(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[mikeywith]

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm?

I think the two cases are slightly different. In the example you posted, the comparator receives direct benefit from attacking that website, and the cost of the attack compared to the potential reward makes a lot of sense. Imagine you have 10k clients that you may lose today if they managed to access that company's website. Spending 100% of what those 10k clients make you in a year might still make economic sense to you, especially considering that the number of companies offering the same service in your country is probably not more than a few, whereas in BTC the case is different.

If you would call Ordinals an attack, then you need to have a reasonable explanation of what the attackers are willing to achieve from it. Is it BSV folks trying to raise fees so that people would move to their chain? But then—there are a few thousand other blockchains out there. What if they move to ETH or something else? So, this has to be a coordinated attack by a few dozen altcoins, which also doesn't make a lot of sense.

You may call it "abuse" or "against Bitcoin best practice"; that would make more sense. I don't even think calling it "spam" makes a lot of sense. Spamming on bitcoin is rather expensive and useful. I wouldn't even call it "cloud storage" because there exists cheaper, faster, and more efficient cloud storage to store those funny pictures.

The way I see it is that someone or a group of people managed to exploit an opportunity to make money by creating value out of thin air. And now, greedy people want to make money by investing in these stupid projects. These people spend millions of dollars hoping to make more millions of dollars in profit—not to hurt bitcoin or make things worse for other people. They just want to sell their bags to the next person at a higher valuation. This is how I view the current situation.

[1714545610]

1714545610

[1714545610]

1714545610

[1714545610]

1714545610

[joker_josue]

If you would call Ordinals an attack, then you need to have a reasonable explanation of what the attackers are willing to achieve from it. Is it BSV folks trying to raise fees so that people would move to their chain? But then—there are a few thousand other blockchains out there. What if they move to ETH or something else? So, this has to be a coordinated attack by a few dozen altcoins, which also doesn't make a lot of sense.

But I gave an example, large pools artificially increase block fees.

If the 3 or 4 largest pools on the market align, they can create Ordinals transactions with high fees, knowing that they will get the money from these fees back in the blocks they mine.

Another way is for large pools to create Ordinal transactions, at the same time as reducing their hash, following a difficulty adjustment on the network. The network becomes clogged, generating a greater number of pending transactions in the mempool, which will generate fee increases.

Of course, I'm not saying that this is what's happening. Because it will be difficult to prove, even if it is happening. But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

[nutildah]

The way I see it is that someone or a group of people managed to exploit an opportunity to make money by creating value out of thin air. And now, greedy people want to make money by investing in these stupid projects. These people spend millions of dollars hoping to make more millions of dollars in profit—not to hurt bitcoin or make things worse for other people. They just want to sell their bags to the next person at a higher valuation. This is how I view the current situation.

As someone who knows a lot of people who are into Ordinals & constructed marketplaces for them, knows where the funding is coming from, and understands how crypto influencooring works, this is the correct take.

But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

What you're describing is a miner centralization problem and it has been an existential threat since the birth of the first mining pool.

[joker_josue]

But these are scenarios, which happen, could be considered an attack on the network, as they were trying to take advantage of a protocol for their own purposes, damaging this entire protocol.

What you're describing is a miner centralization problem and it has been an existential threat since the birth of the first mining pool.

This is also true. But if we give it more tools, it gets worse.

But other scenarios can be constructed, how Ordinals can be used to try to harm Bitcoin. Now, that would be pure and mere speculation, which is not worth feeding into.
I just think that the first layer of the blockchain shouldn't be dealing with this type of content. I'm not against Ordinals, I just think they're operating in the wrong place.

[HmmMAA]

It really cannot be considered an attack, directly. But, this does not mean that it cannot be used as a tool for less-intentioned people to achieve their goals, which are less favorable for the network.

I'll give you an example, which happened yesterday. On prime-time TV, there was a report on the success of some companies in my country. When trying to access 2 or 3 websites of these companies, the websites were not prepared for so many visits and did not work correctly. I believe that the attention the report received led people to research the subject. But what guarantee is there that competing companies were not taking advantage of the moment to harm? Of course I'm just speculating, and I know that's not what happened. But, it could happen.

The only guarantee is to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the load . If these companies are selling a service and each click could be a potential client it would be idiotic to stand and look their website going down .

What I mean by this is that despite what is happening, it is not exactly an attack. It can be used to achieve certain purposes that are purely personal and not for the good of the network.

How do you define network ? That's what i'm arguing about .

5. Network
The steps to run the network are as follows:
1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes.
2) Each node collects new transactions into a block.
3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block.
4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes.
5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.
6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the
chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

The network has to do with the infrastructure and it's defined in the whitepaper . It works fine . The users ( running a full node doesn't make you a part of the network , see the definition ) are the ones facing problems , and in real life they would never use something like what btc offers . No real world business would work with a model that limits the amount of users that can use it .

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time .
The whole point with ordinals and nft's was to have a market created . Since that market is created and the rewards are extremely high people will speculate . As always the first ones will be those that have maximum gains and will continue as long as it's profitable .  

It is you who is comparing apples and oranges. In your both examples you used legitimate use cases of the service (buying stuff, users of Facebook, etc.) but when it comes to Bitcoin you are counting the attackers as legitimate use case!

Every system is made for a purpose and when you use it for something else or break the rules of that system, your actions would be counted as abuse. For example if you use your Facebook account to post some random stuff every 10 seconds, your account will be banned and nuked in matter of minutes.
It's the same in Bitcoin, when you try to exploit the protocol and turn Bitcoin into cloud storage, that's an abuse and it should be banned. The only difference between Bitcoin and a centralized service is that Bitcoin is decentralized so such decision makings are extremely slow.

I'm glad that you took an example with the only company that your argument could stand but it is flawed . The problem is that in facebook you are the product they sell . It's easy , when you're not paying for a product you are the product .
How many clients of facebook ( advertisers ) have you heard getting banned for using their service ?  
Try another argument with netflix or banks , or whatever network that users who pay for using a service getting excluded or targeted for using it . Dude , grow up .

As I've said a million times this is not about fees nor about what is being stored in chain. This is all about the fact that Bitcoin is being used as cloud storage whereas it is supposed to be a payment system. And it is ONLY possible through an EXPLOIT.

You fail to understand what electronic cash means , that's why you insist it's an attack . In fact you have to understand what cash is : https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cash.asp .
Cash can be anything that can be turned into physical cash .  So , there has to be a market for it , and preferably it should be widely accepted . Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

That's just outright wrong.
Ignoring the fact that block size hasn't been 1MB for years, for some reason you said all these stuff in previous pages to get here (I wonder what reason ) to say that "people using bitcoin as their cloud storage is OK and we should increase the block size so they can have access to a bigger "cloud space" for their arbitrary data!"

I'm saying all these things because i see people complaining about things bitcoin has face in the past ( periods of insane fees ) . And for that you blame ordinals etc . There are no spammers as long as they pay fees , especially higher than your "normal transactions" . Try to think and blame those that are really responsible for that , and that's a part of core . No one else .

[pooya87]

Guess what , ordinals , brc-20's and in the future defi's are accepted as a form of cash , so the payment system works as it should . Either you like it or not .

Whether you like or not coming up with fancy names for an attack like calling it Decentralized Finance, Ordinals, etc. doesn't make them real or valuable for that matter. None of it is part of the protocol, they are abusing the bitcoin blockchain as cloud storage only and the real deal happens on a centralized platform where a scam such as BRC-20 interprets the arbitrary data in the blockchain for you.

If anybody thinks something like that which is clearly centralized is worth something they don't even belong in the Bitcoin world!

[Wind_FURY]

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.

OK, there's something to learn here. I have questions. Please be patient with me.

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

Does merged mining add extra work for miners to process more data and therefore is like a block size increase?

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.

If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all? Plus it would be better for the miners if Ordinals inscriptions stay in the Bitcoin blockchain/keep fees high.

[mikeywith]

But I gave an example, large pools artificially increase block fees.
If the 3 or 4 largest pools on the market align, they can create Ordinals transactions with high fees, knowing that they will get the money from these fees back in the blocks they mine.

Mining pools can attempt to "spam" the blockchain, a topic which we have discussed in the 2023 diff thread in the mining section, but they don't need Ordinals for that, in fact, it is easier for them to create non-Ordinals transactions that are larger in size.

But in regards to fees, Ordinals are just a currently living proof that the main chain is incapable of processing many transaction at low fees, the type of transactions is irrelevant to the fee, you may argue that the type of data they leave on the blockchain is useless and should not be on the blockchain, but fees would still be this high and worse if 1% of the population started using BTC on chain for daily payments.

[vjudeu]

In the context that there's the Ordinals Chain merge mined with the Bitcoin blockchain, doesn't the miner earn rewards from both chains, and therefore has the choice of which coin to sell to pay for electricity bills/other expenses?

It depends on the sidechain construction. If it is like NameCoin, which created its own tokens, out of thin air, then yes, this is just abusing 21 million coins limit, and then you have separate coins. But you can also have something like RSK, where all coins have 1:1 peg with BTC, and where nothing is created out of thin air.

Does merged mining add extra work for miners

If you mean "can the hashrate increase", then the answer is yes, because those miners are just mining regular Bitcoin blocks.

Edit: If you mean, "does the miner need to choose, which chain to mine", then it is not like that. You simply mine a regular Bitcoin blocks, which are also valid in another network. More than that: you can potentially mine blocks at lower difficulty, which is what P2Pool did (they had blocks every 30 seconds with 20 times lower difficulty, so they had 20 times more blocks, but most of them were present only on P2Pool chain, and other sidechains can use the same trick if they want).

and therefore is like a block size increase?

Not really, unless you make it mandatory for a full node to follow that chain, but then, you need a successful soft-fork to do that. But in case of additional data, there are no new consensus rules behind that. Those data are just huge OP_NOPs, which means, no additional Script needs to be enforced. Which means, there is no need for full nodes to follow that data, and download it. They only stop at verifying signatures, all data behind them are posted separately, and are not processed by full nodes, because it is not needed to determine, if a transaction is valid or not.

If there was no incentive to mine the Ordinal Chain, then why try to find blocks there at all?

The incentive is the same as with mining Bitcoin. Which means, you can mine Bitcoin only, or mine Bitcoin, and your own chain, at the same time.

Note that every time, when you create a transaction, you can commit any data into each of your signature, without increasing the size of your transaction.

Edit: Satoshi described exactly, what is the incentive for mining BitDNS, and the same is true for every properly-created sidechain:

seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?

The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work.

While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work?

If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too.

You have one piece of work.  If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS.  In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree.  To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch.

Plus it would be better for the miners if Ordinals inscriptions stay in the Bitcoin blockchain/keep fees high.

Miners can accept fees as they please. If miners would want to increase minimal fees into 1000 satoshis per virtual byte, then they could just apply those rules, and not include transactions into blocks, if fees are insufficient. Or, the biggest N pools could just secretly agree to flood mempools with their own transactions, just to increase minimal fees (because then, they will get those fees back in their own blocks they mine).

fees would still be this high and worse if 1% of the population started using BTC on chain for daily payments

That's why the solution is to handle N users per coin. Which means, if you have 0.01 BTC transaction fee, and there is one user behind that, then it is quite high cost. But if there are 1000 users behind transaction of the same size, then each of them has to pay only 1000 satoshis.

And because batching N users behind N-of-N multisig is easier than combining N ordinals (because if you combine signatures, then their size is not increased), it should be sufficient to give regular users a tool to compete with Ordinals.

[cryptosize]

That's why the solution is to handle N users per coin. Which means, if you have 0.01 BTC transaction fee, and there is one user behind that, then it is quite high cost. But if there are 1000 users behind transaction of the same size, then each of them has to pay only 1000 satoshis.

And because batching N users behind N-of-N multisig is easier than combining N ordinals (because if you combine signatures, then their size is not increased), it should be sufficient to give regular users a tool to compete with Ordinals.

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody. Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

Exchanges already utilize batching, even though their fees are absurd most of the time.

[NotATether]

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.

So what I'm seeing basically is this:

1) Make up some crap, doesn't matter if it has a real utility or not
2) Market it to potential investors
3) Sell

And this is actually a widely used business model, from shit-tokens created by exchanges like FTX and ponzi schemes, to literally forging a business by making up statistics, models and financials and then sucker some black suits to acquire it.

No wonder why this is annoying for people who use Bitcoin for real stuff.

[vjudeu]

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody.

First, we have altcoins like Grin, that can show you, that it is possible to combine everything into one huge transaction, by using Pedersen Commitments.

Second, we have Schnorr signatures, where N-of-N multisig can happen behind a single Taproot address, and you can spend by key to achieve that.

Third, we have Full-RBF, which means, that if you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions, for example Alice->Bob->Charlie, then it is possible to write a replacement Alice->Charlie, and preserve the same fees and amounts. Then, the size of the transaction will be smaller, the fee will stay the same, so the feerate per byte will increase.

Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

It can be done, but some things are needed before. For example, you need a working tools in Bitcoin Core, to handle N-of-N multisig addresses on Taproot.

[cryptosize]

I'm curious to see how you're going implement this without forfeiting self-custody.

First, we have altcoins like Grin, that can show you, that it is possible to combine everything into one huge transaction, by using Pedersen Commitments.

Second, we have Schnorr signatures, where N-of-N multisig can happen behind a single Taproot address, and you can spend by key to achieve that.

Third, we have Full-RBF, which means, that if you have a chain of unconfirmed transactions, for example Alice->Bob->Charlie, then it is possible to write a replacement Alice->Charlie, and preserve the same fees and amounts. Then, the size of the transaction will be smaller, the fee will stay the same, so the feerate per byte will increase.

Seems like an interesting solution IF it could be implemented in a decentralized manner.

It can be done, but some things are needed before. For example, you need a working tools in Bitcoin Core, to handle N-of-N multisig addresses on Taproot.

Thanks for the detailed response.

GRIN (along with BEAM) use MimbleWimble, which is totally different compared to BTC. Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

[vjudeu]

Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

Yes, it is somewhat possible. Because it could require for example new sighashes. Which means, if you have a Pedersen Commitment, it looks like that:

Code:

rct=x*G+a*H(G)

rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)

rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G)

You can compare it to Schnorr signatures to see, that those things are similar. So, it could be possible, to for example take H(G) as the public key, which is revealed in the Taproot address, and then take some "x1" out of that, by providing a valid commitment. And that kind of construction could allow detaching any M people from N-of-N multisig, if it would be done properly.

By the way, some people from the mailing list think, that transactions can be smaller, than they currently are. For example, here is the latest mail about transaction compression: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2024-January/022269.html

[cryptosize]

Is it possible to bring that innovation in the BTC blockchain?

Yes, it is somewhat possible. Because it could require for example new sighashes. Which means, if you have a Pedersen Commitment, it looks like that:

Code:

rct=x*G+a*H(G)

rct1=x1*G+a1*H(G)
rct2=x2*G+a2*H(G)

rct=rct1+rct2=(x1+x2)*G+(a1+a2)*H(G)

You can compare it to Schnorr signatures to see, that those things are similar. So, it could be possible, to for example take H(G) as the public key, which is revealed in the Taproot address, and then take some "x1" out of that, by providing a valid commitment. And that kind of construction could allow detaching any M people from N-of-N multisig, if it would be done properly.

By the way, some people from the mailing list think, that transactions can be smaller, than they currently are. For example, here is the latest mail about transaction compression: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2024-January/022269.html

Thanks again!

It seems there's a lot of development waiting to be done in the BTC ecosystem, as long as it doesn't require a hard fork of course...

[vjudeu]

as long as it doesn't require a hard fork of course

A lot of things can be done as a soft-fork (or a no-fork, for example transaction compression should be a no-fork).

Because, if you think about it, then you can note, that it is possible to include only the coinbase transaction, and then change entirely the structure of the block. More about it: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

The nearest hard-fork will probably be related to block timestamps (because of year 2038 problem, or year 2106 problem).

[mikeywith]

So what I'm seeing basically is this:
1) Make up some crap, doesn't matter if it has a real utility or not
2) Market it to potential investors
3) Sell

Exactly as I explained above, it is that simple. It's more like a Ponzi scheme, with a very small group of people who actually believe these things are worth something. Value is subjective, and with all due respect to Leonardo da Vinci, I would not buy the Mona Lisa for $200 if I couldn't sell it for $300. Someone else who "thinks they can see some magic on that painting" might be willing to trade it for their kidney.

Lord Varys in Game of Thrones made an outstanding statement:

Power resides where men believe it resides.

I believe that:

Value resides where men believe it resides.

You can see the same thing in all these famous brands. Some people would pay half their salary to buy a white T-shirt made by XYZ or buy a $50,000 watch that isn't any more accurate or better looking than a $50 watch. But then someone managed to convince them that these items have intrinsic value aside from their utility, and thus people are willing to pay for that value even if they don't actually see it.

Ordinals are no different. You would find some people who genuinely believe that Ordinals are pure art worth a lot, and then you would find other people who want to take advantage of the first group by selling them those "valuable pictures." In the surrounding context, the majority of people involved are in it for money.

Ordinals won't be the first or last "lie" to sell to people. The new trend might be: No-History coins are worth 5x those with history. So XYZ pool would now start selling fresh coins. You send your 1 BTC to XYZ pool, and they would include your address in the coinbase transaction of the next block they find. You get your new special 0.1 BTC that has not been "used" before by anyone else. A brand new input tailor-made for the VIPs. I won't be surprised if many people buy into that B.S and make something out of nothing.

Greed is a part of human nature. We all feed off it, just viewing things differently. But by the end of the day, everyone is greedy to a certain extent. As long as greed exists, scams will exist too, and history will never be enough to prove to human beings that the next "big thing" will end terribly like the previous "big thing." People will keep acting greedy for the rest of their lives.


@vjudeu, is the improvement you're talking about going to be built into the blockchain? In other words, will my grandmother not have to undergo any technical process to manage her transactions with someone else? Will she need to calculate anything, or else her transaction will be stuck? BTC is pretty complicated for the average person in its current state. Being a tech person like you and most others in this forum might think everything is easy to learn, but to most other people, setting up a wallet is scary enough. I'd bet that 90% of users don't even care to verify if their wallet is suggesting the best fee rate when they send anything; they probably don't even know how to do that. So, anything that requires additional steps to perform a simple transaction is most likely going to fail.

[vjudeu]

is the improvement you're talking about going to be built into the blockchain?

I don't know, if it will be there. I know it is technically possible to do so. But along the road, there could be many different proposals, and I don't know upfront, which technical solution will win, and will be merged.

In other words, will my grandmother not have to undergo any technical process to manage her transactions with someone else?

It is always "blockchain first, clients second". Which means, that for example here and now, you can use different sighashes than SIGHASH_ALL. You can for example sign only the first input, and the first output, if you really want, and then move that signature to a different transaction, without invalidating it. But: having something supported on a protocol level is one thing, and having it supported by the client is another thing.

There are many things out there, which are possible, but are not yet supported by the clients, and they have to be implemented first. For example, K-of-N multisig on Taproot would be nice to have.

Will she need to calculate anything, or else her transaction will be stuck?

I don't think so, because if you for example sign your transaction, you just click "Sign" button, instead of computing SHA-256 of your data manually.

So, anything that requires additional steps to perform a simple transaction is most likely going to fail.

Of course, but getting to the working solution is a long process: first, you have some discussions, then you write a proposal, then it is discussed, when it comes to all of the details, and then there is a BIP. Later, there is some code to be merged, and it is discussed even further. And if that code is a no-fork, it can be just merged. If it is a soft-fork, then you have to reach consensus, which is hard. And if it is a hard-fork, then you need a very good justification, like "all old clients will stop working without that change in 2106".

But here, in this subforum, we are in a "Development & Technical Discussion" board. Which means, that I assume (and that assumption may be wrong), that people are somewhat familiar with the code, and how it works. And they usually are, because if they are not, then more general topics can be created in other boards, where you have discussions on a more general level. But: if you want to change something, then you have to touch the details, sooner or later, because "the devil is in the details", and for example I could accept Ordinals, if they would be implemented as a commitments, where each TapScript would start with OP_RETURN, to prevent those data from being pushed on-chain (or better, where such commitment would be hidden behind a signature, to be compatible with all existing address types, and not only with Taproot).

Edit:

BTC is pretty complicated for the average person in its current state.

If something is too complicated, it can be automated. And it can be more user-friendly, but it would require some effort to get there. And the biggest challenge is to find some programmer, who will want to do so. Because you know, for many developers, things are obvious. They start with zero knowledge, and when they start, this is the time, when they know, how to improve things. And then, they learn more, more, and more. And then, they know enough, to use it properly. And sometimes, they no longer feel the need to improve things to be even more user-friendly, because they just learned, how to handle all of that stuff. Which also means, that there is a huge potential for user-friendly wallets, and I think that market is not yet fully taken, and there is a lot of room for many improvements.

Also, I agree that BTC is more developer-friendly, than user-friendly. Technical construction of Bitcoin is what bring me there, because it is something, that you cannot see in a typical software, which was written before. But it is probably a good take for another topic, if it is not already created in some General Discussion board.

[joker_josue]

It has already been mentioned in other topics that if two or three large mining pools align themselves, they can achieve "ordinal" transactions with the sole purpose of increasing fees. Because in the end, they will always win, as the fees they are paying are for themselves.

I disagree , that assumption is partly flawed . If pools don't own the majority of hashrate under them , they are just throwing money down the drain . Miners get paid for their work , pools just get a percentage of the reward . And pools will not earn the reward of each block , only the percentage of their share over total hashrate over time.

Pools are like representatives of the miners who work with them. The higher the value of the mined block (base reward + fees), the more money everyone earns (miners and pool). Furthermore, only 2 pools represent +50% of the hash power. Therefore, the probability of undermining the block is much greater.

But, as I said, they shouldn't be doing that. Now, it is still a way to artificially increase fees (among others), whether with Ordinals or not.

Edit: Satoshi described exactly, what is the incentive for mining BitDNS, and the same is true for every properly-created sidechain:

Satoshi gave the recipe for everything to work in a stable and suitable way for everyone. But people prefer to reinvent the wheel...

It can be said that it is not mandatory to follow everything Satoshi said, as Bitcoin is not his. Yes it is true. But, I think there is nothing better than following the project creator's instructions, so that things go as smoothly as possible.

This is the same as buying a washing machine, and not wanting to follow the manufacturer's instructions, and instead of washing clothes you put dishes in the machine. Would the dishes be washed? Yes, but a lot of things would be broken.  

[highalch]

It can be said that it is not mandatory to follow everything Satoshi said, as Bitcoin is not his. Yes it is true. But, I think there is nothing better than following the project creator's instructions, so that things go as smoothly as possible.

I hate to break this to you, but Satoshi wrote about a peer-to-peer electronic cash system, and strictly following the whitepaper there's no mention that we should make bitcoin digital gold. Yet we did. We talk about store of value and price all the time, while the initial intention could've just been a medium of excange.

My only concern with inscriptions is that I don't see how on Earth would they help general bitcoin adoption, while I transact less on the base layer ever since fees are sky high. Inscriptors are free to do whatever they want unless they break the system and make it clogged for everyone else.