Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[philipma1957]

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.

Which is why BTC maxers are pissed.  Basically scrypt is helped out bigly by this and there is a ton of pow gear involved with scrypt.  So there are people with serious money that benefit by clogging the BTC blockchain.

I see this high fee pattern repeating over and over and over and over again.

As it forces people to look at other POW coins. such as LTC/Doge.

there is 680th of doge miners or 75,000 L7 machines worth about 314.16 million usd

that is about 7% of btc machines value as there are about 4,670,000 100th machines on sha256 worth 1200 each

5.604 billion.

Ignoring this dynamic is not working as those guys will also have a vested interest in jacking up BTC fees via clogging the btc blockchain.

LTC+ Doge pre power daily mining earnings are 1.215 million

BTC pre power daily  mining earnings are 33.3 million

BTC is soon to hit its ½ ing this means earnings for miners drop in the short term.

SO this dynamic never goes away.

BTW if you think 6.25 reward coins earned with 2.75 in added fees is fucked up (not for miners) but for others

wait till

3.125 reward coins and 2.85 in added fees starts happening.   It will the economics of mining are going to make it happen.  And other mined coins will fee the spam on the BTC chain as they earn more money by doing it.

[1715344260]

1715344260

[DooMAD]

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.

This again?  Really?  

No one needs your permission to opt in to new rules via softfork
No one needs your permission to develop off-chain features
No one needs your permission to disconnect another node from their node
And (as made evident by this topic) no one needs your permission inject non-transactional data into the chain.

Seems pretty permissionless to me.

Also, someone could steal your keys.  Clearly that act wouldn't require your permission either.  Show me in the code where it says that's not allowed.  

Please stop living in a work of make-believe where you imagine everyone on this network requires your personal approval to do things.  Sociopath.

You've spent years telling people what they supposedly "can't do", but they keep going right ahead and doing it anyway.  You are demonstrably wrong and continue to be wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.  Attempting to redefine consensus every time people do something you disagree with is not only futile, but also decidedly petty.  

delaying/avoiding highway maintenance (to make the highway more efficient) is not a solution
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own

You're free to write your own highway code if you don't like our one.  You could have whatever asinine rules you like.  No one is stopping you.  Build a testnet to prove it works.  Maybe someone will take you seriously (although I doubt it).  

Or whine some more.  That's proven super effective all these years.  Devs are just lining up to code your ideas.      

[franky1]

says the troll above that wants to tell people to move over to his screwed up buggy subnetwork. telling people not to buy their coffee/pizza using bitcoin because he doesnt want bitcoiners using bitcoin for daily use stuff. but instead he wants to also tell people to shut up and not stop spam junk thats annoying bitcoiners

he also doesnt want the network consensus to be decentralised and REKTS all attempts to offer other options. he loves core having the authority of who gets permission to add code

his mindset is the permissionless of people giving up on bitcoin and moving over to an altcoin, create an altcoin or join a crappy subnetwork.. he does not want to speak of the controls of core of the bitcoin network. because it debunks his permissionless mantra.. though he adores core control the decisions of bitcoin and only permit certain things to be committed to bitcoin protocol

[digaran]

@Franky1, is there any simulation program that could for example simulate the current network conditions but with your suggested changes implemented? To see if what you are suggesting could actually work.
To be honest there are good suggestions out in the open, we just don't have the tools to fast forward the time on a simulator to quickly see the results.
@DooMAD, really karenprime1? Lol.

[DooMAD]

says the troll above that wants to tell people to move over to his screwed up buggy subnetwork. telling people not to buy their coffee/pizza using bitcoin

I want people to have the choice.  Both options are there and people are free to decide for themselves what's best for them.  They can pay a bit more to benefit from the security of on-chain.  Or they can sacrifice a bit of security, pay less and transact off-chain.  

You've made it abundantly clear that you believe no one should have that choice.  You and your ginormous ego think you get to make the decisions for everyone else.  Get REKT.

he also doesnt want the network consensus to be decentralised and REKTS all attempts to offer other options.

How is you deciding everything for everyone decentralised, you absolute flailing loon?  You can't be as overwhelmingly authoritarian as you are and then pretend as though you actually give a shit about what anyone else thinks.  If Bitcoin worked the way you wanted it to, no one would be allowed to use SegWit, Taproot, LN, etc.  None of it would even exist.  Because you like to pretend that's the Bitcoin "everyone" wants.  But it clearly isn't what everyone wants, because that's not what we have.

The very fact that you still haven't managed to stop us from having SegWit, Taproot, LN, etc proves beyond all doubt that Bitcoin is strong enough to resist totalitarian threats (like you).  That means decentralisation is working just fine.  So keep dreaming, wingnut.  All your ideas are repugnant and you couldn't say something sane if your reputation depended on it (which it does, BTW).

@DooMAD, really karenprime1? Lol.

He's been waiting to speak to a manager for 7 years now to give them a piece of his (fractured) mind.  Maybe one day he'll figure out we don't have any of those here and he's wasting his breath.  

[HideYourKeys]

I think that once people realize that ordinals do not provide any value, people will just stop minting them

[laris2]

The Genie is out of the bottle, but for many of us it won't matter that much, we will see a drop in them after people realize that the number of funds used to create them don't pay back...

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

[DooMAD]

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  That creates an environment where the unscrupulous people who sell this trash are free to hype it up and tell gullible victims how great it supposedly is and how they'll be able to sell silly pictures for a profit.  The more suckers who buy it, the more crap they'll upload. 

It dies faster if we get the message out that buying this junk is a waste of money.  Once people are aware that the whole idea is to sell the digital equivalent of snake oil to unwitting saps, they'll hopefully stop buying into it.  This, in turn, will stop the financial incentive for people to create more of it.  Crypto is all about financial incentive, or, in this case, disincentive.  Kill the economy, kill the resulting spam.

So don't ignore it.  Fight it by making everyone aware that it's a massive con.

[larry_vw_1955]

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  That creates an environment where the unscrupulous people who sell this trash are free to hype it up and tell gullible victims how great it supposedly is and how they'll be able to sell silly pictures for a profit.  The more suckers who buy it, the more crap they'll upload. 

the only people that we can excuse from getting duped by ordinals though is people that never were around to see the NFT market tank and all those expensive NFTs turned to scam. anyone that saw that should have the common sense to know better than invest in this type of thing.

I'll just say I was really surprised when I heard that bitcoin transaction fees were spiking:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/11/08/bitcoin-fees-soar-nearly-1000-since-august-as-ordinals-are-back-in-vogue/
At $6.84 on Wednesday, average transaction fees for using the Bitcoin blockchain are now up roughly 970% from a low of $0.64 touched in August, BitInfoCharts data shows.

that's why this thread is here because of the high transaction fee i guess! no one wants that and that's why they want something done about ordinals.

[franky1]

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  

doomad in this topic talked about do nothing to the meme junk. let it die out. now he says doing nothing means letting it fester
debunking himself yet again

gotta love it

funny thing is every few days doomad flips his own script hoping to pander to both sides, hoping to recruit a new idiot
some days he wants the junk left alone and tells junk creators to make their money on his prefered network. (thus he promotes the junk has value (if he can take a cut)).. next few days he pretends to hate it. but still doesnt want it stopped(hence pretend)

he is just trolling for drama points trying to find  new friend that will believe in him. but his post history shows his unethical approaches to things. and yes its him making sole demands(no coffe or chewing gum or pizza on the mainnet).
i just DISCUSS my opinion on a DISCUSSION forum.. and no an opinion is not control.. core have control over the rules. not me. so i laugh when he thinks i am controlling the network.. shame that he cant just be honest about his idols of core (his gods of power he wants to remain in power)

[Wind_FURY]

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.

I missed the bottom part of your post. I believe limiting witness data may not only make Ordinals users evolve and "innovate", they'll probably also start storing data within the actual blocks themselves like how Bitcoin Stamps is doing it. It's more costly but what is "cost" to a person who believes he's be storing his/her "art" in a bank vault.

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.

This again?  Really? 

No one needs your permission to opt in to new rules via softfork
No one needs your permission to develop off-chain features
No one needs your permission to disconnect another node from their node
And (as made evident by this topic) no one needs your permission inject non-transactional data into the chain.

Seems pretty permissionless to me.

Also, someone could steal your keys.  Clearly that act wouldn't require your permission either.  Show me in the code where it says that's not allowed. 

Please stop living in a work of make-believe where you imagine everyone on this network requires your personal approval to do things.  Sociopath.

You've spent years telling people what they supposedly "can't do", but they keep going right ahead and doing it anyway.  You are demonstrably wrong and continue to be wrong every time you repeat this nonsense.  Attempting to redefine consensus every time people do something you disagree with is not only futile, but also decidedly petty. 

delaying/avoiding highway maintenance (to make the highway more efficient) is not a solution
avoiding setting highway code rules for the highway is not a solution
relaxing highway code rules that cause congestion is not a solution
pretending the only option is take an offramp down a different transport network doesnt help if that other transport network has roadwork bottlenecks and many other problems of its own

You're free to write your own highway code if you don't like our one.  You could have whatever asinine rules you like.  No one is stopping you.  Build a testnet to prove it works.  Maybe someone will take you seriously (although I doubt it). 

Or whine some more.  That's proven super effective all these years.  Devs are just lining up to code your ideas.      

"KARENPRIME1". Hahahaha! You made my day ser.

[Bitcoinpoly]

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.

ORDI is actually a gem coin, Bitget had the token listed on its exchange back since May. Currently the token is doing great and it’s really making a lot of waves in the crypto space.

[DooMAD]

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  

doomad in this topic talked about do nothing to the meme junk. let it die out. now he says doing nothing means letting it fester
debunking himself yet again

In terms of alterations to the protocol, my stance remains "do nothing".  That hasn't changed.  You're just failing at basic literacy again.  So, if you're quite finished making feeble attempts to twist my words, maybe take a few adult education courses or something.  Improve your communication skills.  They are sorely lacking.

The source of the problem is that people are making money by selling this junk to suckers.  If we educate the suckers and they stop buying it, the problem goes away.  No one has to go all totalitarian and start denying anyone's freedoms.

funny thing is every few days doomad flips his own script hoping to pander to both sides, hoping to recruit a new idiot
some days he wants the junk left alone and tells junk creators to make their money on his prefered network. (thus he promotes the junk has value (if he can take a cut)).. next few days he pretends to hate it. but still doesnt want it stopped(hence pretend)

Again, my stance has not changed and is perfectly reasonable.  Ordinals are 99.9% a scam (*).  But censorship is not the solution.  If you seek to find ways to prevent others from transacting, governments will be watching closely to see if they can use the same method to stop all of us from transacting.  And then Bitcoin dies.  Even a total fuckwit like you should be able to comprehend the meaning of these words.  But no doubt you'll infer some other totally different meaning, because you're a raving sociopath.

I will happily discuss any proposals speaking in terms of incentive and disincentive.  The moment anyone talks about banning/blocking/stopping/preventing certain types of transactions, that's where I draw my line, so expect a confrontation if you cross it.  That line of thinking is incredibly dangerous.  Neutrality is a key tenet of this network, whether you're ignorant of that fact or not.  It is fundamentally essential to the survival of Bitcoin.  I cannot emphasise this strongly enough.



(*) 0.01% there could be a legitimate use, in terms of real-world assets represented digitally, but there are far more resource-effective ways to implement it compared to how most ordinals are currently done.  This is a discussion for a different topic, though.

[alani123]

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.

ORDI is actually a gem coin, Bitget had the token listed on its exchange back since May. Currently the token is doing great and it’s really making a lot of waves in the crypto space.

Actually ORDI isn't even a smart-contract based token because bitcoin has no smart contracts so even the "standard" that it is based on being called BRC-20 is an exaggeration. The creator has absolutely no control over it. It's just a shitcoin made for fun to demonstrate how BRC-20 could work, and other than that it serves no purpose at all.
The fact that it's doing well in terms of price action has nothing to do with the reality of bitcoin being clogged and doesn't stop it from being a shitcoin. But hey, if you're interested in ORDI I've made a thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473344.0

[Wind_FURY]

So best course of action, ignore and wait until the fad dies on its own...

Not exactly.  Ignoring it allows it to fester.  

doomad in this topic talked about do nothing to the meme junk. let it die out. now he says doing nothing means letting it fester
debunking himself yet again

In terms of alterations to the protocol, my stance remains "do nothing".  That hasn't changed.  

I'm with you, because are there truly any assurances that embedding dick pics and fart sounds will truly be stopped after an update to disallow Ordinals? Bitcoin Stamps embeds data in the actual blocks.

You're just failing at basic literacy again.  So, if you're quite finished making feeble attempts to twist my words, maybe take a few adult education courses or something.  Improve your communication skills.  They are sorely lacking.

KarenPrime1 is playing 4D Chess and trying to make chaos. Because he sees that there are users in the forum who are trying to make the debate a philosophical one instead of being merely a technical one, he keeps putting fuel into the fire to encourage those people who are making it a philosophical debate. He's playing with all of you.

[franky1]

windfury, pick your own buzzwords.  stop echoing your forum daddys words like an obedient sheep. you are just echoing trollisms, it makes you look even worse by not having an opinion of your own
(you reading your forum-daddy and your forum-daddy reading you, does not then make you both right because you both read someone else saying what you said. it just means your both the cause and consequence of your own confirmation bias )
(i would not even mind if you atleast came up with your own insulting nickname for me, instead of copying your forum-daddy's nickname, it would atleast show you had alteast 1% independence)

i have been the one actually mentioning TECHNICAL methods to stop it. YOU and your forum daddy have been constructing social drama about philosophy while never mentioning anything TECHNICAL

your philosophy is to say "the dickpic memes wont stop if technical changes are made"..
but TECHNICALLY
if there are tx/block rejection rules /conditions where sigscripts(witness) are no longer upto 4mb and no longer unconditional.. then it will stop.
because then witness data will have rules to know what every byte of a sigscript is suppose to include

imagine if even opreturn didnt just have a 80byte limit but a condition that the content needs to be something or cant have unlimited uses of opreturn per tx

yep code makes rules and rules make conditions and conditions meet the purposes of the payment system

[DooMAD]

imagine if even opreturn didnt just have a 80byte limit but a condition that the content needs to be something or cant have unlimited uses of opreturn per tx

yep code makes rules and rules make conditions and conditions meet the purposes of the payment system

Name any obstructions you are encountering that would prevent you from persuing this course of action.  We're not stopping you from running such code.  Please, go right ahead.  You have my full and unwavering support. 

I, for one, won't be joining you, though. 

[Wind_FURY]

windfury, pick your own buzzwords.  stop echoing your forum daddys words like an obedient sheep. you are just echoing trollisms, it makes you look even worse by not having an opinion of your own
(you reading your forum-daddy and your forum-daddy reading you, does not then make you both right because you both read someone else saying what you said. it just means your both the cause and consequence of your own confirmation bias )
(i would not even mind if you atleast came up with your own insulting nickname for me, instead of copying your forum-daddy's nickname, it would atleast show you had alteast 1% independence)

i have been the one actually mentioning TECHNICAL methods to stop it. YOU and your forum daddy have been constructing social drama about philosophy while never mentioning anything TECHNICAL

your philosophy is to say "the dickpic memes wont stop if technical changes are made"..
but TECHNICALLY
if there are tx/block rejection rules /conditions where sigscripts(witness) are no longer upto 4mb and no longer unconditional.. then it will stop.
because then witness data will have rules to know what every byte of a sigscript is suppose to include

imagine if even opreturn didnt just have a 80byte limit but a condition that the content needs to be something or cant have unlimited uses of opreturn per tx

yep code makes rules and rules make conditions and conditions meet the purposes of the payment system

 

But when you actually DYOR, you learn and truly understand that it was frankandbeans who is really lying and who's gaslighting you into questioning the facts. It might work for people who didn't DYOR, but it won't work for the people who did their research and learned from the right people.

It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating.

[franky1]

It's the same during the scaling debate, you spread misinformation. It will be the same in other debates and current "issues". The smart people only need to look at your trust-rating.

the trust rating is meaningless because those commenting are the ones your forum-family instigated to the moderators.. your family caused it so again your trolling you are trying to use as proof. when its jsut your own forum-family trolling to pretend your right

instead of believing your forum daddys version of events of the 2017 scaling debate.. i actually used CODE that exists on github, NYA agreements that are public and blockdata of the flags that reached thresholds.. and what caused those flags(the code/bips)

yep you cant trick/edit the blockdata, available code and agreements and proposals that are public..
but your forum daddy can tll you a story not backed by facts

you have not done any research beyond asking your forum daddy and believing his story..
LOOK at the code, bips, agreements and blockdata..

Name any obstructions you are encountering that would prevent you from persuing this course of action.  

1. cores dominance, people cant simply put their code into cores repo.. their moderation(NACK, ban) prevents openness unless it fits their roadmap
2. REKT campaigns of proposal reference node that are not core .. because "its not core so dont trust it"
3. even just discussing solutions outside of roadmap ends up receiving ban threats in discussion forums, IRC, mailing lists and github comments

[DooMAD]

Name any obstructions you are encountering that would prevent you from persuing this course of action.  

1. cores dominance, people cant simply put their code into cores repo.. their moderation(NACK, ban) prevents openness unless it fits their roadmap
2. REKT campaigns of proposal reference node that are not core .. because "its not core so dont trust it"
3. even just discussing solutions outside of roadmap ends up receiving ban threats in discussion forums, IRC, mailing lists and github comments

None of those things prevent you from running such code, though.  Stop deflecting.  Name the obstructions which prevent you from running that code.