Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[Medusah]

-snip-

Inscriptions, Ordinals, NFTs - they are all information that can be stored in the blockchain one way or another.  Even if you successfully convince every node of the network to censor them, it will not take much until they start looking more like regular monetary transactions.

Bitcoin is first of all a community of users who agree on the same rules. It's time to update the rules to remove the unproductive nuisance that is driving the fees up for all users.

Who decides what is unproductive?  And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

[1714659416]

1714659416

[1714659416]

1714659416

[1714659416]

1714659416

[franky1]

Who decides what is unproductive?  And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

funny how "anti-censorship" guys think memejunk is allowed but people paying a conservative fee are not allowed (mempool pruning low fee)

how about a way to just target the meme junk/brc junk and penalise only them to have to pay more
how about a way to just target the spammers respending every 1-100 confirms pay more

that way it targets the nuisance
nuisance= transactions not normal to bitcoin that take space away from normal people
EG no one uses their debit card every 10 minutes 24/7 normal people use it 2 times a day on average.

[headingnorth]

You can be excellent in doing one or two things but when you try to be everything to everybody then you are a master of none.

You can be mediocre at doing many things or extremely good at doing one or two things. Bitcoin should be the latter not the former.

Don't try to make Bitcoin a jack of all trades otherwise Bitcoin will end up being like ethereum promoting endless number of crapcoins and memecoins and worthless NFTs.

If you want to be like ethereum or you want to buy and sell NFTs then use fucking ethereum but stay away from Bitcoin! Bitcoin should be Bitcoin don't try to turn it into  Ethereum or Dogecoin!

When you try to turn Bitcoin into ethereum you will attract scammers and hackers, you increase the attack vectors by making it overcomplicated which is why ethereum related projects and dapps are constantly geting hacked and drained of funds.

Bitcoin is extremely secure because it is simple. When you add too much crap on top of it you increase the attack surfaces and it is no longer secure.

And then you are just giving the perfect reason for regulators to come in and shut it down and giving the government the perfect excuse it needs to go in and shut it down.

[pooya87]

I'm very disappointed in people who still insist on using the misleading term "censorship" to describe "preventing an exploit in the protocol".

It is even more odd when you realize that for the past decade that we have been limiting a wide variety of things in Bitcoin including transaction and script sizes, nobody complained nor called it "censorship". And yet they have a double standard when it comes to the Ordinals Attack that is exploiting the new changes in the protocol to inject arbitrary data into the blockchain.

I'm honestly very surprised and disappointed.

[NotATether]

This is not a Bitcoin Core fix but it's a Bitcoin Knots fix. My view is that if they do not unplug Ordinals, they should at least severely restrict Ordinals transactions since they are not that important to bitcoin and are mainly being used for spam.

Also does anyone know whether Luke-jr has updated his PGP public key, ever since that server hack that compromised his coins? I probably would abstain from downloading anything on his site for now until that's done.

[gabbie2010]

There is no need to censor Ordinals, NFTs and Inscriptions
because of their congestion of Blockchain network I think Bitcoin developers should devise a major means of addressing the issue once and for all, of course miners are earning well from from the congestion they would kicked against any form of censorship so the way forward is the responsibility of Bitcoin developers and if not addressed appropriately global adoption of Bitcoin would suffer some setup because of high transaction fee and delays if the transaction fee is small for miners to process the transaction.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There is no efficient second layer solution for micro-payments yet, the mining fees as they are now is prohibitive for people to loading their Lightning wallets without paying 10$ to get some money in there.

So build one. The correct solution to too many transactions and too high fees is to increase throughput or move more transactions to a second layer, not to exclude a whole bunch of transactions that some people subjectively consider to be spam.

I think those idiots exploiting the blockchain and Taproot to create shitcoins and shit tokens and shit 80's looking images should be blocked as soon as possible and Bitcoin used for its main purpose which is to be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

How can it be peer to peer when third parties can ban your transactions?

It's time to update the rules to remove the unproductive nuisance that is driving the fees up for all users.

I agree that ordinals are unproductive nuisance. However, I also think centralized exchanges are unproductive nuisance, and they spam the mempool with huge consolidation transactions all the time. Can we remove them? And what about dust attacks? Why haven't we removed them yet? Surely everyone agrees they are spam? What about things like Counterparty, Stacks, or RSK? Surely they are all spam as well? And should we ban OP_RETURN outputs while we are at it?

"Unproductive nuisance" is subjective. I complete agree ordinals are unproductive nuisance, but we should not be dictating how other people are and are not allowed to use bitcoin.

I'm very disappointed in people who still insist on using the misleading term "censorship" to describe "preventing an exploit in the protocol".

So let's say we eliminate this "exploit". There is nothing stopping the whole ordinals thing from moving to a different way to encode their data in the blockchain. You can encode data within public keys themselves, which makes it indistinguishable from random data. Here's a Counterparty based project transaction which encodes data as bare multi-sig outputs: https://mempool.space/tx/ee9ed76fa2318deb63a24082a8edc73e4ea39a5252bfb1c1e1c02bd02c52f95f. This method takes up even more space than the current method being used by ordinals, so this would make spam better, not worse.

Do we just keep banning "exploits" until only transactions we deem appropriate are allowed? That sounds like censorship to me.

[Agbe]

This is one for the best news if not the best in this year. Really this ordinals make some altcoins to boom and those coins are making mouth now. These ordinals make things unbearable to the pro bitcoins and it was making people to do fasting because of the high transaction so they could not pay the high transaction fee and also those who were accepting bitcoin in businesses also suspend it because they can't pay the high fee. Bitcoin should create it Network isolation from the other unproductive network from itself. Whenever the blockchain is congested, it affect many people in the network. And it is those who store their bitcoins for a long time goal will not feel the  impact.

[Medusah]

I'm very disappointed in people who still insist on using the misleading term "censorship" to describe "preventing an exploit in the protocol".

What is the exploit?  Storing arbitrary data in blockchain?  But that is possible by encoding it in public keys and through other means. 

[noonesh]

So build one. The correct solution to too many transactions and too high fees is to increase throughput or move more transactions to a second layer, not to exclude a whole bunch of transactions that some people subjectively consider to be spam.

No, I don't have the skills, but I'm a node runner and a Bitcoin user so I can talk whatever I want about it anyway. This is a discussion forum, I'm not on the development section if you didn't notice.

Nobody "subjectively" consider anything to be spam. It is spam because block space is being used for things that are not related to "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". This is Satoshi's description of what the system is, and introducing ways to inject more data into the blockchain for a variety of purposes will dimm the main purpose down until its just another shitcoin that only big companies can afford to run nodes.

How can it be peer to peer when third parties can ban your transactions?

The proposal is not to ban transactions, the proposal is to avoid or make expensive to make "Inscriptions" inside transactions.
The transfer of UTXOs from one address to the other is not under discussion here.

[o_e_l_e_o]

No, I don't have the skills, but I'm a node runner and a Bitcoin user so I can talk whatever I want about it anyway. This is a discussion forum, I'm not on the development section if you didn't notice.

I've never once suggested anybody should stop talking about this. I'm simply pointing out that banning transactions you don't like isn't a viable long term solution to reducing fees.

It is spam because block space is being used for things that are not related to "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".

Which is your opinion. People who use ordinals are of the opinion it is not spam. I happen to agree with you - ordinals are completely worthless spam - but I don't for a second believe that my opinion is the objective truth and everyone should do what I say.

If your barometer for what is spam is anything which isn't in keeping with "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system", then we also need to ban all transactions from centralized exchanges, since they are not peer to peer either.

The proposal is not to ban transactions, the proposal is to avoid or make expensive to make "Inscriptions" inside transactions.

They already pay for the space they use just like everyone else. And at the current fee rates, that is very expensive indeed.

The transfer of UTXOs from one address to the other is not under discussion here.

So as I've pointed out above, you can transfer UTXOs from one address to the other and embed arbitrary data in the public key (or even in the signature). It's impossible to ban that without hard forking to introduce some new zero knowledge proof that someone knows the private key of any address before coins are sent to it.

[Medusah]

So as I've pointed out above, you can transfer UTXOs from one address to the other and embed arbitrary data in the public key (or even in the signature). It's impossible to ban that without hard forking to introduce some new zero knowledge proof that someone knows the private key of any address before coins are sent to it.

And it would still not be enough.  Information can be included in OP_RETURN and coinbase transactions.  You would need to completely eliminate these and introduce a ZK proof that cannot be "exploited" either.  Needless to say that this kind of hard fork would slow down everything and would take up space (which we are trying to save with this hypothetical proposal... ?).  

The proposal is not to ban transactions, the proposal is to avoid or make expensive to make "Inscriptions" inside transactions.

Even that is considered censorship to an extent.  If we start treating some transactions as "less worthy" and introduce some "expense-meter" for their "usefulness", it will open a Pandora's box.

I am simple man.  I would never want to justify my financial actions in the Bitcoin network.  "Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you".

[hd49728]

Wow. Just wow. Look at the multiple people in this thread cheering for censorship.

Ordinals are stupid. Inscriptions are stupid. NFTs are stupid. I consider all these things a method to move money from lots of gullible newbies to a small handful of people who successfully convinced these gullible newbies that such nonsense is worth anything. However, we absolutely should not be censoring transactions.

Bitcoin was not built to only serve criminals or to censor money flow through Bitcoin transactions from criminals. Initially it was not built for this and many years from 2009 to 2023, this core vision was intact.

The development and appearance of BRC20 Ordinals and useless Inscriptions cause a lot of issues for Bitcoin users. Hate it or not, I disagree with any effort of censorship because I agree with your analysis. If they can censor transactions from Ordinals or sanctioned countries, they can do more than that.

Will the Bitcoin community come to another point to fork?
One chain with censorship.
One chain without censorship.

I will support the non-censorship chain and hope that it will be a longest chain.

[KiaKia]

The only people that can stop this thing is the miners themselves, but I didn't see that happening because miners are in support as they are making money off the transactions, to them it's like a dream come true, because making more money is what makes miners to keep mining.

They will have to find a solution if they want, but right now I don't see any thing solving this, too much money already move into Ordinals and many will make a lot through it in the next bull market, it has the hype already and with the affection of value by price increase from Bitcoin, this is surely going to be the next thing people will invest their money into after Bitcoin.

I still don't like that I have to pay big to move my Bitcoin around but at this point what can I do about it? I choose Bitcoin as a good store of value, and I am fine with keeping my money in Bitcoin, for now, I also don't see this changing anytime in future, I guess we have to get used to the ups and down in the transaction fee just like the volatility in value as well.

[DooMAD]

And now this developer some of you are cheering for has inadvertently managed to block Whirlpool coinjoin transactions in pools predominantly running a Knots client.

Look what happens when you think you get to play judge, jury and executioner.  

And what happens when it's suddenly your transactions that start getting blocked by mistake because you're too stupid to realise what you're advocating for in trying to block Ordinals?  Will you finally see the light when you're caught in the crossfire?  

Idiots.

[Latviand]

This is not new. Bitcoin developers know how to solve Ordinals and Inscriptions issue and we have discussed this before on this forum when BRC20 surfaced.

Miners are making money from transactions and to solve this, a proposal might be proposed. If proposed in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, did you think that miners will agree? Remember that miners have their own nodes. I do not think any mining pool will agree to this when they are making more money from transactions.

I will also say that bitcoin developers can look for alternatives means to solve this issue of transaction fee because Ordinals makes the use of bitcoin blockchain to widen. Some people that do not like the high fee are the ones that are now complaining.

If they listen to reason that is, they'll definitely agree or there's going to be some concessions about all of this plus the transaction fees can go high even without the ordinals anyway so I don't think that the miners are going to struggle too much about them. Are you like a developer too? That your solution is to find other complicated stuff when there's the solution in front of you already? Kidding aside though, miners would probably keep milking these ordinals as it's a really good way for them to make more money for themselves.

[serveria.com]

This is not new. Bitcoin developers know how to solve Ordinals and Inscriptions issue and we have discussed this before on this forum when BRC20 surfaced.

Miners are making money from transactions and to solve this, a proposal might be proposed. If proposed in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, did you think that miners will agree? Remember that miners have their own nodes. I do not think any mining pool will agree to this when they are making more money from transactions.

I will also say that bitcoin developers can look for alternatives means to solve this issue of transaction fee because Ordinals makes the use of bitcoin blockchain to widen. Some people that do not like the high fee are the ones that are now complaining.

If they are looking into the future and not living in a day they will accept this change. Yes, they will receive a bit less in fees today, but they will earn more from legitimate transactions tomorrow. This consensus is important because it will stop the monkey pic spammers once and for all.

[Antotena]

As we all know the Ordinal and Inscription totally spam the btc network which is headache for the small btc holder. Those who understands the real purpose of btc and wants to spread information of btc will never happy with this spam feature because we cannot introduce people that you have to pay 10$ for every transaction (whenever you buy and sell).

Here in Bitcointalk,Signature payments are generally processed weekly and compaign manager have to pay the high fee which is not only loss of projects but also member total recieving payment also affected.

Now officially Bitcoin Devolpers are come into the ground and planning to kill these spamming in Blockchain. I think this is very positive news and maybe the reason or #ORDI token dump. I hope these spam will be no more disturb the common user and we will once again experiencing fast and low fee Blockchain.
 

I think this news is not a positive news for only the signature earners of the forum alone, the bitcoin transaction has been a mess that past few weeks and I get angry when my transactions takes forever even after paying a good amount of fees but miners neglect it and go for larger fees. This will reduce numbers of unconfirm transactions and completely remove everything that has to do with with ordinals because it seems more and more ordinals are coming to the network and miners are the only people benefiting from this crappy creativity, just spamming the bitcoin network.

If ordinals want to have something like other chains, they should move down to Ethereum chain or Binance smart chain where the fees are lower, they can do all the shitcoins there and spam there network as they like but I believe that after the halving, this shitcoins and meme ordinals will die just like we now have meme as regrettable investments by some people that once love them.

[hatshepsut93]

Who decides what is unproductive?  And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

We, the users. If a new Core release will "censor" the ordinals, I will use it and I'm sure a lot of current users would use it too. Those who strongly disagree with this decision can use the older version and hope that some miners will mine on the old chain.

 And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

Bitcoin wasn't created to make some abstract "transactions", it was created to transfer monetary value, not some made-up tokens.

[larry_vw_1955]

"Unproductive nuisance" is subjective. I complete agree ordinals are unproductive nuisance, but we should not be dictating how other people are and are not allowed to use bitcoin.

sometimes the line between a bug and "not a bug" gets blurred and becomes a grey area especially when developers don't address it openly and officially. but i guess that's what you get with bitcoin is a grey area of use cases. which is unfortunate for everyone because there's no guarantee that at some point some bitcoin dictator might take over development and stomp out ordinals or things like it. leaving people that invested in that feature holding a broken dream.

example: the inflation bug they really acted on that fast. if they would have just sat around doing nothing and letting people abuse it then that would be how it has been going with ordinals.

and yet, bitcoin is up to a year high even with all the ordinals crap. maybe that's why it is. more use cases.