Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[alani123]

It looks like somebody has made a bot to stifle BRC-20 transactions:

A bot that’s designed to stifle the creation of new BRC-20s re-emerged on the Bitcoin blockchain. Its pseudonymous creator, @rot13maxi on Twitter, told Decrypt that he didn’t do it. But he did share the code with someone else yesterday.

Dubbed the Sophon, the bot looks for incoming Bitcoin transactions that involve Ordinals and “snipes” certain ones before they can become fully processed. Paying a fee to effectively jump the line in Bitcoin’s queue, the bot foils fresh BRC-20s by frontrunning their ticker names.

Should solve a lot of the fee problems we're having right now.

Speaking in smart contract terms, this just seems like a front-running bot. It's very common in smart contract enabled chains, anything ERC-based.
Basicaly whenever someone would execute a token swap through an automated market maker's smart contract, if it was a valuable transaction, someone could execute what's called a sandwich attack, essentially sandwiching a transaction between theirs and raising the price before they buy, only to sell again at a higher price after they do, all in the same block.

This being done with BRC-20 tokens doesn't stifle their volume on chain, only increases it. It raises required sats/vByte to get in each block and also incentivizes token creators to get more competitive with how they deploy tokens. This bot might take out a few tickers here and there before there's any trading on them, but eventually the BRC creators will find ways around it, and that would create a fee war. If the BRC craze continues we might see sats/vByte requirements like never before.

[pooya87]

I literally gave an example of an Ordinal-like transaction funding 160-bit addresses, and treating these as chunks of information instead. You will have no way to telling if that is an Ordinal or a regular transaction. And at that point, it's even worse, because full nodes now need to keep worthless UTXO.

If they choose that route and willingly limit the size of the junk they are injecting into the chain to 160 bit (20 bytes) chunks, we've successfully prevented spam. Because that is nowhere near enough for them to create the parallel market to scam people with ergo killing the incentive and halting the spam.
You see, this type of scam only works when they can show the idiots something like the monkey picture on their website or something complicated that the newbies unfamiliar with technical stuff think is actually an "NFT token". That is why they buy into the scam. Otherwise they can not fool them with 20 bytes.

Not to mention OP_RETURN is 4 times bigger and can hold 640 bits (80 bytes)!

BTW right now their junk is also creating dust outputs bloating the UTXO database.
https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&from=now-2y&to=now

[BlackHatCoiner]

If they choose that route and willingly limit the size of the junk they are injecting into the chain to 160 bit (20 bytes) chunks, we've successfully prevented spam.

An OP_RETURN output can definitely contain more non-OP information than a standard segwit native transaction, but the problem remains. People can still inject images as chunks of addresses.

Because that is nowhere near enough for them to create the parallel market to scam people with ergo killing the incentive and halting the spam.

Nowhere near it? Lol. We're talking about people who waste thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin for transaction fees, and you think the same cannot repeat if there appears to be enough demand?

That is why they buy into the scam. Otherwise they can not fool them with 20 bytes.

This is another level of speculation. If you can fool people into buying "digital images", I'm pretty sure there will be some dumb asses who will buy the same concept under the "chunks of addresses". It's the same piece of information in the end.

Not to mention OP_RETURN is 4 times bigger and can hold 640 bits (80 bytes)!

They could also split it in 256-bit chunks, as with multi-sig segwit.

[digaran]

So let me get this straight, there was some blank space in Bitcoin TX field from day one, correct? Can we all agree that Bitcoin is barely holding on to be just a simple decentralized crypto currency? If you agree then we can move to the second part, why do we need such blank space where people can inject anything other than TX data if we are not using it the right way? Wait I know the answer, NFT/ordinal is using that space the right way in the eyes of such ponzi participants, right?
So the problem is with the way it was designed, because I haven't seen anything useful occupying that empty space other than garbage!

I believe in 2016-2017 the same arguments were made, and they will be made regardless, at the end the world at large doesn't really care about these things, and whatever we say won't change the politics. I mean look at franky1, single handedly trying to change everything, without any success to even change one thing.😉

[franky1]

I mean look at franky1, single handedly trying to change everything, without any success to even change one thing.😉

im not changing anything. thats the thing the trolls dont understand. my posts are opinions i make from my own mind. on a DISCUSSION forum
opinions that core decided they dont want to hear about. opinions the core idolising trolls dont want even talked about

i dont release code because any code i do release will be hit with REKT campaigns by trolls idolising the core roadmap of road congestion adoration

i simply highlight the issues and debunk the troll narrative. this after all is a DISCUSSION forum

once you realise why everyone else ends up shutting up due to troll attacks by core cult clan worshipers*
once you realise why there is no other dev group offering a brand that offers protocol level upgrade proposals
once you realise why the forum moderators are also core devs
once you realise that same core dev group now only want self-review from within their team and argue if any outsider scrutinises them

you will start to see the bigger problem of the bigger issue of why these bugs are not fixed

by the way, the trolls do ask me to write code. not because they want an option the community can use to prove bitcoin is open.. but to REKT it and have more drama for them to entertain themselves with to prove their loyalty to a central point of failure


*topics like this one prove that many people are not content with how things are. there are more topics about wanting onchain scaling more topics about wanting the ordinals crap to stop.. then there are topics idolising subnetworks as the solution, or topics praising that ordinals should stay

[buwaytress]

Don't use rollback if you don't know what it means ha.

Look, not a fan of Ordinals but the whole thing demonstrates the thing about Bitcoin. That freedom to use it as you please (and the dealing with the consequences of that).

bitcoin 2009-2017 was never "use it as you please", no one was able to just broadcast a litecoin transaction and have it accepted in a block
things like the 4mb junk WAS not even possible
heck even a tx being more then 20% of the 1mb blockspace was not even a thing before 2017

dont pretend this junk is part of bitcoin. its an abuse of a buggy feature added in recent years. its a abuse not a feature
bitcoin was trusted due to rules.. relaxing them to allow junk is not a feature bitcoin was intended for

Obviously, when I say "use it as you please", within the rules allowed. I didn't say it can be "used for anything you want". I fear now if I host you I should never say "make yourself feel at home" and resort to pedantic communication...

I don't like some things allowable in Bitcoin. I agree with you, there are things I believe constitute abuse. Ordinals right up there with dust spam, if not entirely in intent but in result. But are you saying, let's pretend these things aren't a part of Bitcoin? Pretend abuse isn't a part of any system with rules?

I still think, being a pure normie, these things sort themselves out. If I find it becomes too big a problem, I ditch it. Like I did PayPal for Bitcoin. I'm far, far from there.

[franky1]

Obviously, when I say "use it as you please", within the rules allowed. I didn't say it can be "used for anything you want". I fear now if I host you I should never say "make yourself feel at home" and resort to pedantic communication...

I don't like some things allowable in Bitcoin. I agree with you, there are things I believe constitute abuse. Ordinals right up there with dust spam, if not entirely in intent but in result. But are you saying, let's pretend these things aren't a part of Bitcoin? Pretend abuse isn't a part of any system with rules?

I still think, being a pure normie, these things sort themselves out. If I find it becomes too big a problem, I ditch it. Like I did PayPal for Bitcoin. I'm far, far from there.

funny think is im the one with the opinion rules are needed.. your the one opening your house up to wrecklessness

if you opened your house up as a airBnB host, i would love to see the before and after pictures.. and then see you not repair your home. but just walk away leaving it dilapidated

your mindset to thinking ordinals will sort itself out and that ordinals is part of the "make yourself at home" mindset you have.. is just a mindset of dont fix your home dont maintain your home, just let your home sort itself out when you start hearing cracking and wind between the cracks.. imagine what happens to your home with that mindset.

bitcoin WAS a great innovation because code created rules to actually check and validate stuff.. the relaxing of the rules is not a feature

much like having a bolted lock on your house front door. securing you for years. then one year removing the lock so anyone can comein and make themselves at home.. is not a secure system

and no bitcoin is not self encoding network of AI. it actually requires dev involvement. so again "let it sort itself out" is suggesting dont ask for a repairman, dont fix the plumbing, dont replace the broken door locks just let things fix themselves.. see how far that gets you, and i would not want to be a guest inside that home(you woul d never get repeat customers if you advertised your home on airBnB)

i do laugh at some of the other trolls that have the same "make yourself at home" mindset, where they say analogy wise, 'there is no point replacing the door locks for better locks. trespassers can still break in via the 80mm bathroom window making 200trips to get what they want.. so lets just leave the front door open to make their lives super easy'

[alani123]

I still think, being a pure normie, these things sort themselves out. If I find it becomes too big a problem, I ditch it. Like I did PayPal for Bitcoin. I'm far, far from there.

We have to think that this is the reason many people are keeping their BTC in exchanges though. When you are a "normie" and don't have a lot of money, if you ever want to move BTC and the transaction is 20$ in TX fees, you'll just sell your BTC and transfer it in some other currency. So having BTC in a wallet you control can end up costlier which dissuades many people from using BTC properly with self custody.

If we're just of the "stacking sats" mentality and never use BTC for transactional purposes it's hard for us to notice this. But for the many people that want to do small investing for wealth keeping for practical purposes such as defending from inflation in developing countries, fees like the current ones make bitcoin use, especially in self-custody wallets, prohibitive.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

This trash being inscribed on chain is going to be worthless tokens in just a few months. I can't fathom that we're standing idly by watching this all unfold. Please let's all agree that it's time to end ordinals.

What are we to do exactly? You only talked about a need to do something, but did not suggest what we should do, so I personally will be glad if you can suggest things to be done as i myself lack ideas.

But then, based on my personal understanding, the bitcoin blockchain is completely decentralized as we know it, which simply means that there is absolutely no way for use to wipe off or out a project built on the blockchain, we all will have to bear the effect of their presence on the bitcoin network.

And besides, the current high fees is only affecting us, not the miners, in fact, for the bitcoin miners, this is an opportunity for them to make some really good money for themselves. So, for with very little amount of bitcoin, the best advice is to avoid on-chain transactions at the moment, at least, until the fees comes back down again, or better still, use the lightening network or alternative chains for emergency transactions.

[digaran]

1MB block size increase every 4 years is the least they can offer the community IMO, but that never happened, I mean 256KB per year won't pressure anyone, but even if you want to move to side chains LN etc, who is going to manage all that extra data? Obviously those who profit by maintaining LN  channels, and if this stalemate of not increasing the block size is to buy time to push other agendas, well it's not working. I'm not saying ohhh scam ohhhh, NO, I'm saying it's not working.

And who says ord/whatever they call them, are going to be with us no matter what?  They just built a huge toilet when they were founding the infrastructure, now it seems pedestrians see that as an invitation and come to dump their garbage from time to time, since this house has no doors, apparantly janitors are either asleep or incompetent.
Some might argue that if you want to see what would happen to BTC if we had bigger blocks, take a look at BCH etc, of course none of us wants to become an abomination like them, but we don't want to stay retarded either, however if there are no plans to increase the block size, GIVE us working and safe alternatives.

......... in search of such alternatives............ WELL, don't look I couldn't find any.

[franky1]

But then, based on my personal understanding, the bitcoin blockchain is completely decentralized as we know it, which simply means that there is absolutely no way for use to wipe off or out a project built on the blockchain, we all will have to bear the effect of their presence on the bitcoin network.

the ledger is decentralised
the ability to self custody your value is somewhat decentralised (yet many prefer custodians centralised exchanges)
however the devs(yes bitcoin is code and code is wrote by devs) is centrally (at its CORE) controlled by its namesake CORE

they didnt choose CORE randomly. they didnt slogan "bitcoins reference client" meaninglessly. there was alot of bribery and sponsorship and campaigning to get that control where other brands get REKT if they dare propose protocol changes CORE dislike

so its CORE that need to fix THEIR bug

[franky1]

Obviously those who profit by maintaining LN  channels, and if this stalemate of not increasing the block size is to buy time to push other agendas, well it's not working. I'm not saying ohhh scam ohhhh, NO, I'm saying it's not working.

thats the other sponsored motivations.. you can see it with "greenlight"  and other paid for "software as a service" offerings the devs have promoted. they want bitcoin to be clunky and headachy so they can offer paid services to manage..
yep core devs motivated to offer centralised services people need to pay middle men for.. who'd have thought!

even many core devs mention how offering just blockchain data "should" become a paid for service.. rather then thinking about how to make transactions lean again.. to allow more utility scaling per block

[gunhell16]

You can not roll back the Bitcoin blockchain and if Bitcoin community do this, Bitcoin blockchain will no longer be considered as better than Ethereum blockchain or many shit coin blockchains.

Each mining pools, nodes can have their settings to exclude transactions from Ordinals but if they want to do it. Miners get benefit from more expensive transaction fee, higher fee rate because they confirm transactions and get transaction fees.

Reason to roll back the Bitcoin blockchain?
It does not make sense because a Bitcoin block includes many transactions and transactions for Ordinals, BRC20 tokens are one of many in a block.

We know that ordinals cannot be modified once they have been erased from the blockchain. Furthermore, destroying the transaction in bitcoin is too expensive.

Now, what you claim about us being unable to roll back the bitcoin blockchain is based on my knowledge, or technically, it is still feasible to do so; it's just too complicated and disruptive. This demands a great deal of collaboration from independent miners and nodes.

*Historical Rollback of Bitcoin

[serveria.com]

Currently as we speak, bitcoin's blockchain is clogged by transactions because ORDI a shitcoin related to so called "inscriptions" creating NFT like things on-chain for bitcoin.

Are we to forget how the blocksize wars took place circa 2015 because some developers thought everything above 1MB for blocks was too much decentralization? Bitcoin lost many developers and fans due to this debacle and was set back quite a bit. We now have 4MB blocks with SegWit and a literal shitcoin riding on-chain and clogging our blocks.

This trash being inscribed on chain is going to be worthless tokens in just a few months. I can't fathom that we're standing idly by watching this all unfold. Please let's all agree that it's time to end ordinals.

Edit: PLEASE READ I need to clarify this. By roll-back ordinals I didn't mean to actually roll back the bitcoin blockchain. Just to prevent the ability for them to be created from now on.

Yes, I agree that shite should be stopped ASAP. Just a small example: several days ago I was trying to send a small amount from one of my wallets to another. I started with ~30sat/byte fee suggested by my wallet. As the tx didn't move I bumped the fee to ~60sat/b, ~120sat/b and eventually to 200+sat/b which was roughly half of the amount I sent. All due to some retarded token fans sending d*ck pics to the blockchain. Is that ok?   

[pooya87]

If they choose that route and willingly limit the size of the junk they are injecting into the chain to 160 bit (20 bytes) chunks, we've successfully prevented spam.

An OP_RETURN output can definitely contain more non-OP information than a standard segwit native transaction, but the problem remains. People can still inject images as chunks of addresses.

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible. If they try splitting the data into 20-byte chunks (or any other method) that already introduces a lot of complications and they will soon face old limits, for example in this case there is the standard transaction size which limits the number of outputs that tx can have or it won't be relayed...

Nowhere near it? Lol. We're talking about people who waste thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin for transaction fees, and you think the same cannot repeat if there appears to be enough demand?

Maybe you are right but I don't think it can gain the same level of hype.

[Wind_FURY]

it is a permissionless system.

its not permissionless..  seriously stop using braindead buzzwords of your forum daddy.. he has no clue

consensus is CONSENT of the masses
if it was permissionless you wont need my permission to take my coins.. but reality is you do need my permission via my signature and i dont give you permission to even come anywhere near my wealth.

if it was permissionless blockdata would have no rules, no conditions, whereby litecoin, dogecoin and ethereum transactions would be on bitcoins blockchain and no one can stop it.. reality they are not because there are rules.. bitcoin does not give permission to create/settle altcoins

bitcoin is code. code creates rules.. conditions and policies.

LEARN BITCOIN not forum-daddy buzzwords .. he is gaslighting you and making you sound stupid

 

Stop making shit up, ser. You're changing the context, and changing what it means when someone says "Bitcoin is a permissionles system".

No one needs permission to download Bitcoin Core, post his/her public address to accept Bitcoins, then spend them in the Dark Markets to buy Fentanyl.

Stop Gaslighting, frankandbeans.

[BlackHatCoiner]

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible.

Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

[nutildah]

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

[franky1]

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content

[Wind_FURY]

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible.

Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

That's a good suggestion. An anonymous user called shoalinfry did it before, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Why not one of the more technical people in the forum? That's how some changes are heard, with enough support from the community.

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.

I believe they would be the same as us in BitcoinTalk - mixed reactions from both sides of the debate.

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

But the debate might also be whether it truly is, or is it truly not an issue.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content