Time to roll-back Ordinals?

[pooya87]

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?

Drawing a doodle on a banknote doesn't make it unusable or even harder to use, spam attacking bitcoin does.
What you say is like saying that this forum is still a forum for discussion even if someone performs a constant DDoS attack on it 24/7 making it extremely difficult for actual users to visit the site or post anything. Or better yet it is like if they also got paid to perform the DDoS attack!

[digaran]

Are you implying sig spammers are the same as DDOS attackers? 😅
I remember back in 2017, while people were fighting over block size, there were some "promises" or "suggestions" to increase the block size every few years, do you guys know what happened to that? And when would be the "natural" time to increase the block size by 1MB? Wasn't there a debate or analysis that we'd need to increase block size 1MB every 4 years or so?

[franky1]

Wasn't there a debate or analysis that we'd need to increase block size 1MB every 4 years or so?

but they swapped it with a "be patient, we promise" to make subnetworks that will solve the congestion. and then when the subnetworks failed in that mission. there was a 'be patient we promise to fix the bugs'. then a promise ontop of a promise that IF and only IF the subnetworks get popular where its the subnetwork open/close sessions congesting the network then they promise to then think about scaling the bitcoin network

so every few months when the community is getting annoyed by congestion all we see in response is repeats of promises, with the only promoted solution to problems is "but first we need to abandon using bitcoin to use another network to populate that scammer network". before they do anything promised to the bitcoin network

i still laugh that from 2018-9 they were promising to work on a new set of opcodes that would only require "one signature" length of bytes used... and yet here we are

in short 6 years later of all them promises.., but still waiting for empty promises

[EarnOnVictor]

Are you implying sig spammers are the same as DDOS attackers? 😅
I remember back in 2017, while people were fighting over block size, there were some "promises" or "suggestions" to increase the block size every few years, do you guys know what happened to that? And when would be the "natural" time to increase the block size by 1MB? Wasn't there a debate or analysis that we'd need to increase block size 1MB every 4 years or so?

Both are not good, but an attack is an attack because it's deliberate, DDOS is an attack which is direct, but spamming might be an indirect attack too though not deliberate, that is the difference. This Ordinals/BRC-20 has never been good news for the blockchain with the way it's sniffling the fee out of people due to the loophole created.

For the increase of the block size, have you ever thought of the consequences and higher techs required? This would take Bitcoin closer to the altcoins when it comes to its preserved decentralization.

[franky1]

For the increase of the block size, have you ever thought of the consequences and higher techs required? This would take Bitcoin closer to the altcoins when it comes to its preserved decentralization.

the cries of consequence of 2015 of more then 1mb is bad.. has been debunked by core devs themselves saying 4mb is good 2 years later..
yep they debunked themselves..
however the 4mb technical allowance is not utilised for 4x more tx count. so more needs to be done to make transactions efficient where every byte counts. every byte has a purpose, which would get lean transaction efficiency goals to allow more transactions per block

satoshi in 2010 spoke of the expectation of 4200tx per block even in the 1mb limit days, we should be trying to get to 16800tx a block goals now, but we have not even had a whole year/six month/3 month EVER of even a 4200 average even with all the promised upgrades of "scaling" and efficiency

[franky1]

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.

Do you understand implication of disabling opcodes used by ordinals? Ordinals use OP_PUSHDATA and OP_PUSHBYTES which is used for various thing such as multi-signature and HTLC for Lightning Network. Your suggestion would kill Bitcoin popularity.

you dont have to choose between fully open unlimited byte opcodes. vs disabled opcode. you can have conditional opcodes too

there are many methods
EG if old nodes only understand the ruleset of opcode conditions from blockversion 3 then treat opcodes that have no conditions as
 "if block version>3 treat as 'isvalid'. else reject"
thus they are treated as disabled when blockversion was 3 but allowed to pass now the blockversion is higher

whereby when upgrading new functionality/tx formats requiring a blockversion 5. the opcodes have a byte limit in the code for specific functionality checks and validation of a new feature where if new open opcodes are added they too have the condition
 "if block version>4 treat as 'isvalid'. else reject"
thus they are treated as disabled while blockversion is still 4 but allowed to pass if the blockversion is higher

(i know version utility is not as said. its a demo of how opcodes can actually be coded to have conditions)

even now we can make code(because bitcoin relies on code) that from blockheight 840k opcode pushdata4 now has X byte limit

[BlackHatCoiner]

Drawing a doodle on a banknote doesn't make it unusable or even harder to use, spam attacking bitcoin does.

Scaling 101. Other people using Bitcoin means more competition, which means more expensive for you to use. Unless you want to fundamentally change how Bitcoin works, you'll have to accept there are people out there who make a better offer for their transactions.

"Spamming" is not really spamming if someone's paying for it. The only manner to discourage this spam is the transaction fee. And as I have already said like a thousand times, Ordinal transactions can be indistinguishable if there is enough demand; what you are suggesting is to censor this type of tx, assuming that will be enough, which seems to me like a terrible mistake.

What you say is like saying that this forum is still a forum for discussion even if someone performs a constant DDoS attack on it 24/7 making it extremely difficult for actual users to visit the site or post anything. Or better yet it is like if they also got paid to perform the DDoS attack!

Totally flawed comparison. In this case, the forum is just having more online users than usually, and it takes more time to process the request of each.

The network is totally usable by the way. You just need to pay a couple of bucks more.

[franky1]

"Spamming" is not really spamming if someone's paying for it. The only manner to discourage this spam is the transaction fee. And as I have already said like a thousand times, Ordinal transactions can be indistinguishable if there is enough demand; what you are suggesting is to censor this type of tx, assuming that will be enough, which seems to me like a terrible mistake.

thats why bitcoin did.. and could again imply rules and conditions. where expected data is expected when an opcode is used

EG. multisig conditions expect a count of how many keys are total (N), the keys.. and how many sigs are required(M) and the signatures..
 thus knowing the byte count total expected and the format of each element.. rather then just having a anything under 4mb is fine

where any opcodes that have "anything under 4mb is  fine"(isvalid) would also have conditions to only activate and not reject if the block version is superier to the ruleset version of the node. thus old nodes wont reject if the network upgrades

knowing the blockversion only changes if there was a super majority consensus to show the network is ready to upgrade with proper conditions on the opcodes to reduce from being just "anything under 4mb is fine"

The network is totally usable by the way. You just need to pay a couple of bucks more.

code is great. code can also condition anyone using certain opcodes causes their fee estimate to multiply or a severe min relay fee and block accepted fee amount for those specific 'nonstandard' abuses of opcodes.. thus only causes the junk spammers to pay a premium

even now. without breaking bitcoin. core can in alignment with pools. change code for the opcodes abused to specifically have a min relay fee and contained in block fee of 200sat/byte
(they already love legacy * 4)

[Wind_FURY]

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.

It is, isn't it? That's because they wanted to use the network in the way that we don't approve of, dick picks and fart sounds. You can complain, but they did pay for the fees/willing to pay high fees and it is a permissionless system. From their viewpoint, they also have the right to use Bitcoin, no?

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.

The miners are incentivized to always find the highest profit opportunities, whether there's an attack or not. Why "cut them off" for merely doing their jobs? That would be unfair, no?

[franky1]

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

[Jon_Hodl]

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.

Nah. That's how bitcoin works. Is ordinals a bunch of worthless spam transactions that are bloating the mempool? Yes, of course but that is a VERY important part of scaling bitcoin. When on-chain fees bloat, that provides the much needed incentive to invest and build alternative scaling infrastructure. High on-chain fees drives more development to other scaling methods like lightning. That's just how the game theory of on-chain payments works.

For example: When fees pump high like this, platforms now have a much greater incentive to integrate lightning or batch transactions or invest in new scaling tech that is not yet fully developed. I believe that Binance integrated lightning last time on-chain fees bloated like this.

Ordinals doesn't need to be stopped. We just need to wait for fees to clear and use alternative payment methods (primarily lightning) until things cool down. Another important thing to understand is that the game theory of the lightning network works differently than on chain. To send a payment on chain, we all have to bid against other senders to be included in a block but on lightning, the routing nodes have to compete against each other with connectivity and lower fees than other routing nodes. Lightning nodes literally compete to offer lower fees than other routing nodes so fees trend toward zero while on-chain fees trend upward as demand increases. You can learn more about the game theory of the on-chain fees vs. lightning fees here: https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/lightning-network/game-theory-lightning-network

Bitcoin is working exactly as it's supposed to. It's an open network that is being attacked by ordinals spammers but since bitcoin is anti-fragile, it just keeps on working and bitcoin miners are making a lot of money right now while the network is being attacked. Just because using the blockchain is expensive right now, doesn't mean that it needs to be "fixed".

[franky1]

High on-chain fees drives more development to other scaling methods like lightning.

lightning is a failed network that cant meet its promises. yes i understand core devs got sponsored hundreds of millions to change bitcoin to allow stupid stuff.. but it does not mean the stupid stuff are features or solutions

i understand those sponsors want ROI on their investment so want everyone to abandon bitcoin and use their stupid stuff but again that does not mean their stupid stuff is a feature or solution

imagine it this way. they create a toll road offramp of a one way street that ends with a dead end
trying to say do nothing and let the main highway congest and not do highway repairs.. and suggest people should take the offramp one way street however this does not solve the problem. it just diverts people down into a new problem some people cant back out of or move forward from once they are locked into that path

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

again i understand certain groups are financially affiliated to push people off the bitcoin network. but bitcoin devs should not pander to that greed. they should care about making rules for bitcoin that benefit bitcoin, not benefit other networks

if a highway was designed for  light weight vehicles but is being abused by military tank transporters.. its time the highway code gets back to efficient use for the light weight cars again, allowing more cars to travel. and not be clogged by useless tank weight ruining the road

[OgNasty]

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.

Nah. That's how bitcoin works. Is ordinals a bunch of worthless spam transactions that are bloating the mempool? Yes, of course but that is a VERY important part of scaling bitcoin. When on-chain fees bloat, that provides the much needed incentive to invest and build alternative scaling infrastructure. High on-chain fees drives more development to other scaling methods like lightning. That's just how the game theory of on-chain payments works.

For example: When fees pump high like this, platforms now have a much greater incentive to integrate lightning or batch transactions or invest in new scaling tech that is not yet fully developed. I believe that Binance integrated lightning last time on-chain fees bloated like this.

Ordinals doesn't need to be stopped. We just need to wait for fees to clear and use alternative payment methods (primarily lightning) until things cool down. Another important thing to understand is that the game theory of the lightning network works differently than on chain. To send a payment on chain, we all have to bid against other senders to be included in a block but on lightning, the routing nodes have to compete against each other with connectivity and lower fees than other routing nodes. Lightning nodes literally compete to offer lower fees than other routing nodes so fees trend toward zero while on-chain fees trend upward as demand increases. You can learn more about the game theory of the on-chain fees vs. lightning fees here: https://www.whatisbitcoin.com/lightning-network/game-theory-lightning-network

Bitcoin is working exactly as it's supposed to. It's an open network that is being attacked by ordinals spammers but since bitcoin is anti-fragile, it just keeps on working and bitcoin miners are making a lot of money right now while the network is being attacked. Just because using the blockchain is expensive right now, doesn't mean that it needs to be "fixed".

I disagree that lightning is the answer, but your take that Bitcoin is working the way it should is absolutely correct. Paying for block space is not an issue. The fact that so many people are bidding for block space that it is causing a clog shows that people see value in it. This is a good thing. I would be more worried if blocks started getting mined empty.

[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). I would wager I'm far more affected by it than you, and that many more users feel the bite, but aren't arbitrarily asking to kill it like you are.

Time will prove utility and when people get bored of contributing to ponzis, ordinal bloat will die a natural death. Or waste away to practical meaningless existence anyway.

[franky1]

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

[digaran]

I don't recall any BIP which suggest to increae maximum block size by 1MB every 4 year.

Alright, then what is the plan regarding any increase of block size? Because all I read is about side/second layers and seems there is no plan for block size change at all, as if they have abandoned that notion altogether and only focused on LN, which by the way it has come to a stale state of development without any progress.
Who thought it would be a good idea to have the infrastructure in place for things like ordinals, NFTs in the first place? I mean why is there the ability to make such uses of Bitcoin's blockchain in such a wrong way, and what is the right way of using Bitcoin for anything other than transacting satoshis?

You see, when you are building a rocket to send satellites into orbit, there is no need to add unnecessary attachments just in case if in the future you'd need to send humans to the orbit, because people could attach their boats, cars etc to this rocket and enjoy a free ride.  Though we all know that we could send humans into space using rockets, WHY provide the ability now?
Is there any possible way for miners to identify ordinals and other types of garbage before adding them to their blocks? If there is then why won't they demand a much higher fee rate than ordinary transactions? That way not everyone will be able to clog the mempool like they are doing right now.

There should at least be different types of transactions, 1- ordinary tx, 2- garbage tx(ord, NFT, tokens), 3- VID(very important data, whatever that is we want to have in the future).  If that can't happen, then stop developing Bitcoin, we want competent developers.😉

What a demanding bitch I have become.😅

[ABCbits]

I don't recall any BIP which suggest to increae maximum block size by 1MB every 4 year.

Alright, then what is the plan regarding any increase of block size?

See BIP 100 - 109.

Because all I read is about side/second layers and seems there is no plan for block size change at all, as if they have abandoned that notion altogether and only focused on LN, which by the way it has come to a stale state of development without any progress.

I get your point. Roughly after 2017, there's few discussion about increasing maximum block size.

Is there any possible way for miners to identify ordinals and other types of garbage before adding them to their blocks? If there is then why won't they demand a much higher fee rate than ordinary transactions? That way not everyone will be able to clog the mempool like they are doing right now.

Yes, you just need to look for certain pattern on witness data. For example, Ordinals documentation mention string "ord" always used.

A text inscription containing the string "Hello, world!" is serialized as follows:

Code:

OP_FALSE
OP_IF
  OP_PUSH "ord"
  OP_PUSH 1
  OP_PUSH "text/plain;charset=utf-8"
  OP_PUSH 0
  OP_PUSH "Hello, world!"
OP_ENDIF

First the string ord is pushed, to disambiguate inscriptions from other uses of envelopes.

[pooya87]

I remember back in 2017, while people were fighting over block size, there were some "promises" or "suggestions" to increase the block size every few years, do you guys know what happened to that? And when would be the "natural" time to increase the block size by 1MB? Wasn't there a debate or analysis that we'd need to increase block size 1MB every 4 years or so?

I feel like unfortunately the community gets caught up into so much nonsense (ETF, FTX, COVID, volatility, ...) that they forget certain things such as scaling. But at the same time we are in no immediate rush to increase the capacity because statistics tell us that the current block space is enough to handle the current existing use case. That is if we ignore the malicious spam attack.
In any case no fixed or preplanned increase (like 1 MB every 4 years) can work because we can not predict how the adoption is going to increase to create that need.

Ordinal transactions can be indistinguishable if there is enough demand; what you are suggesting is to censor this type of tx, assuming that will be enough, which seems to me like a terrible mistake.

Ordinals (and any other similar) attack is easily distinguished since they contain "dead weight" or data that is not used in the verification process. The arbitrary data they are injecting into the chain. They can easily be rejected and it is never and has never been censorship to prevent protocol exploits.

Yes, you just need to look for certain pattern on witness data. For example, Ordinals documentation mention string "ord" always used.

It is easier than that, you just have to look for a branch that can never execute. That is the OP_FALSE OP_IF usage.

[Learn Bitcoin]

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

 
Are you sure franky?
That's how I get mentioned everywhere. I should request theymos to change my username. This is not the only thread from where I got mentioned, but there are a couple of threads in the Bitcoin discussion section where people mention learn Bitcoin every day. LOL. Sorry for being off-topic here.

Miners seem to enjoy the time while the mempool is still congested with a massive 140K unconfirmed transactions. It's still too high, but I believe the stupids will calm down very soon.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Who thought it would be a good idea to have the infrastructure in place for things like ordinals, NFTs in the first place?

By design, the system allows storage of information. It is helpful for stuff like sidechains and softforks. The side effect of this is storage of any kind of information, including NFTs.

Ordinals (and any other similar) attack is easily distinguished since they contain "dead weight" or data that is not used in the verification process.

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.