Bitcoin Ordinals on the edge of getting canceled

[pawel7777]

Ordinals may've been created in bad faith to destroy Bitcoin in the long run. Do you think if this was done in good faith, the creator would've already chosen a sidechain or the LN for Ordinals inscriptions? BTC was already struggling with high network load a few years ago, so why add more fuel to the fire?

I do understand where you're coming from, but Bitcoin is meant to be "anti-fragile". If we have to wonder if certain types of transactions are done in a good or bad faith, that's a sign something doesn't work as it should.

I never understood bitcoiners attacking users for spamming, stress-testing or now for using ordinals. If they expose Bitcoin's vulnerability - that's a good thing. Any issues need to get fixed and we can't rely on everyone's playing nice.

[DooMAD]

Any issues need to get fixed and we can't rely on everyone's playing nice.

We have to be careful when someone proposes "fixing" what isn't necessarily broken.  Sometimes inaction is a valid action.  

People were talking about ordinals in the same way someone might suggest that a fool-proof cure for brain tumours is to amputate everything from the neck up.  It gets rid of the tumour, but it's not exactly ideal for the patient.    


//EDIT:  in response to franky1 below:

Where's your code, hypocrite?  And why do you think people shouldn't be permitted to run pruned nodes if they want to?  Nazi piece of shit.  It's as though you only exist to take away the freedoms of others.

[franky1]

Any issues need to get fixed and we can't rely on everyone's playing nice.

We have to be careful when someone proposes "fixing" what isn't necessarily broken.  Sometimes inaction is a valid action.  

People were talking about ordinals in the same way someone might suggest that a fool-proof cure for brain tumours is to amputate everything from the neck up.  It gets rid of the tumour, but it's not exactly ideal for the patient.    

code is great because.. guess what its code.
core actually can write code that looks for rules/formatting requirements of tx/blockdata,, as it should do.

EG if something is in a witness it can actually be set to actually need to meet a specification/format/structure, where the witness has to serve a purpose such as proving the spend of a utxo (its purpose)

its not about "just cut off a witnesses head" its actually to make sure the witness has a proper recognisable head rather than a dead weight corpse with a monkeys face stitched on.
speaking of cutting off witnesses heads. you were the one advocating for prunning data.. which in of itself is centralising the blockchain by having less nodes collating and keeping full bloackchain data to serve out to other peers.


just letting junk in is not helpful to the bitcoin network. and again code can be made to actually do things. stop pretending its impossible to use code in a digital network.

but i do have to laugh that you want people to continue to be able to spend 1sat plus a monkey meme to not be examined for formatting standards, nor rejected..  and just allowed to proceed into a block..
..yet you dont want actual bitcoins wanting to spend less than 100000sat($27) on a pizza or 10000sat($2.70) on a coffee to use bitcoin, you want those people to be rejected and not seen in the blockchain..

but here is the funny part.. you pretend its about byte bloat of too many people transacting $27 or $2.70 values
but guess what

someone spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 10000sat
                                    outchange 99990000sat
vs spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 99990000sat
                                    outchange 10000sat

is the same number of bytes
yep each value is the same number of bytespace no matter how much value is in those bytes

so when you are the one trying to censor someones "small payment" pretending its about "conserving" blockspace. you have no clue about the bytes used per output value

you also seemto go against your own pervceived conservatism by not caring if a 1in 2 out tx with the "small value spend" then attached 3.96mb of bloated meme. so that debunks your whole byte conservativism game.. when you then flip your narrative your your dumb and illinformed version of "censorship resistance"


so here is a game for you to play..

look at any transaction whether its as far back as satoshis spend to hal(10btc). or more recently someone buying a pizza..
look at a Vout payment and take the "value" amount and look at it in byte form

all values are the same length of bytes used no matter how much sats/fiat value it is in human readable display format
yep the bytes of units in a tx is the same..
so stop with your mantra of wanting to censor pizza/coffee spends and yet be anti-censor about 3.95mb junk memes. because it makes you look dumb

then realise code actually can check and validate tx data meets specifications/format where witness space is to be used for proving a spend of a utxo.
stop pretending bitcoin does not need code to run. and realise bitcoin should use code to run. to keep it clean and efficient

..
i know you want to argue that it will make future features not be able to just trojan in .. but that too is a good thing. we need to get back to having nodes ready to validate new features BEFORE new features activate so that the network stays secure with node readiness to validate the data.. as that is how the network stays secure. by having nodes fully ready to validate active rules
not some hodge podge network where that are a dozen different tx formats hardly any nodes understand but just let through as "is valid" without any format/specification/validity checks, or even not knowing if they have proved they have spent the value they were meant to(being treated as anyone can spend)

[Abiky]

I do understand where you're coming from, but Bitcoin is meant to be "anti-fragile". If we have to wonder if certain types of transactions are done in a good or bad faith, that's a sign something doesn't work as it should.

I never understood bitcoiners attacking users for spamming, stress-testing or now for using ordinals. If they expose Bitcoin's vulnerability - that's a good thing. Any issues need to get fixed and we can't rely on everyone's playing nice.

I know many blame Ordinals inscriptions (including myself), but the truth is this is more of a feature than a bug. Bitcoin's openess allows anyone to build anything on it as they wish. Restricting or blocking something you don't like, greatly goes against Bitcoin's true value proposition. This would be introducing censorship into the Blockchain. Isn't that what banks do? We should let the community decide the best path forward for the cryptocurrency. Not a small number of developers working on the project. If the majority votes to abolish Ordinals, democracy has spoken. Otherwise, it would be utter authoritarianism. We can't predict the future, so let's hope for the best. Just my opinion

[pawel7777]

We have to be careful when someone proposes "fixing" what isn't necessarily broken.  Sometimes inaction is a valid action.

That's true. I'm all in favour of a more conservative approach and not rushing any big changes, but, at the same time, I'm not a fan of denying the reality and trying to spin obvious flaws as features.
If, for example, we have a constant bottleneck of transactions, then it's an obvious problem, as some transactions would never get confirmed, meaning Bitcoin won't be reliable for transacting and will only be good for trading on centralised exchanges.

And fixing the problem does not necessarily mean making changes to the layer-1, the solution could very well be to improve layer-2 functionality and either move ordinals/smaller transactions there.

We should let the community decide the best path forward for the cryptocurrency. Not a small number of developers working on the project. If the majority votes to abolish Ordinals, democracy has spoken. Otherwise, it would be utter authoritarianism. We can't predict the future, so let's hope for the best. Just my opinion

I don't quite share your enthusiasm for democracy. I don't think that 100 random idiots should have more say than 10 highly skilled and experienced developers.

[BitSwapNow]

I think it is good for BTC in general. Gives it more of a competitive edge against eth and other NFT coins. I beleive it can bog down the network however but it will lead to greater design and speed and implementations to the blockchain in general i feel so YES!