(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[DooMAD]

This part is strange: many people want bigger blocks, but they don't want to run their own nodes to handle all of that traffic. Why? If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so.

It's just the something-for-nothing brigade.  Happy for others to bear the burden, while getting a free ride.  And yet they don't realise that's precisely why blocksize hasn't magically increased just because they're moaning about it.

Pure sense of entitlement.  But it won't get them anywhere.  Tangible and practical factors will always take precedence over the noise of the rabble.  

Those securing the chain will almost certainly make the choice based on the impact it has on them.  The opinions of freeloaders won't be part of that assessment.

[1714654056]

1714654056

[LoyceV]

Currently, the size of the whole UTXO set is not limited by consensus rules, but I guess some people really want to abuse that, and force developers to introduce some limits there.

How? You can't really put a limit on UTXOs, that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

[vjudeu]

that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

It depends on underlying scripts. Because in the past, people mainly used single-key scripts, so a single person owned a single coin. Now, 2-of-2 multisig is quite popular, because of the Lightning Network, and in general, it seems to be a basic building block for many second layers. However, it doesn't have to stop there: since Taproot, you can make N-of-N multisig, behind a single public key. In that case, if you want to introduce someone else to the network, you could change it into (N+1)-of-(N+1) multisig, and that wouldn't increase the size of the UTXO set.

[Easteregg69]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

What. You gonna bring the Catholic with 11 children's up? Raving lunatic.

that would mean someone can't create a new UTXO unless someone else spends one.

It depends on underlying scripts. Because in the past, people mainly used single-key scripts, so a single person owned a single coin. Now, 2-of-2 multisig is quite popular, because of the Lightning Network, and in general, it seems to be a basic building block for many second layers. However, it doesn't have to stop there: since Taproot, you can make N-of-N multisig, behind a single public key. In that case, if you want to introduce someone else to the network, you could change it into (N+1)-of-(N+1) multisig, and that wouldn't increase the size of the UTXO set.

Your on another level. I be excused and find my beer. Cheers.

Mod note: Consecutive posts merged

[pooya87]

just imagine the day when everyone has 50TB hdds (yes that day is going to come) and bitcoin is only using 80GB per year. that seems like a serious problem but maybe no one else thinks so.

That's just unrelated to what I brought up and also unrelated to this topic which is about the Ordinals Attack. Otherwise I don't entire disagree with what you have in mind.
I have always said that at some point in near future Bitcoin needs a solid capacity increase where the block size is also increased. That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

[vjudeu]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Guess what: you don't need a blockchain to achieve that. If you want "uncensored communication", then what you probably care about, is to deliver your messages to your recipient. I guess you don't want to also broadcast your neighbours' conversations, and keep track of that. And there are some applications, which can provide it, and the common factor is that none of them use blockchain. Because you don't need it. You don't need "double-spending resistance" on your conversations. If Alice will say "hi", and Bob will reply with "hello", you don't need to keep track of that, to make sure, that nobody said "hello" twice.

Also note, that when Satoshi tried to bootstrap the first nodes, then he just used IRC, an existing communication protocol, which was there long before Bitcoin, and which you can use for "uncensored communication" even today. And also, he used SMTP (e-mail), another existing communication protocol. Which means, that if you say "I need instant communication", then the answer is not "BRC-20", but rather something like "IRC". And if you say "I want to receive messages, when I am offline", then again, you could use something like "SMTP", instead of "BRC-20".

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

[larry_vw_1955]

This part is strange: many people want bigger blocks, but they don't want to run their own nodes to handle all of that traffic. Why?

the same reason that end users of any product don't want or shouldn't have to involve themselves in how the back end works. if they pay the fee they expect the service.

If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so. And the same is true for Ordinals: people want to use existing network (like Bitcoin), and put their data here, instead of maintaining their own chain, and participating honestly in all costs of storing additional data, on their own chain.

lets not try and force people into running a bitcoin node for being critical of bitcon's capacity limits. as internet speeds, storage space and cpu power goes up so should bitcoin's transactions per second. and i'm not saying those should include people looking to store their home videos or pictures of monkeys.

That's just unrelated to what I brought up and also unrelated to this topic which is about the Ordinals Attack. Otherwise I don't entire disagree with what you have in mind.
I have always said that at some point in near future Bitcoin needs a solid capacity increase where the block size is also increased. That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

at least someone agrees with me. but back to the ordinals attack. it's a problem bitcoin caused for itself. so bitcoin needs to fix it. if not then there's no one to complain to.

[DooMAD]

If you are the one who wants big blocks, then you should also be the one, who runs your node 24/7, and shows everyone: "See? I can handle that without any problems!". I wonder, what is the reason behind willing to increase the maximum block size, and not willing to participate in the costs of doing so.

lets not try and force people into running a bitcoin node for being critical of bitcon's capacity limits.

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

You'll find that expecting altruism from total strangers is a swift road to disappointment.  

[larry_vw_1955]

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

i don't owe them anything either.

You'll find that expecting altruism from total strangers is a swift road to disappointment.  

yes i'm very disappointed in bitcoin how it only does 7 tps.

[ABCbits]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server?

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee.

[DooMAD]

It's nothing to do with "force".  It's about contribution.  Some people are already doing more than you, but rather than offering to do anything yourself, you're asking them to do even more.  If you're putting in zero effort, why should they increase theirs?  They don't owe you anything.

i don't owe them anything either.

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

[Wind_FURY]

I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.

Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server?

That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone.

Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/

Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee.

Although that would truly make it cheaper and more efficient to open channels in Lightning, the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin. They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain. So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin. At the minimum, the transactions in those channels would not be mere IOUs of the cryprocurrency it's supposed to represent.

[vjudeu]

the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin

It depends on your implementation. If you have some data, which can be turned into valid Bitcoin transaction, and broadcasted into Bitcoin network, then it is technically Bitcoin.

They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain.

I wonder, why some people think, that transactions, which they create on LN, and are saved only on their local nodes, are Bitcoin, but if you put exactly the same transactions on the sidechain, then they suddenly are not. You can use exactly the same bytes, and just put them on sidechain, so the only difference is that instead of keeping things locally, you will share more of them with other nodes. But the data behind all of that, could contain exactly the same bytes. And if something is secret (for example some penalty transactions), then it could be encrypted, and shared, so if some node will see some old channel state, then that node will decrypt it, and act as a watchtower, by sharing the penalty transaction with everyone else.

So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin.

So, your argument is that "the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin", and your solution is to specifically use some altcoin, which definitely "would not be Bitcoin"?

[larry_vw_1955]

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I think there's a distinction to be made between asking more of people and asking more of bitcoin. I was asking more of bitcoin. And I think its a fair thing to ask. We'll see what happens in the future.

[DooMAD]

There was no implication that you do.  The crux of the matter is, you aren't in a position to ask more of them than they already contribute.  That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

I think there's a distinction to be made between asking more of people and asking more of bitcoin.  

There really isn't.  It's quite literally a network of people.  It doesn't work without them.

Ever notice how people refer to it as a "peer-to-peer network"?  Who do you think the peers are if not people?  

Asking more of Bitcoin is asking more of those who secure the network.  You're only ever going to get what they are prepared to offer.

I think its a fair thing to ask.

Those who aren't running a full node have no input in the matter.  You're effectively a passenger.  It isn't fair for a passenger who isn't driving to ask more of the driver who is giving them a free ride.  They're the one paying for everything.

[larry_vw_1955]

Those who aren't running a full node have no input in the matter.  You're effectively a passenger.  It isn't fair for a passenger who isn't driving to ask more of the driver who is giving them a free ride.  They're the one paying for everything.

well i certainly never thought of it as i'm being given a free ride when i paid a transaction fee to the network. maybe i need to learn how to submit my transactions directly a particular miner if that's the case because i dont want to hear people running full nodes complaining that they aren't getting compensated. who would want to have to listen to that?

 

and as for ordinals, i dont really feel like people running full nodes had any input into the matter of their hard drives being used to store monkeys. so at least in that case, more was demanded and required of them than many of them wanted to fulfill yet they had no choice, right?

[DooMAD]

and as for ordinals, i dont really feel like people running full nodes had any input into the matter of their hard drives being used to store monkeys. so at least in that case, more was demanded and required of them than many of them wanted to fulfill yet they had no choice, right?

And by asking them to increase throughput, they could be at risk of storing a larger volume of monkeys.  Storage and bandwidth requirements are always increasing, but if throughput is higher, then those costs increase at a faster rate.  So perhaps you understand their reluctance now?

[Wind_FURY]

the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin

It depends on your implementation. If you have some data, which can be turned into valid Bitcoin transaction, and broadcasted into Bitcoin network, then it is technically Bitcoin.

I don't know what you're inventing, but if it's from a sidechain that merely represents a Bitcoin, then it's an IOU of a Bitcoin.

They would merely pegged assets from the sidechain.

I wonder, why some people think, that transactions, which they create on LN, and are saved only on their local nodes, are Bitcoin, but if you put exactly the same transactions on the sidechain, then they suddenly are not. You can use exactly the same bytes, and just put them on sidechain, so the only difference is that instead of keeping things locally, you will share more of them with other nodes. But the data behind all of that, could contain exactly the same bytes. And if something is secret (for example some penalty transactions), then it could be encrypted, and shared, so if some node will see some old channel state, then that node will decrypt it, and act as a watchtower, by sharing the penalty transaction with everyone else.

OK, I may be wrong. But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.

So for that matter, I would much rather have Lightning on Litecoin.

So, your argument is that "the transactions in those channels would not be Bitcoin", and your solution is to specifically use some altcoin, which definitely "would not be Bitcoin"?

The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin. The debate is not Bitcoin vs. "use some altcoin".

[vjudeu]

But from my understanding of how the two-way peg works in sidechains is, on-chain Bitcoins are locked, then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted in the sidechain representing Bitcoin.

By using the same words, you could also say that about Lightning Network: "on-chain Bitcoins are locked" (behind 2-of-2 multisig), and also "then an equivalent amount of tokens are minted" (but here, it may be even worse, because of conversions between satoshis and millisatoshis, so you can "create millisatoshis out of thin air", because you cannot finalize them on-chain in the current version).

So, if you would have 2-of-2 multisig addresses on the sidechain, then what would be the difference? Because obviously, if you would have single-key addresses on the sidechain, then coins could be easily turned into IOU. However, if you would use exactly the same bytes as in LN, then where is the moment, when it is "not Bitcoin"?

The argument is rather than have an IOU representing a coin, I would like to have the actual coin.

It only depends on your spending conditions. If you have single-key address, then it can be turned into IOU, but it also has some use cases (for example as a test network). However, if you use the same scripts, as in LN, then where is that IOU?

[larry_vw_1955]

And by asking them to increase throughput, they could be at risk of storing a larger volume of monkeys.  Storage and bandwidth requirements are always increasing, but if throughput is higher, then those costs increase at a faster rate.  So perhaps you understand their reluctance now?

yeah i guess so. the more storage requirements you place upon people running full nodes, the more centralized bitcoin becomes.