Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[BlackHatCoiner]

c) A blockchain where we allow monetary transfers to be recorded on and reject malicious transactions trying to abuse it as cloud storage. Like when we reject any transaction containing more than 1 OP_RETURN output (for many years).

And what's the border to that? Alright, softfork says that more than 1 OP_RETURN is invalid. Great. Now, people don't use OP_RETURN at all. They store their data in chunks of 160-bit addresses, and send 0 coins to multiple of these addresses. What next? Invalidate transactions which spend 0 coins? Alright, they then spend 1 sat for each. You've probably guessed how this goes. At some point, they become indistinguishable from regular transactions.

I'm going to argue the Ordinal transactions aren't monetary. They all pay miners, don't they? Transaction is information. The only way to distinguish transactions is based on what they pay the miner. If you introduce stuff like "Ordinal-like txs are excluded from the network", you're just digging your own hole.

I'm impressed Bitcoin experts from this board are yet to realize that the real attack is the attempt to invalidating transactions which they don't think "they are worth it".  

[1714245182]

1714245182

[1714245182]

1714245182

[1714245182]

1714245182

[1714245182]

1714245182

[1714245182]

1714245182

[1714245182]

1714245182

[franky1]

in short NFT dont work on LN.

Except that issuance of assets and tokens is the primary focus of 'Taproot Assets', which utilises LN.  So you're clearly lying.  Again.  

Are you even capable of telling the truth?  

issuance of crap things does not mean what you promote it to mean

when a issuer creates tokens and idiots then create their own channels. they are locking up things..
the token does not leave the channel until the channel is closed and settled

take a route
a<>b<>c<>d

the tokens in AB never leave AB (unless channel closed)
the tokens in BC never leave BC (unless channel closed)
the tokens in CD never leave CD (unless channel closed)

A token in AB issued at 9:00am is different token to Bs token in BC created at 9:01
B token in BC issued at 9:01am is different token to Bs token in AB created at 9:00
C token in BC issued at 9:01am is different token to Cs token in CD created at 9:02

if A's 9:00 created token is special(or rare sat).. C does not get that specific unique token(or raresat). he gets B's borrows token(sat) from B in the BC channel(locked sats) where B created its BC token at 9:02

C sees his number of tokens increase in agreement with the number of tokens A wanted to pay C. and A now has less and B has amounts higher in AB and lower in BC to equal out.. but C does not then own A's unique special token locked in AB

(if a "rare sat" with appended meme is locked in channel AB.. C does not get it in LN because its locked in AB.. C gets B's sat from B's BC lock.. C never gets to touch or own AB sats)

i do find it funny how you call out the ordinals as junk(pretending to agree/pander to the truth).. but then promote it on your preferred network you want everyone to use
its obvious how you dont want the junk to stop on bitcoin because you want people to hate using bitcoin by the continuation of the junk. but then promote they can buy it on your preferred network (you hinting you think this junk is actual real asset, but only on your preferred network you profit from)

sorry to keep talking about your preferred subnetwork negatively.  but in truth it is a crap network. not a network everyone should move to, no matter how much you want them to.

[alani123]

Lightning network has so many CVEs to work on, I don't think the devs will have time building more features given how large the backlog of critical things to fix is.
Regardless, saying lightning will solve everything isn't a solution. We're dealing with a fundamental issue on the L1 level. Attack vectors have to be addressed before more features are built.

[Learn Bitcoin]

Hehehe, he said that he's making more this time unlike the typical days without congestion. They're just enjoying it while it's there because it's not going to last for a long time. Maybe after a few days or a week, these high fees will drop down for sure..

I saw somewhere that Franky1 said these are the group of stupid people doing these things. They know it won't last for more than a couple of weeks. These pump and dump leverage tokens. Some will profit greatly from this craze, and most people who enter the market late will lose their capital. So, yeah it will go down soon.

As for me, I can't take that much to pay for such fee with small amount of transaction.

I had to move a couple of hundred dollars to a CEX, and unfortunately, I had to pay high fees. I paid 45 sat/vB while the fee was like 160 sat/vB. I have waited two days, and now it's around 50 sat/vB again.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Regardless, saying lightning will solve everything isn't a solution. We're dealing with a fundamental issue on the L1 level.

I don't believe the Ordinal fans will ever want to switch to L2, because the subjective value of Ordinals come from the fact that they are stamped into a ledger that cannot be counterfeit. That's probably why they haven't moved onto sidechains (which would be much easier than lightning).

There's difference between invalid and non-standard.

Do you really believe that the miners will care about standardness when it comes to $50 million? Additional Ordinal software can be developed that sends transaction directly to mining pools, and by the way, that's worse because now we have less accurate estimation of the current transaction fees.

[pooya87]

And what's the border to that? Alright, softfork says that more than 1 OP_RETURN is invalid. Great. Now, people don't use OP_RETURN at all. They store their data in chunks of 160-bit addresses, and send 0 coins to multiple of these addresses. What next? Invalidate transactions which spend 0 coins? Alright, they then spend 1 sat for each. You've probably guessed how this goes. At some point, they become indistinguishable from regular transactions.

You are forgetting that history has already debunked your speculation. When the limit was placed on OP_RETURN it didn't cause any issues nor did it push people into using workarounds. Basically the limit (ie. the standard rule) greatly and successfully reduced the amount of abuse.

That's exactly what we've needed from day one and I even said it from day one too: Ordinals transactions need to become non-standard. That may not stop the attack entirely but it would reduce the spam by something like 90%.

I'm going to argue the Ordinal transactions aren't monetary. They all pay miners, don't they? Transaction is information. The only way to distinguish transactions is based on what they pay the miner. If you introduce stuff like "Ordinal-like txs are excluded from the network", you're just digging your own hole.

I'm impressed Bitcoin experts from this board are yet to realize that the real attack is the attempt to invalidating transactions which they don't think "they are worth it". 

You know why I keep using OP_RETURN example? Because it surprises me that nobody ever complained about that limit and a ton of other similar limits that existed in Bitcoin for many years as standard rules rejecting many types of "spam" transactions all this time. Nobody has been calling them "digging your own hole" all these years when we were rejecting them either.

So why is Ordinals Attack different all of a sudden?!!
The details of the attack is different but the nature of it is the same. It is injecting arbitrary data into the chain or in other words it is [ab]using bitcoin blockchain as a cloud storage.

Do you really believe that the miners will care about standardness when it comes to $50 million? Additional Ordinal software can be developed that sends transaction directly to mining pools, and by the way, that's worse because now we have less accurate estimation of the current transaction fees.

This is why I warned at the start of this attack that it should be prevented soon. As the scam market grows it attracts more people and more incentive to find workarounds for any kind of "soft" preventive measures.
In early days when this was a scam that nobody had even heard of, nobody would have bothered using an alternative risky software to buy a garbage that has no value.

In any case I still don't think it is too late. If the majority of nodes start rejecting this type of spam attack (like some of us do) they won't reach a mining pool to be mined.

[BlackHatCoiner]

When the limit was placed on OP_RETURN it didn't cause any issues nor did it push people into using workarounds.

Placing a limit in terms of standardness does not grant that the Ordinals will stop. If there is enough demand for it, there will be workarounds sooner or later under some other name if not Ordinals.

That's exactly what we've needed from day one and I even said it from day one too: Ordinals transactions need to become non-standard. That may not stop the attack entirely but it would reduce the spam by something like 90%.

That is utter speculation.

Despite that, when you said "reject", I understood it as "invalidate" which happens via softfork. If there indeed happens to be great demand nonetheless, your next suggestion is that I presume. Isn't it?

Nobody has been calling them "digging your own hole" all these years when we were rejecting them either.

I don't know with certainty what happened in the past. I know that currently you want to censor transactions which don't fit your ideals. In a censorship resistant network, attempting to censor someone is like digging your own hole.

[alani123]

Welp, here we go...

Over half of bitcoin transactions are Ordinals:
https://geniidata.com/user/orddata/ordinals-transaction-share

This takes into account data from Yesterday. And to those saying that this will pass... Think again! Okcoin exchange literally integrated an embeded dashboard that users can utilize to create and mint ordinals as well as sell them all within their platform. They literally made ordinal inscriptions easier than they make it to withdraw BTC off their platform... Exchanges and "NFT Artists" don't care for the well being of the ecosystem.

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off because not only is this not the first time this happens, but this time also it seems bound to continue getting worse.

[DooMAD]

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off

I'm curious as to how you propose doing that, exactly?  Not that I agree, but just for the sake of understanding what it is you're suggesting.

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now.  Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

[alani123]

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off

I'm curious as to how you propose doing that, exactly?  Not that I agree, but just for the sake of understanding what it is you're suggesting.

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now.  Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

No miner should be banned. But since they're avoiding to engage in any discussion there could be some meaningful pressure towards them too.
We know from bitcoin's past that it's possible for users of the network to signal their support for certain changes to it without having to fork the network.

This in today's situation would mean that users can run a modified bitcoin full node client that doesn't store or propagate ordinal transactions. Of course, if a miner includes ordinals in their transactions, the nodes would have to accept it unless they actually want a network fork to happen.

And for example, given that Taproot was implemented without a hard fork being required, a patch could be pushed to disable certain OP codes until they can be re-implemented later with proper spam filtering. Still all that without a network fork. If these changes are popular and are let's say pushed into bitcoin Core, miners and pools would have to make a conscious choice of supporting the most popular client and including transactions according to its rules, or running their own version of a client to profit off of expensive ordinal transactions by including them in their mined blocks.

I think that least for now, having fewer miners push these spammy transactions could alleviate some of the pressure on the network.

[seoincorporation]

Us the community should consider that if some malignant miners want to profit off of an attack on the protocol perhaps we should cut them off

I'm curious as to how you propose doing that, exactly?  Not that I agree, but just for the sake of understanding what it is you're suggesting.

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now.  Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

Since Bitcoin is Decentralized if we want to make a big change like this first the community must agree to that move, because if the community doesn't agree then it is like swimming against the current.

A good solution for this would be to fork the bicoin blockchain to create a new blockchain just for the ordinals a leave the original blockchain clean . But again, i don't think the community would support an idea like this.

The biggest problem about the ordinals is how some people really like them and support them, and to change it first you need to change people's minds and prove to them how bad the ordinals are for the blockchain.

[franky1]

Things appear to be escalating quickly if we've gone from an idea to ban ordinals and moved up to an idea to ban miners now.  Do you not think that might be just a little bit reactionary?

says the guy that was happy the NYA opted to ban mining pools, nodes and services that didnt flag for segwit
yep. why so happy to let a certain tactic be used to grandfather in a bug, but not want the same tactic used to end it

Since Bitcoin is Decentralized if we want to make a big change like this first the community must agree to that move, because if the community doesn't agree then it is like swimming against the current.

its not a case of getting usernode(UASF) involved as they are powerless now.. its a core devs and economic node pressuring pool scenario these days
these days it doesnt require the full community. its just the core devs and NYA(economic node main services) doing something they done before. but in reverse (still blackmailing the pools to comply, but this time to fix a bug, not create one)

but essentially it means pandering, kissing ass, pleading and praising core to even want it. (maybe bribe them as before) else any other brand offering a proposal will just get REKT by the trolls

[DooMAD]

says the guy that was happy the NYA opted to ban mining pools, nodes and services that didnt flag for segwit

No less than three factual errors in a single sentence.  That's impressive, even for you. 

No miner should be banned. But since they're avoiding to engage in any discussion there could be some meaningful pressure towards them too.
We know from bitcoin's past that it's possible for users of the network to signal their support for certain changes to it without having to fork the network.

Okay, I'm glad you made that clarification.  I was starting to think you were losing the plot for a second there, heh. 

My remaining concern with that line of thinking would be that miners need to maintain a degree of impartiality.  If non-mining users can gain some form of leverage over miners to only include transactions that we approve of, then it's only a matter of time before governments find a method of doing the same.  This little experiment of ours ends rather abruptly if that were to ever occur.  I suggest you carefully consider if this is truly a path you want to tread. 

[nutildah]

When the limit was placed on OP_RETURN it didn't cause any issues nor did it push people into using workarounds.

It did, actually. But the workarounds were trivial to accomplish, and the limit was reverted in 2015.

So why is Ordinals Attack different all of a sudden?!!

Because its not an attack, just like Counterparty wasn't an attack. You are mired in confusion because you continue to mislabel it as an attack. Once you accept its not an attack, then the situation may begin to make more sense.

In any case I still don't think it is too late. If the majority of nodes start rejecting this type of spam attack (like some of us do) they won't reach a mining pool to be mined.

Due to the nature of economic incentives and capitalism, this will never happen.

[digaran]

Ordinals or any other types of NFTs, and whatnot etc, are not really a big concern in long term, of course in a short period you get angry people when the fees go up, but in a long term, they will eventually die off like any other ponzi schemes, you just have to give it time. They will in time run out of new investors and once people realize they are not earning any profit as before, they in turn start abandoning this hype and everyone will just forget they ever existed.

Satoshi's, Bitcoin's problem from the beginning was believing that we should create one solution for many problems, that can't happen, Bitcoin should focus on decentralization of money, and then we could think about decentralization of monkey images etc.😉

[pooya87]

It did, actually. But the workarounds were trivial to accomplish, and the limit was reverted in 2015.

:

Basically the limit (ie. the standard rule) greatly and successfully reduced the amount of abuse.

Because its not an attack, just like Counterparty wasn't an attack. You are mired in confusion because you continue to mislabel it as an attack. Once you accept its not an attack, then the situation may begin to make more sense.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between 80 byte per tx limit and no limit at all (except 4 MB block weight) or are you intentionally ignoring this fundamental difference?

Due to the nature of economic incentives and capitalism, this will never happen.

Then you are saying that Bitcoin, the "peer-to-peer digital cash" as Satoshi put it, has already failed.

[NotATether]

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.

[franky1]

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.

paying $1.70-$2 a tx it only stopped about 275 tickers.. the spammers still spam and the spam has gone rampant when the bot ran out of funds to pay fees ($500 total for campaign)
to do this now ends up needing to pay alot more then $2 a shot

funnier part is although the bot got "first seen" status in ordinals software to be recognised as 'the true ticker'.. the first transactors transaction still also got added to the blockchain. so it didnt stop the tx from being added. it just ended up with 2 transactions with the same ticker junk data where only the ordinals software recognised the bots version and ignored the first transactor

the first transactor can still spam using his taint. and get the ordinals software to just ignore bot ticker snipers (creating 1 unit). thus voiding the bots ordinal software claim of the ticker.. and re introducing the original transactors spam as the official ticker owner within ordinals.. thus not a fix because its still spam on the blockchain that ordinals can easily change its "first seen" policy

and yes those scammers that want brc junk to persist will change ordinal policy to void recognition of bot sniping "first seen", because scammers will wan to keep their scams running

[DooMAD]

Then you are saying that Bitcoin, the "peer-to-peer digital cash" as Satoshi put it, has already failed.

No.  It doesn't stop being peer-to-peer digital cash just because people are using it for other things as well.  Have you never seen a defaced banknote where someone has doodled on it?  Do you run out into the street proclaiming 'the sky is falling' whenever that happens?  Of course not.  There's no need to get so dramatic about this.

People do dumb shit sometimes.  Their behaviour can be inconsiderate, even disruptive.  Welcome to life.

Bitcoin works just fine.  It's not broken.  The only action I feel any compulsion to take is to simply point out that if anyone wastes their money buying this trash, they're a victim and a fool.  Anyone who tries to sell it is amoral and indecent.

[moneystery]

the solution to make the ordinal be on a different network is the best solution as is done by bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, etc. ordinal must do what these coins do because their existence and popularity has disrupted the scalability of the bitcoin network and made fees unreasonable (again).

if bitcoin developers care about the future of bitcoin, they should consider this, because higher bitcoin fees will certainly reduce people's interest in using bitcoin in their transactions. bitcoin will not be able to last forever if it still relies on its innovative features and market speculation, scalability is important for long-term adoption.