those in the maxis camp . Btc just gets what maxis wanted , so you should look others than miners and pools to blame .

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees

[pooya87]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

[Wind_FURY]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".

[cryptosize]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)... they want less people making on-chain TX and way more KYC (no more privacy).

[nutildah]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)...

The only reason Ordinals is ever described as an aTtACk!!! is to trigger maxis tryhards into crying about it being an attack... It amuses the ordinals enjoooyors, and a few of you have swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is there is no attack on bitcoin; bitcoin continues to do its thing exactly the way it should. It gives zero fucks about what you think it should be doing. You're left with 3 choices:

1) Soldier on with the way things are.
2) Innovate.
3) Keep crying.

[cryptosize]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)...

The only reason Ordinals is ever described as an aTtACk!!! is to trigger maxis tryhards into crying about it being an attack... It amuses the ordinals enjoooyors, and a few of you have swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is there is no attack on bitcoin; bitcoin continues to do its thing exactly the way it should. It gives zero fucks about what you think it should be doing. You're left with 3 choices:

1) Soldier on with the way things are.
2) Innovate.
3) Keep crying.

Funny how you decided to omit the bold part, huh?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)... they want less people making on-chain TX and way more KYC (no more privacy).

Here's the whole link:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

Exchanges already charge exorbitant fees for withdrawing BTC (Binance -> $32), so people will feel inclined to keep their BTC on exchanges.

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

I reckon BlackRock will become even bigger than Binance, it will be the go-to place to buy BTC in 2024-2025.

Perhaps BTC will jump to 1 million USD, but nobody will make on-chain transactions anymore, except BlackRock and a few more big institutions... is that a win?

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

I remember people saying this wouldn't last too long, because it's expensive to keep making Ordinal transactions... and yet, here we are 2+ months later on.

If I were BlackRock, I would try to do the same. 51% attack is too costly to perform (you need to manufacture/buy tons of ASICs), so the next best thing is to clog the network with BRC-20.

[pooya87]

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

As much as I like hearing what others say about this, I don't like speculating about who is behind this attack or why myself because the only thing that matters to me is that Bitcoin is currently under attack and we need to keep discussing ways to prevent it.

We had the same thing in 2017 too. People speculated about who is behind that attack, in the end the fee market stopped that spam attack by increasing the cost of it. This time it is slightly different since there is an exploit and there is an attached incentive to perform the attack (the market where the scammers meet to trade the arbitrary data).

[NotATether]

Here's the whole link:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

JFC, I knew world economic forum had a bad stink to it, but I never thought they were that crazy.

[goldenmonke]

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.

Ordinals are dumb. Why is this crap on L1? Bitcoin is being rendered unusable by shitty jpgs.

[joker_josue]

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

How are people going to continue to have the keys to their coins, if at this point the only minimally viable way to have BTC is to use exchange wallets, or third-party channels in the second layer? 

[nutildah]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

Its Venture Capitalists who want to get in on the action. They saw the potential behind it. They are the ones funding the infrastructure & marketing. Here's a few links to give you an idea of who they are:

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/10/17/bitcoin-magazine-owner-backs-first-ordinals-fund-which-bought-85k-rock/

https://www.theblock.co/post/263343/bitcoin-ordinals-startup-taproot-wizards-raises-7-5-million-in-seed-round

https://crypto.revuto.com/ordinals_1.pdf

These people see Ordinals as the next NFT rush, and thus far they haven't been wrong. Will it all pop & fade away with time? Most likely, yes, most of it will. But not all of it.

[HmmMAA]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .
Each ordi was inscribed for a couple of cents . Currently sitting at $80+ . That's more than 50000X return , that's a lot of ammo to continue considering that new inscriptions also make profit .
The point was to have a market created . That market is present and it will continue to grow as long as new money enter and speculation continues.

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

Current situation with fees will look like nothing compared to the situation that might occur if bitvm and other protocols start to emerge and give the opportunity to have DeFi on btc . Fees will skyrocket to 1000's of $'s .

Grab your popcorn and enjoy the ride . 2024 will be a very interesting year .


 

[cryptosize]

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

^ Says the guy who believes Craig Wright is Satoshi, believes in NWO's all-seeing eye (your words, not mine) and to top it off, you believe that there's a conspiracy going on to hijack BTC via Mastercard/DCG who apparently control BlockStream (BTC core devs).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[cryptosize]

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

How are people going to continue to have the keys to their coins, if at this point the only minimally viable way to have BTC is to use exchange wallets, or third-party channels in the second layer? 

And that's exactly what the Davos elites want.

Zero ownership (BTC IOU), zero privacy (mandatory KYC) and most likely they will also tie BTC IOU on BlackRock (huge proponents of the ESG agenda) with social credit score and carbon credits.

Trust me, I wish someone can prove me wrong in the future, because I hate sci-fi dystopias (unlike HmmMAA who loves mass surveillance for the "greater good").

Bookmark/screenshot my post and let's talk again about it in 2030...

[Wind_FURY]

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!

1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...

THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".

Shower thought. Although it might be a good idea to bring all Ordinals/BRC-20/NFT inscriptions/transactions to "Ordinal Chain", wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure? Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

It's probably better to implement an off-chain layer on top that will have little effect on the functions/operation of the Bitcoin network?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[vjudeu]

wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure?

No, because if you use Merged Mining, then you produce regular Bitcoin blocks. Just imagine that instead of discarding some shares, you store them on your own chain, and they are valid only there. In case of "cloud storage", you don't need to move any real coins, so you can use those shares to protect data, without any coins.

Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

No, because all coins will eventually land on-chain, which means, some Bitcoin miner will receive that. The only part that will land on the Ordinal Chain, would be the data, associated with those coins. Which also means, that the Ordinal Chain could contain a lot more UTXOs than Bitcoin, because it could be possible to send "data only", without transferring any coins.

It's probably better to implement an off-chain layer on top that will have little effect on the functions/operation of the Bitcoin network?

If you need to connect just some data, with a particular address, then all that is needed, is accepting a valid signature. Which means, you simply pick some UTXO, and sign any data you want, and post that into the Ordinal Chain. Note that you don't have to move any coins to do that. All you need is just to connect this data with this UTXO, and just put a commitment into that, into any on-chain transaction (even created by someone else).

Which means, every time you create any on-chain transaction, you can sell "commitment as a service" to anyone. Because then, you can just tweak R-value of your signature, and commit to any data, provided by someone else. And later, that commitment can be revealed anywhere outside Bitcoin (and even stored in a separate chain, if you want to track all revealed commitments). Then, zero additional on-chain bytes are needed, you just change one 256-bit number into another 256-bit number, and you can confirm any data you want.

So, as you can see, many things are possible. But I guess it will simply not happen, because this is not the goal of Ordinals users.