Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[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.

[1714613769]

1714613769

[1714613769]

1714613769

[1714613769]

1714613769

[1714613769]

1714613769

[1714613769]

1714613769

[hd49728]

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.

[alani123]

Regarding the current situation, it's important to note that the block size of Bitcoin is actually limited to 1MB, not 4MB. However, the implementation of SegWit allows for more transaction capacity by separating some of the transaction data. This has helped alleviate some congestion on the network.

I thought this stood true:

A 300-byte transaction is 300 bytes on-disk and over-the-wire. Segwit just counts those bytes differently toward the maximum block size of 4M weight units.

If not, someone would have to correct the bitcoin wiki itself here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Misconceptions

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It's happening all over again.

What can developers do to actually prevent that from happening in the future?
I mean really, I have no idea, that's why I ask.

These ups and downs in transaction fee are so annoying. I mean we all have had transaction stuck in the past I suppose. For signature campaign payment this might also become a problem if this goes on.

A manager will think twice to push a transaction to 30+ recipients if it takes too long to confirm because of sudden fee rise, this might become costly at some point.

[348Judah]

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.

[FinneysTrueVision]

The upgrades that made Ordinals possible brought many benefits to Bitcoin. In the past we had on-chain gambling which many considered a waste of blockspace. At some point the people creating these spammy transactions will decide that paying $30 in fees, sometimes much more, and waiting a long time for confirmation is not worth it anymore and will move on to whatever L1 or L2 network is trendy at the moment.

[franky1]

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.

firstly its not even an NFT its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
secondly its not even a shitcoin its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
thirdly its not even a token its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element

anyways
we need to go back to the development mindset that transactions should be lean, where every byte counts. and where each byte has a purpose and is validated to have meaningful use inside a transaction. non of this crap "isvalid" check bypass that allows any junk in without reason
new opcodes should only activate when the network is ready to scrutinise the content put after a opcode. as thats how secure networks operate.

if an old node doesnt understand the data, then it become stalled at the last block it did understand. requiring upgrade to be a full node. again where new version nodes only activate/accept it when there is a network majority tolerance of validating new things.

these bypass trick crap is just trojan horse crap.

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

[adaseb]

The fees are high but they aren’t as high as during 2017 or during 2021-2022 for Ethereum. Back then you would expect to pay $50 for a single transaction. Today the high cost was $4-5, with fees being around 100 sats byte.

If you can try and do transactions on the weekend, usually there is less activity. Fees were decent until the start of November when they started to go up due to these ordinals on the blockchain.

[franky1]

Today the high cost was $4-5, with fees being around 100 sats byte.

lean tx 226bytes *100sat per byte = 22600sat
leanest Tx=$8

$8 is the low cost, most transactions are not lean

[PrivacyG]

Please let's all agree that it's time to end ordinals.

It is time to end Ordinals.  But it is a high risk task to roll back.  It sets a precedent and this has always been avoided by the Bitcoin community.  Rather spend time trying to find ways to stop Ordinals instead of rolling back.

Do not get me wrong.  Bitcoin is so impressive.  But it has negative bullets too.  This is a scenario that will only be avoided until the day comes where we HAVE to roll back or censor I believe.  Which is extreme danger.  You censor Ordinals.  Then why not censor other things too.  Like I do not know, texts embedded into the Blockchain that should not be embedded.  Then why not censor hackers and scammers too.  Then why not roll back every time there is a massive Exchange hack.

This is why changes take so long for the Bitcoin Network to accept.  Read what franky1 says.  Taproot should have been much smaller than an almost 4 MB junk.  Taproot has been discussed and coded for a LONG time.  Still.  It brings unexpected issues.

I hope one day we can have quick fixes and solve any Bitcoin Network issue within minutes.  But this is almost never the case.  Patience is key.  Always has been.

[franky1]

rolling back is not an option.. but enforcing validation rules is. close the loopholes that allow data unchecked to be relayed. if your node doesnt understand data then its either the data is bad or your node is out of date. one of the other.

by having rules, whereby changes require consensus majority is network security. the solution to the byzantine generals problem was a feature not a hindrance

we need to be getting back to a point/mindset about caring about leanness, byte utility and ensuring junk just doesnt happen. the open gate policy of letting anything in unchecked needs to be changed. where new stuff only begins when the network is ready.. and where the network is ready when the network participants have reviewed and scrutinised the code to ensure the new feature wont have consequences

there are many many ways to implement changes. we just have to get the core authority to temper down their centralist mindset and actually care about the decentralised network more than their sponsors needs

[nutildah]

You can't "roll back ordinals" because ordinals is simply a system for numbering individual satoshis. In theory, they have been around since the genesis block. You can only ask for miners not to include transactions with taproot-assisted inscription data in the witness field. But they will because they want the fees.

Despite this latest resurgence, I'm still of the opinion that Ordinals NFTs and BRC-20 are waning in activity and will not be popular for too long. Their infrastructure is fragile and could disappear when the money dries up.

firstly its not even an NFT its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
secondly its not even a shitcoin its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
thirdly its not even a token its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element

They are, because you don't dictate definitions. Popular consensus of the user base does. A perfect example of this is when  the word "literally" was redefined to also mean "not literally."

[franky1]

You can't "roll back ordinals" because ordinals is simply a system for numbering individual satoshis. In theory, they have been around since the genesis block. You can only ask for miners not to include transactions with taproot-assisted inscription data in the witness field. But they will because they want the fees.

Despite this latest resurgence, I'm still of the opinion that Ordinals NFTs and BRC-20 are waning in activity and will not be popular for too long. Their infrastructure is fragile and could disappear when the money dries up.

firstly its not even an NFT its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
secondly its not even a shitcoin its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element
thirdly its not even a token its a junk bit of data with no protected proof of transfer element

They are, because you don't dictate definitions. Popular consensus of the user base does. A perfect example of this is when  the word "literally" was redefined to also mean "not literally."

when you look at how fast ordinals start spamming and then stop spamming.. you notice its not a mass populous of random people. because the spamming would not stop and start so suddenly. however by stop and starting so suddenly shows its only a small club of idiots.. idiots who dont know better. and they get bored and lose faith quickly until the next idiot joins their club to be victimised. then it ends when the victim moves on

saying ordinals is NFT is the same as idiots saying MLM isnt a pyramid
yes scammers dont like their crap being called crap.. still makes it crap even if they are upset about it

and no pronouns are not a thing. you can scream your non-binary label all you like. but once you are gone, your voice is no more, science will prevail and prove your gender

cryptography, data security and science and math prove ordinals are not part of any immutable transfer proof.. even the most basic thing of "counting sats" to their methodology is proven wrong in basic economics and structure

if idiots want to form an idiot consensus that in their idiot club the world is flat.. does not make the world flat. it makes the real mass population come to a consensus that they are idiots

[nutildah]

Much like "flat earthers," you are in the extreme minority here. Nobody cares about your opinion on whether or not ordinals are NFTs. Besides, we are not discussing the validity of science-based theories, we are talking about what words mean to the people who use them.

Let's look at the words themselves:

✔️ Non-fungible: yes, ordinals are non-fungible as they are individual units of account.
✔️ Token: as applied to cryptocurrency, yes, they are distinguishable, named units or subsets that reside inside of a blockchain and can be transferred from one owner to another.

I think the main problem is your understanding of NFTs is limited. Even in the face of a decade of mounting evidence that you often have little knowledge of what you're talking about, you remain overly self-assured with what little knowledge you actually possess, which is why nobody takes you seriously.

Fungible tokens are even referred to as NFTs, as are Namecoin names, which are non-fungible but not really tokens. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't an NFT.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/31/rare-pepe-steeped-in-bitcoin-history-fetches-500k-on-nft-market-opensea/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypj37/rare-pepe-nft-is-not-rare-enough-dollar500k-lawsuit-alleges

You can have the last word as I'm sure you will only further derail this thread with your usual uninformed, argumentative nonsense. I'm out.

[Helena Yu]

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.

But, losing many developers doesn't mean Bitcoin isn't improving after that, the improvement is still happen as the latest BIP is 389.

✔️ Non-fungible: yes, ordinals are non-fungible as they are individual units of account.
✔️ Token: as applied to cryptocurrency, yes, they are distinguishable, named units or subsets that reside inside of a blockchain and can be transferred from one owner to another.

Correct, for additional explanation [WARNING] Stay away from BRC-20 tokens - they are doomed in the long term.

Many people still confused between NFT and BRC 20 tokens, the simple understanding is like ERC 20 tokens where Tether run in Ethereum Network, is every Tether has it's own uniqueness? nope.

[franky1]

without changing the blockchain. the method of "counting sats" is already in error and if corrected would change the suggested path of presumed ownership. yep thats right (ordinals suggested) ownership can change with a few lines of code.. meaning its not immutable

the meme junk sits outside of inputs and outputs(appended to end of tx data) and has no in-data linkage to any output. again without changing the blockchain data the suggested path the junk data follows can also be changed with a few lines of code.

there is no rule that prevents/limits the supply of junk data. no control. no cryptographic proof within the meme or the json crap to secure it. no way for different people uploading the same image/json junk multiple times (no uniqueness)

..
ill give you a hint.. the missing pieces of the puzzle

imagine you want to create a meme token
get the hash of the file. and use the hash as one part of a 1-of-2 multisig. where the second part is a bitcoin key for receiving and spending
that way you are linking the hash to an output/address (yep then it shows actual linkage to an output rather then unlinked data appended to the end of a tx)

create a transaction that includes the data and where sats go to the specific output multisig(containing hash of data)
knowing the multisig includes the hash of junk in its script. means when you want to transfer it. the recipient tells you his bitcoin address and you create THEIR 1-of-2 multisig using the hash and their key. that way it shows the hash moving with an output

of course it does not stop the creator just making another transaction for someone else cloning the junk to give different owners. but thats where the next step of the missing piece of ordinals fails

its not non fungible because one person can create {brc:crap} and another person can also make {brc:crap}  exact same wording exact same digits/characters
these crap things are not "unique" so they are not non-fungible

it fails to stop duplication of junk/hashes appearing. it fails to recognise existing junk. it fails to understand its own data. it has to have rules or laws to secure the data from duplication.. and thats a biggy ordinals fails at.. solving the fungibility.. yep i said it json/meme junk can be duplicated and ordinals has no way to provide uniqueness


the last part is fixing the way in which ordinals miscounts sats.. and thats a biggy too. its basic economics that ordinals fails at

[pooya87]

Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol to be "rolled back", it is garbage that people are injecting into the blockchain by exploiting the protocol which means the only way to "roll it back" is to reverse the blockchain which is not possible because it would effectively eliminate one of the basic principles of bitcoin: immutable blockchain.

The only way to battle the Ordinals Attack is for the nodes to start rejecting these spam/abusive transactions but unfortunately nodes need to be patched to give the node users this choice and that is not happening since the developers aren't really interested in doing that much to prevent this attack!

I fully support any actions taken against this attack though, even if the mempool were empty. Because it is still abusing the protocol.

[yhiaali3]

Most likely the miners will not like what you say, these Ordinals that you call garbage bring happiness to them because it causes higher fees and higher profits for them, the more congestion the more the miners' pockets will be filled.

I sent a transaction a few days ago and the fee was about $2. Two days ago I sent another transaction and the fee was about $3. Today, as far as I can see, the fee is 6.85 USD/tx or more. This has become unbearable.

However, I do not expect that there will be an agreement in the Bitcoin community to end the arrangements because there are parties that benefit from the current situation.

[logfiles]

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.

Currently, things are even "OK" we have seen worse when the Ordinals hype had just set in and there were something like 300 - 400K unconfirmed transactions in the mempool. The transaction fee rate was insane for weeks
Suggestions were made but the developers just decided not to do anything about it. The idea is that the hype will die down with time and the Bitcoin network will be back to normal.

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?

[Kruw]

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

What can developers do to actually prevent that from happening in the future?
I mean really, I have no idea, that's why I ask.

Nothing, Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant.

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.

It is time to end Ordinals.  But it is a high risk task to roll back.  It sets a precedent and this has always been avoided by the Bitcoin community.  Rather spend time trying to find ways to stop Ordinals instead of rolling back.

You can't "end" ordinals even if you did a rollback.

The only way to battle the Ordinals Attack is for the nodes to start rejecting these spam/abusive transactions but unfortunately nodes need to be patched to give the node users this choice and that is not happening since the developers aren't really interested in doing that much to prevent this attack!

Your censorship solution has already been circumvented by inscribers: Transactions over 100kvB are already rejected by nodes' mempools, yet, miners are putting them in blocks anyway.  

Suggestions were made but the developers just decided not to do anything about it.

What suggestions were made that the developers didn't decide to do anything with?...