Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[o_e_l_e_o]

agree that we shouldn't dictate what people do with their money

But ordinals are "spam"

Can't have it both ways. If you declare other peoples' use cases as spam and decide to ban them, then you are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot do.

But ordinals are "spam" or rather a misuse of the protocol

The protocol is for peer to peer electronic cash. Centralized exchanges are not peer to peer, ergo they are a misuse of the protocol as well and should be banned.

I'm obviously being facetious here to make a point, but the point is that anyone can argue that anyone else's use case is spam. What makes your claim that ordinals are spam objective truth which must be acted upon, while anyone else's claim that something else is spam subjective opinion which must be ignored?

[1714533527]

1714533527

[1714533527]

1714533527

[1714533527]

1714533527

[1714533527]

1714533527

[1714533527]

1714533527

[ABCbits]

Storing arbitrary data in public keys and other means usually is far more costly than using witness data though, which discourage many people from doing it.

It is also far more costly for the full node user.  Can you imagine the millions of permantly unspendable TXO?

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Using OP_RETURN also doesn't bloat the UTXO set, which I'd argue is more important than limiting the growth of the size of the blockchain.

[Medusah]

But ordinals are "spam" or rather a misuse of the protocol

If Ordinals are a misuse, then storing arbitrary data in general should be prohibited while that is pretty much possible since v0.1.  I would argue it is not a misuse, it is just considered spam based on your criteria. 

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Sure, but this brings us back to the point.  You cannot dictate how people use Bitcoin.  You would never prohibit someone from using Legacy, so why prohibiting someone from doing that?

[ABCbits]

Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Using OP_RETURN also doesn't bloat the UTXO set, which I'd argue is more important than limiting the growth of the size of the blockchain.

Good point. Since BRC-20 become popular, UTXO growth at far faster pace.

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.

Sure, but this brings us back to the point.  You cannot dictate how people use Bitcoin.  You would never prohibit someone from using Legacy, so why prohibiting someone from doing that?

I get your point, but in practice there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.

[DooMAD]

So I took franky1 off ignore for a few seconds to see what hilariously irrational drivel he was spouting and I certainly wasn't disappointed.  He now wants to maintain the stance that Core devs are simultaneously holding Bitcoin back, but at the same time rushing changes through too quickly.   

Classic.

Back on ignore you go, you spectacular fucking kook.

there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.

And that's fine.  But if people are going to advocate for continually moving the goalposts on what those limits are, purely because they want to prevent a certain type of transaction, that's still a road to disaster in my view.

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

[nutildah]

Outside of limiting taproot script length (which could have its own follies we as non-devs haven't considered), anyone who believes the "spam" can be stopped by fine tuning or placing certain limitations within Core is sorely mistaken. The exact same argument was happening around the launch of Counterparty in early 2014, and the Counterparty devs told the Bitcoin devs, fine, do what you want, we will find ways around it. There's a number of different ways to add arbitrary data to transactions, and there always will be.

Basically Luke-Jr is saying we should have a model of explicit whitelisting where people ask permission first to use Bitcoin. Right now that wouldn't be one patch, it'd be two patches: Counterparty and Mastercoin. Very soon it'll be three patches as Colored Coins adds decentralized exchange functionality, and probably soon after that four patches when Zerocoin is deployed, five once the guys doing secure multiparty computation with Bitcoin release their software, six for... You get the idea. On top of that from technical perspective writing a general purpose patch to distinguish even just Counterparty transactions from "spam" is impossible without having access to the Counterparty consensus state. Sorry guys, but Luke is either foolish or trolling you.

Some things never change...

[pooya87]

Its 100% related. Luke's Bitcoin Knots lowered its limit on OP_RETURN in order to ignore transactions he considers "spam", which is what you think ordinals transactions are, so what's the difference?

The exploit Ordinals Attackers are using is not related to OP_RETURN and if it did we would have never had this problem to begin with because:
- OP_RETURN is part of the protocol that everyone has agreed with. Ordinals is not part of the protocol and only scammers like it.
- using OP_RETURN is not an "exploit" while what they call Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol, an oversight by the developers introducing SegWit
- most importantly OP_RETURN has a limit on how much arbitrary data you can push to the chain while the exploit Ordinals attack is using has virtually no limit
- even more importantly OP_RETURN does not create UTXO bloat since said outputs are provably unspendeable while Ordinals attack will create dust outputs that can not be spent nor be pruned.

[WhyFhy]

It sucks when creativity has a downwind. Maybe it's different if the dev was intending on this, but if not it's a sad situation.
But if your projects so disruptive that core devs are having to pencil you out you probably knew better.
I don't see many supporters of it here witch leads me to wonder what the hell made it take off?
I've kinda been under a rock this year and not fully with the program.

[stompix]

So the timing of this is just a super bizarre coincidence?  I'm really confused now.

Seems like Knots reduced the limit from 83 to 42 ages ago, but it never made any difference to anything since no miners were using Knots and any transactions the few Knots nodes ignored simply routed around those nodes between Core nodes.

I don't understand why everyone is surprised about this?
Luke developed Knots, he randomly put 42 in there ages ago based only on his way of thinking how the world should function, why is such a big surprise his new work is based on his previous one and keeps the same limits and numbers?

if btc doesn't double in price or double in fees , in the next halving problems for miners group will start to emerge .

miners were fine at $17k/btc..

Were you mining at those prices?
What was the income per kwh spent?
What was the ROI for $100 invested?
What were the operational loses the biggest companies had last year?

[Kakmakr]

To me it will be a battle between "Miners Greed" vs "Censorship of tx's"  .. because the changes needs the full nodes to accept it..and they do not really care for the Blockchain spamming, because it increases the tx fees. 

The problem with this is the exploitation of the loopholes for other spam attacks or projects like this that are spamming the network with useless transactions. 

[southerngentuk]

Removing ordinals from Bitcoin is a necessary step. Ordinals are a useless feature that only clogs the network with unnecessary transactions. They increase transaction fees and decrease network efficiency.

However, removing ordinals will also mean a significant loss of income for miners. Currently, miners receive an additional fee for each transaction with an ordinal. Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction. I believe that removing ordinals is necessary to improve the scalability and efficiency of Bitcoin. Miners will need to find other ways to make money, such as through higher transaction fees for high-priority transactions or through other services like staking or mining pools.

[franky1]

So I took franky1 off ignore for a few seconds to see what hilariously irrational drivel he was spouting and I certainly wasn't disappointed.  He now wants to maintain the stance that Core devs are simultaneously holding Bitcoin back, but at the same time rushing changes through too quickly.  

Classic.

Back on ignore you go, you spectacular fucking kook.

they want to rush/force-merge/mandate when it suits their core roadmap sponsored plan..
they delay, make excuses and pretend not to be devs but only janitors when community make suggestions that dont fit their plan..
and you love how they do their own thing that is sponsor paid and ignore things that are community desired.

if btc doesn't double in price or double in fees , in the next halving problems for miners group will start to emerge .

miners were fine at $17k/btc..

Were you mining at those prices?
What was the income per kwh spent?
What was the ROI for $100 invested?
What were the operational loses the biggest companies had last year?

the network was running fine at $17k yet people are screaming miner poverty at $43k

if its not profitable to mine because you live on a pacific island/high electric cost region. then obvious option is to buy bitcoin while its below your mining cost
thats how the market dynamics works. if market is too cheap to mine. buy on the market, its cheap. help support the market which then helps the miners..
demanding less transactions but higher fee premiums is not the economic dynamics of keeping the network useful and fruitful

i hope you were buying coin at $17k instead of crying that you cant mine and wanting ~3000tx a block to "pay more fee"

[nutildah]

The exploit Ordinals Attackers are using is not related to OP_RETURN and if it did we would have never had this problem to begin with because:
- OP_RETURN is part of the protocol that everyone has agreed with. Ordinals is not part of the protocol and only scammers like it.
- using OP_RETURN is not an "exploit" while what they call Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol, an oversight by the developers introducing SegWit
- most importantly OP_RETURN has a limit on how much arbitrary data you can push to the chain while the exploit Ordinals attack is using has virtually no limit
- even more importantly OP_RETURN does not create UTXO bloat since said outputs are provably unspendeable while Ordinals attack will create dust outputs that can not be spent nor be pruned.

You're missing the point here. We were talking about the rationale as to why Luke is rejecting txs with OP_RETURNs beyond 42 bytes. Its because he thinks such transactions are spam. Obviously he didn't agree with the current byte limit which is why he implemented his own.

Regardless, its hard to take you seriously when you continue to mischaracterize Ordinals as an "attack". Its like you don't understand what the word "attack" means and it doesn't help your argument. Ordinals users are not trying to damage Bitcoin, they are simply trying to profit off it. And saying "only scammers like it" is just ignorant. A more appropriate term would be "degens".

In the future, the first inscriptions will be considered legitimate collector's items, like it or not. It could even be the first 10,000 - 100,000 or so.

Removing ordinals from Bitcoin is a necessary step.

You can't "remove ordinals from bitcoin". Its just a numeration system for satoshis, so in a way they've always been there since the first mined block. As for the rest of your post, holy moly, that's all I have to say.

[franky1]

Regardless, its hard to take you seriously when you continue to mischaracterize Ordinals as an "attack". Its like you don't understand what the word "attack" means and it doesn't help your argument. Ordinals users are not trying to damage Bitcoin, they are simply trying to profit off it. And saying "only scammers like it" is just ignorant. A more appropriate term would be "degens".

In the future, the first inscriptions will be considered legitimate collector's items, like it or not. It could even be the first 10,000 - 100,000 or so.

its not a collectors item. it fails the real proof oftransfer because the junk sits as metadata in witness, it does not within transaction assign itself to an output
the GUI of ordinal recognising wallets can EASILY change policy of output path.
if the proof of destination is not locked into the blockchain. its not a proof of transfer system

as for the math method of counting sats, even their path of deciding where the first sat goes is wrong.

you pretend to not be involved and instead just an outsider of ordinals,, but you seem too involved in promoting and admiring ordinals and ignoring the logic and economics to be an outsider.. you are definitely someone that either created or scam sold some to someone.. or at worse you paid someone for what you think is a claim of a junk meme but dont want to admit to being a victim, so ignorantly ignoring the code, logic and math that show you got victimised

[Synchronice]

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).

I don't think that Ordinals are problem. Ordinals are basically shit but people are willing to pay lots of money in this shit. If someone wants to buy a shit for thousands of dollars, who am I to judge? Let them buy it. I think that number of Ordinals users will decline because those NFTs actually carry no value, absolutely no value and over time people will analyze that shit shouldn't be valued over good. But blockchain size is still a problem because as number of bitcoin users rise, number of transactions will rise too and it should be cost-effective for people to use frequently.

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

It's not a censorship, they exploit bitcoin protocol, they find a loophole and what's wrong with feeling loopholes? Nothing. It will be censorship if bitcoin miners agree to block transactions provided by blockchain analysis companies.

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.

To be frank, this idea is amazing

"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.

That is really a subjective but so is everything, absolutely everything is subjective because everything has positive and negative sides, absolutely everything! But there are things that we agree are bad, right? It's bad to kill, it's bad to steal, it's bad to abuse bitcoin protocol for ordinals and so on.

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.

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded? What do you think, doesn't current situation push people to move on altcoins? Bitcoin was created for P2P transactions, to get rid of 3rd parties but Ordinals are not real financial transactions. So, it's not a censorship.

I'm simply pointing out that banning transactions you don't like isn't a viable long term solution to reducing fees.

I agree with you here and I have also said above some of these quotes that Ordinals are not the only problem. I don't know whether you agree with me or not but this problem will happen without ordinals. Simply, bitcoin blocksize limits the number of transactions and if we want to frequently use it, we have no choice but to increase block size. It's not 2008 anymore and there aren't only a few bitcoin users.

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm obviously being facetious here to make a point, but the point is that anyone can argue that anyone else's use case is spam. What makes your claim that ordinals are spam objective truth which must be acted upon, while anyone else's claim that something else is spam subjective opinion which must be ignored?

if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong. but the fact that ordinals is kind of just a side affect of a change that was made to the protocol which not necessarily everyone agreed with or knew could happen well that's where the argument has a bit of weakness.

ordinals hasn't always been there. big difference. you can argue that anyone who decides to use bitcoin has to agree with all the historical changes that have been done and the affect those have had but people that got into bitcoin before those changes, i don't know if we can put that burden on them. just my opinion.

satoshi didn't come down off the mountain with ordinals carved in stone.  

so there is some objectivity to the thing. it's based on time. when a person became involved with bitcoin was it before or after ordinals came on to the scene. i think that's what makes it non-subjective.

you pretend to not be involved and instead just an outsider of ordinals,, but you seem too involved in promoting and admiring ordinals and ignoring the logic and economics to be an outsider.. you are definitely someone that either created or scam sold some to someone.. or at worse you paid someone for what you think is a claim of a junk meme but dont want to admit to being a victim, so ignorantly ignoring the code, logic and math that show you got victimised

come on franky. nutildah is a pretty smart person and knows alot about the ordinals and bitcoin ecosystems. but doesn't mean he buys and sells them. so i think you might be making a leap of logic there. but even if he did buy and sell them for profit, that's what they exist for is to make profit. that's why people are involved with them i would imagine. and maybe a few people just like having a picture of a monkey stored on the blockchain so they can tell their friends. 

[wallet4bitcoin]

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.

I just believe they are looking for a way to feign relevance in the space.  Just like twitter, everyone want to get % million impressions to be eligible for Elon's payout, same goes to Ordinals.

Unconsciously, they have made Bitcoin even more famous than it was. Whatever their complaint, its not news to the space and so far the tech has also solved all its challenges as there are no ecosystem without its challenges.

[franky1]

come on franky. nutildah is a pretty smart person and knows alot about the ordinals and bitcoin ecosystems. but doesn't mean he buys and sells them. so i think you might be making a leap of logic there. but even if he did buy and sell them for profit, that's what they exist for is to make profit. that's why people are involved with them i would imagine. and maybe a few people just like having a picture of a monkey stored on the blockchain so they can tell their friends.  

nutildah isnt actually as smart as you want to think he is. he is a follower of promoted stuff but misses many factual concepts that can be proven by data and code

also its one thing for the creator first adding the junk for posterity.. but the events after of suckering victims into handing them money for the false claim of pretend passing of ownership, is not legit profit. its scam tricks

ordinals is not just a blight on bitcoin due to excess waste of bytes causing everyone else to pay a premium in some bidding war.... its also selling scam junk that the victims have no real controllable claim over

if certain people want the crap to continue.. then let those wanting to do the crap pay the price. instead of everyone else penalised just to keep the crap going

[pinggoki]

Good, it’s a nonsense spam attack on the network. Go & fork off, do it on their own blockchain. We don’t need that nonsense in the serious commodity sector. People will say it’s censorship but ordinals are a waste of time & they negatively affect people who are trying to better their lives by using an alternative to traditional finance.

I don't get the point of doing inscriptions in bitcoin so I agree that it's not something that we should tolerate, maybe it was a fun time when they inscribed the whitepaper but now, I feel like it's being overused and the people that are doing transactions daily are the ones that are shouldering the burden. I hope that the developers and the miners will find some way to meet halfway and at the same time, make bitcoin have a legitimate reason why the tx fees are so expensive.