Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[Wind_FURY]

Personally, leave it alone and let them store data in a data structure that can be pruned, OR ELSE, they might start storing data inside the actual blocks that it would be impossible for them to be pruned.

Plus we may not like it, but they're NOT actually breaking the rules of the network, and they're paying for the fees. Network congestion can always happen with or without Ordinals because block space is limited and demand increases sometimes. It's not sustainable, they will either run out of money first, or they will also need to wait for fees to go down.

[1715327343]

1715327343

[1715327343]

1715327343

[1715327343]

1715327343

[KiaKia]

It's a garbage that will get some numbers of people rich when Bitcoin makes a new all time high, I refuse to hate on this project right now because I've accept the fact about crypto space, this is a sign that ordinals will do very well when Bitcoin made it to 100k, if you are smart you would have gotten some at $3 months back, there was enough time, but some are so bound by what they believe in and that makes them miss out.

I don't like Ordinals running on Bitcoin, but it has happened, there is nothing I can do to undo this, so I've accept things the way they are, instead of hating, yes it's a shit utility injected into Bitcoin, I choose to make a lot of money from the shitty things in the space and take profit when the time is right and throw that back into more Bitcoin.

Be prepared to spend up to $20 or more on Bitcoin transaction in the next bull market, there is no way we can evade this, its why I knew this was a bad move when the news about Ordinals running on Bitcoin broke out.

[franky1]

Plus we may not like it, but they're NOT actually breaking the rules of the network, and they're paying for the fees. Network congestion can always happen with or without Ordinals because block space is limited and demand increases sometimes. It's not sustainable, they will either run out of money first, or they will also need to wait for fees to go down.

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain.. where did your hard drive space preservation mindset go, oh wait you are just copying your forum families mindset even if its contradictory to your previous stories

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain and wait for them to run out of funds.
if they can scam one moron out of $1k for one meme that cost them $2 to make, they can then spam another 500x and scam more.. have you ever heard of exponential growth.. yep they wont run out of money as long as they keep scamming. its a self perpetuating scam

[Kruw]

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain.. where did your hard drive space preservation mindset go

Hard drive space is preserved by the block weight limit, it's a consensus rule.

[franky1]

i still laugh when they promised "taproot will only be 1 signature length" yet its used to have 3.99mb of non signature junk instead

It seems you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You don't need Taproot for inscriptions, they are doing inscriptions on Litecoin (which has not upgraded to Taproot) too.

litecoins ordinals of junks meme data was not always available. it used a fork which enabled a opcode that bypassed checks to allow any junk in.
stop thinking that ordinals is something that always existed since btc2009 ltc 2011.. the development that enabled these things happened more recently then that. and when you see which upgrades enabled it you soon see..
btc taproot.. ltc mimblewimble

enjoy

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain.. where did your hard drive space preservation mindset go

Hard drive space is preserved by the block weight limit, it's a consensus rule.

windfury was blind echoing how more transactions per block was bad for hard drive space.. he flip flops the script depending on his forum daddy.
he doesnt care about lean utility of that blockspace. he doesnt care about how many users get to use that blockspace. he doesnt care about how much it costs genuine bitcoiners to use that space. he just spouts out the nonsense scripts his forum daddy says that are all aimed into making people hate bitcoin so that they move over to the subnetwork services his forum daddy promotes

[kingvirtus09]

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.

In this case, is the Ordinals being the main problem here or there's just an increase in the numbers of transaction at the cause of increasing adoption rate, if what am thinking isn't it than the ordinals then i think it's high time the developers community finds a lasting solution to it, bitcoin is known to be as cheap as 2 sat/vbyte and which is very offordable by everyone performing transactions.

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.

I don't know how we all came about this from the first place in renting out the blockspace when we know that bitcoin space could later be utilized for its same purpose when the network get congested, now it has to be a contension between the normal bitcoin users and the stranger ordinals for the highest bidders to get their transactions confirmed first, miners are on it again, their time to leak the milk to their mouth.

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.

It also sounds ridiculous to me hearing about NFT on bitcoin network, this is one of the ways some new developments could be of advantage or disadvantage when newly introduced.

Yes, you are right there. I remember 3 days ago, the transaction fee in Bitcoin increased again, reaching around 40–50 sats if you want a fast transaction, as long as the priority is the fee amount I mentioned.

Because before I knew it, the fee I made at first was only around 25 sats, and then I noticed two days later that it was still not at the destination address I put. Then I found out that the network is congested again because of the ordinals, so I canceled my transaction and then re-entered the transaction with a high fee.

[Kruw]

litecoins ordinals of junks meme data was not always available. it used a fork which enabled a opcode that bypassed checks to allow any junk in.
stop thinking that ordinals is something that always existed since btc2009 ltc 2011.. the development that enabled these things happened more recently then that. and when you see which upgrades enabled it you soon see..
btc taproot.. ltc mimblewimble

Mimblewimble has nothing to do with ordinals either.  Stop making shit up.

[pooya87]

The Ordinals madness is more like an eye opener. I mean, if bitcoin network gets huge adoption worldwide where there is an inflow of hundreds of thousands of transaction per hour and we have a mempool with lets say over 1 million unconfirmed transactions, what next for the Bitcoin dveelopers and community?
Do they just let it be?

The thing about adoption and correct usage of Bitcoin (as a payment system) is that it happens naturally and the growth is slow and predictable. For example if we see 300k transactions handled per day, it is not going to suddenly jump to a million demanded tx/day overnight.

However, the thing with spam attacks like the Ordinals Attack is that they suddenly and artificially create a fake demand for the blockspace hence creating this type of huge backlog. In other words that is not natural.

For the natural growth, we have time to plan for better solutions and scaling the chain to handle larger number of transactions. We are not in any kind of urgency.

What are you going to do about it?  Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".

Bitcoin is also designed to be a payment system and not a cloud storage. You can't just pick one definition of it and ignore the rest whenever it doesn't suite your view.

you think the answer is to just clog up the blockchain and wait for them to run out of funds.
if they can scam one moron out of $1k for one meme that cost them $2 to make, they can then spam another 500x and scam more.. have you ever heard of exponential growth.. yep they wont run out of money as long as they keep scamming. its a self perpetuating scam

This is exactly what sets this attack apart from the previous spam attacks that Bitcoin has experienced in the past.

[Kruw]

What are you going to do about it?  Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".

Bitcoin is also designed to be a payment system and not a cloud storage. You can't just pick one definition of it and ignore the rest whenever it doesn't suite your view.

In that case, Bitcoin has even more features than it was originally designed to have.

[alani123]

What are you going to do about it?  Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".

Bitcoin is also designed to be a payment system and not a cloud storage. You can't just pick one definition of it and ignore the rest whenever it doesn't suite your view.

In that case, Bitcoin has even more features than it was originally designed to have.

This is not exactly true and many people have no idea. Early versions of the bitcoin client included an IRC client as well as some code relics of a would be poker game. Satoshi's early vision of bitcoin was probably that it could do multiple things from within the very client the payments are also launched. But nowhere do we get any idea that satoshi would have wanted the blockchain to be used as storage...

[Kruw]

This is not exactly true and many people have no idea. Early versions of the bitcoin client included an IRC client as well as some code relics of a would be poker game. Satoshi's early vision of bitcoin was probably that it could do multiple things from within the very client the payments are also launched. But nowhere do we get any idea that satoshi would have wanted the blockchain to be used as storage...

Satoshi specifically opposed the blockchain being used for data storage.  But its apparent Bitcoin's users do not oppose using the blockchain for data storage, which is why they pay fees to Bitcoin miners to do it.

[alani123]

Satoshi specifically opposed the blockchain being used for data storage.  But its apparent Bitcoin's users do not oppose using the blockchain for data storage, which is why they pay fees to Bitcoin miners to do it.

How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals? First of all, when Taproot was introduced and finally implemented, "Ordinals" and "BRC-20" weren't realized yet and probably not one of the Core developers were considering that people would be burning images on-chain when they were building these features. For instance core developer Luke Jr. Is known for calling on-chain "inscriptions" garbage and speaking against them.

But now that transactions are so expensive I'm pretty sure that if someone was to poll the Bitcoin community on if they would like "inscriptions" to stop being supported in order to help with mempool bloat and transaction fees, most would be very supportive.

[Kruw]

How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals?

You can be certain that there are Bitcoin users not opposed to Ordinals because they are paying for them.  Money talks.

First of all, when Taproot was introduced and finally implemented, "Ordinals" and "BRC-20" weren't realized yet and probably not one of the Core developers were considering that people would be burning images on-chain when they were building these features. For instance core developer Luke Jr. Is known for calling on-chain "inscriptions" garbage and speaking against them.

Ordinals/Inscriptions are not a feature of Taproot.

But now that transactions are so expensive I'm pretty sure that if someone was to poll the Bitcoin community on if they would like "inscriptions" to stop being supported in order to help with mempool bloat and transaction fees, most would be very supportive.

It's a very good thing that Bitcoin is not vulnerable to this sort of censorship by vote.  It proves Bitcoin can withstand attack even from within.

[alani123]

How can you be so sure that Bitcoin users are not opposed to Ordinals?

You can be certain that there are Bitcoin users not opposed to Ordinals because they are paying for them.  Money talks.

So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility?

It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack...

[Kruw]

So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility?

It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack...

Where did I say you should create special opcodes?...

[alani123]

So if some party or group has enough money to pay to make Bitcoin unusable for transactional purposes, should be create special OP codes just to make it even easier for them to destroy bitcoin's utility?

It's like you're saying that you want the door open for another protocol attack...

Where did I say you should create special opcodes?...

By supporting Ordinals and BRC-20 shit-tokens you're essentially saying that they're a valid use of the blockchain. And since you seem to not know this already,

BRC-20 and Ordinals only work on Taproot enabled new standard addresses and utilize the Taproot opcodes of OP_FALSE, OP_IF, OP_ENDIF and OP_PUSH. So if bitcoin was patched to invalidate these opcodes we would have no more "inscriptions" clogging the ledger. There very ability to create these wastes of space could be removed from bitcoin's functionality with a single patch. No hard-fork needed.

[Kruw]

By supporting Ordinals and BRC-20 shit-tokens you're essentially saying that they're a valid use of the blockchain. And since you seem to not know this already,

BRC-20 and Ordinals only work on Taprood enabled new standard addresses and utilize the Taproot opcodes of OP_FALSE, OP_IF, OP_ENDIF and OP_PUSH. So if bitcoin was patched to invalidate these opcodes we would have no more "inscriptions" clogging the ledger. There very ability to create these wastes of space could be removed from bitcoin's functionality with a single patch. No hard-fork needed.

BRC-20 and Ordinals do not only work on Taproot.

You don't need Taproot for inscriptions, they are doing inscriptions on Litecoin (which has not upgraded to Taproot) too.

[alani123]

You don't need Taproot for inscriptions, they are doing inscriptions on Litecoin (which has not upgraded to Taproot) too.

Litecoin HAS in fact integrated Taproot as of release v0.21.1rc1 since early 2022. That's only a few months after it was put in bitcoin.
Source:
https://www.litecoin.net/news/taproot-is-now-available-on-litecoin-via-v0-21-1rc1-release-candidate

[Artemis3]

Sorry bitcoin transactions, people are paying more to spam the blockchain, and a pool with dubious practices is so happy to push them, of course, their altcoin / nft interests are well above Bitcoin, in fact they don't like Bitcoin to be so good, so they are happy to do this.



Gets priority over people sending money home from abroad, or paying for bills, food, and stuff. Who knows, maybe banks ripple etc are behind this...

Yeah there is no rolling back, what was proposed back in February when the publicly demonstrated exploit occurred, was to take measures to make it more difficult to spam the blockchain. But no, devs looked the other way like nothing happened. And here we are, the "nothing" returned. Even if it fades again later, than even later will return, and the cycle never ends.

How long will the spam storm last? How long until people denounce those involved? etc. If you are pro Bitcoin, boycott those people.

[Kruw]

Litecoin HAS in fact integrated Taproot as of release v0.21.1rc1 since early 2022. That's only a few months after it was put in bitcoin.
Source:
https://www.litecoin.net/news/taproot-is-now-available-on-litecoin-via-v0-21-1rc1-release-candidate

Ah, thanks for the correction, I was not aware of that.  Regardless of Litecoin, Taproot is not a requirement for inscriptions.