Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[franky1]

But with hard-fork frowned by majority of Bitcoin community, the choice at that time is either that or keep using bytes (which means no block size increase).

they argued "hard fork is a crime" when they said bitcoin needed to be qt0.1 compatible, as their excuse to not do a uncludgy, straight forward 2mb/4mb upgrade
funny thing is QT0.1 would fail as soon as it synced to 2013 data

as for modern bitcoin. easily having code that at block 870,000(example demo number) if block version is 10 then txid merkle is for all transaction in a 4mb space
where it only activates if 3630 of 4032(90%) blocks show version10, else do nothing
giving a year for people to upgrade node. if not, oh wel nothing happens, back to the drawing board

and yes its possible
.. core went from core 0.12 to 0.14 in a year back then(few extra subversions inbetween too) in the leadup to segwit and no one was using any qt versions

[1714542892]

1714542892

[1714542892]

1714542892

[1714542892]

1714542892

[1714542892]

1714542892

[1714542892]

1714542892

[HmmMAA]

In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .

... no?  The time it takes to calculate the merkle root is minimum.  It is really against their interest to not collect transaction fees. 

You are correct . My bad on that .

[shield132]

It will be very good if Developers kill ordinals and inscriptions, I really hope it won't be only idea and will be released because Ordinals make it impossible for people to use Bitcoin to make Bitcoin transactions. Also, by killing ordinals, they'll lower the number of people who fall for these scams. I know they may move on different platforms but at least Bitcoin will not feed these scammers.

The only reason why these scammers insist on using bitcoin blockchain for it is to be able to hype up a dead concept (ICO) by associating it with the name Bitcoin and get some newbie victims who don't know any better to buy that fake garbage in a fake market so that they can make money!

I agree with you that not only bitcoin blockchain but word blockchain is used to hype many meaningless things.
To be fair, I don't know much about NFT and Ordinals, I have maybe only seen one or two articles about them on Cointelegraph and that's all, so count me as a person who doesn't know about them. Right now I am checking the marketplace of ordinals and NFTs and I'll be fair, I can't understand why I should pay money for them and why I should hope that price of ape NFTs or Ordinals will go up.

[DooMAD]

that was a huge thing to allow into bitcoin. you would think that such a huge thing would have been discussed alot and written up about why it was being done. with analysis about the potential repercussions of it. but nothing like that seemed to happen.

I'm honestly not sure how much more write-up you'd like but I'd say there was enough of it for people to make an informed decision.  And the length of the scaling civil war means that everything which could have been discussed was absolutely discussed several times over.  Any notion that such a change was "rushed through" is demonstrably false.

Be mindful of those who are trying to re-write history to further their own sordid agendas.  Some people are still just bitter that they lost and will make up just about any lie to try and gain support for their ridiculous views.  The rest of us, however, would very much like to move on now, rather than re-treading fruitless ground for what feels like the thousandth time.  

[franky1]

In fact , it's on their best interest to mine empty blocks as long as subsidy exist . By best interest i mean their chances of finding a block is probably higher with an empty template .

... no?  The time it takes to calculate the merkle root is minimum.  It is really against their interest to not collect transaction fees.  

You are correct . My bad on that .

when they see the last block solved. they do not send a message to all asics to halt hashing their current(now stale) block
instead the pool does send them a new header with the just-solved blocks hash as prev-block for asics to hash on. and yes its an empty block

the pool manager then confirmes utxos in 'just-solved' block as spent and removes them from utxoset, then adds the new confirmed outputs into utxoset and removes the now confirmed transactions from mempool
then it creates a template including transactions from mempool that are still unspent that were still waiting in mempool

the pool manager then updates the asics requests for new nonce extra-nonce ranges with the new template
so pools dont wait around to make a new template filled with transactions they set the asics initially to work empty block and then update asics once the blocktemplate is ready

[franky1]

that was a huge thing to allow into bitcoin. you would think that such a huge thing would have been discussed alot and written up about why it was being done. with analysis about the potential repercussions of it. but nothing like that seemed to happen.

I'm honestly not sure how much more write-up you'd like but I'd say there was enough of it for people to make an informed decision.  And the length of the scaling civil war means that everything which could have been discussed was absolutely discussed several times over.  Any notion that such a change was "rushed through" is demonstrably false.

Be mindful of those who are trying to re-write history to further their own sordid agendas.  Some people are still just bitter that they lost and will make up just about any lie to try and gain support for their ridiculous views.  The rest of us, however, would very much like to move on now, rather than re-treading fruitless ground for what feels like the thousandth time.  

yes larry should be mindful of the trolls that pretend segwit is perfection like doomad.
shame doomad can never use code or block data to back up his narrative

heck funny thing even doomad shows all the false promises and lies

more

If widely used this proposal gives a 2x capacity increase
(more if multisig is widely used),

write-up

According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6MB and a block filled with 2-of-2 multisignature transactions would be about 2.0MB.

still waiting on the proposed 1.6mb-2x legacy amount.. its been 6 years..
really did laugh when doomad linked things full of broken promises and lies and he thought it validated his narrative
yet 6 years of block data show no legacy tx data ever surpassed the 1mb limit

as for the "no rush"
you can check the deadlines, where community didnt even give it a 45% vote after 8 months(it wasnt good enough) and the boom unnatural mandated rush to 100% under 2 months (when their commercial contract(sponsorship) deadline of 12 months was nearing expiry)

heck it activated in 2017 but they didnt even finish the GUI sign message feature for years after

they do rush things when its something they want even if 55% didnt agree

[o_e_l_e_o]

At this point I should ask: when block subsidy will be near zero? Near zero in BTC or near zero in fiat? I guess this block subsidy amount protection is built into Bitcoin, it was meant to work like that by design. If by the time block subsidy is say 0.0001 but Bitcoin price is $100.000.000 will miners be able to survive?

That's only $10,000 per block, even at the price of $100 million. At the moment miners are earning about $250,000-$300,000 per block. And what when the subsidy is actually zero? Fees alone will sustain the network, and banning swaths of transactions which pay high fees will not be sustainable.

he didn't say he could afford it. he said he would pay it. i'm sure he doesn't want to pay a high fee but that's beside the point. he believes in bitcoin so he's willing to put his money where his mouth is and support the network. that's what he's saying.

This. Ordinals are spam, and I personally would prefer if they didn't exist. The high fee situation we find ourselves in is less than ideal, and I personally would prefer if fees were lower. However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with. Bitcoin as a concept is far more important than the personal inconvenience of higher fees.

If the fees are becoming prohibitive for normal people to use bitcoin, then we need to work on scaling, not on censorship.

[Casdinyard]

It's only going to be time until another "exploiter" is to come into the bitcoin network hoping to innovate this otherwise linear network only to be banned and displaced by the devs cause they'd rather keep the current situation of bitcoin than actually do something about the scalability issue. Ethereum was able to do it and arguably it's a more inferior (marketcap-wise) crypto to bitcoin, what excuse do we have for not actually doing something about the current and what would seem to be the future situation of the industry?

Don't get me wrong, i'm no ordinals fanatic, frankly speaking I don't think they even broke the mold in this one cause what they really just pose is "NFTs but bitcoin", but what of the future innovative applications that bitcoin could foster but wouldn't, cause we're stuck with this scalability issue? 

[franky1]

This. Ordinals are spam, and I personally would prefer if they didn't exist. The high fee situation we find ourselves in is less than ideal, and I personally would prefer if fees were lower. However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with.

if bitcoin was a railway train where you think it does not discriminate on people based on how they look. you are not realising it is discriminating by only letting first class premium passengers on.. where some morbidly obese person paying for one ticket but taking up three seats then causes other first class passengers to pay a premium for the remaining seats and causing economy class passengers to be left at the platform(mempool) untill the platform guard purges them off the platform
"sorry peasant your to poor to be standing on my station platform, come back when you are rich"

have you ever considered if a morbidly obese person wants to ride the train in circles on every trip taking up excess seating.
if a group of kids just want to use their childrens pass to get their parents a cheap seat and they just ride the train in circles all day
maybe its them who should be paying the most. not everyone else
that then allows everyone else to have a chance to afford a seat in the spare seats

if those that use it the most pay the price and not everyone else. then it evens the balance out and stops incentivising bloat/spam

[larry_vw_1955]

I'm honestly not sure how much more write-up you'd like but I'd say there was enough of it for people to make an informed decision.

i reviewed all 3 links you referenced but none of them had a big warning that someone could hog up an entire 4MB block with a single transaction or that people could use the witness field to store pictures and audio and video clips. was that supposed to just be understood and assumed that everyone knew those things could happen and was ok with it without even mentioning it at all? i don't think people are that smart, in general. but the developers should be. no question about that...

Be mindful of those who are trying to re-write history to further their own sordid agendas.  Some people are still just bitter that they lost and will make up just about any lie to try and gain support for their ridiculous views.  The rest of us, however, would very much like to move on now, rather than re-treading fruitless ground for what feels like the thousandth time.  

i get that. i just wish when something like segwit gets proposed that they be honest and detail all the possible use cases controversial or not so people can understand what might happen. i guess they missed the boat on this one just a tiny bit. but if that's what they intended then so be it. if they realized monkeys could be in bitcoin blocks then ok. but they should have put some pictures of monkeys on the segwit upgrade guide to warn people.  

This. Ordinals are spam, and I personally would prefer if they didn't exist. The high fee situation we find ourselves in is less than ideal, and I personally would prefer if fees were lower. However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with. Bitcoin as a concept is far more important than the personal inconvenience of higher fees.

that's the attitude we need more of. for people to stop complaining and support the network if they believe in bitcoin. but i think for alot of people maybe even myself to some degree the loyalty ends where the buck begins. if it costs more than i like i get cold feet about supporting the network. that's a bad bitcoiner! 

If the fees are becoming prohibitive for normal people to use bitcoin, then we need to work on scaling, not on censorship.

you've mentioned scaling a few times and i'm curious what type of scaling you have in mind exactly. i'm all for making bitcoin scale so it can have bigger thouroughput.

[franky1]

This. Ordinals are spam, and I personally would prefer if they didn't exist. The high fee situation we find ourselves in is less than ideal, and I personally would prefer if fees were lower. However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with. Bitcoin as a concept is far more important than the personal inconvenience of higher fees.

that's the attitude we need more of. for people to stop complaining and support the network if they believe in bitcoin. but i think for alot of people maybe even myself to some degree the loyalty ends where the buck begins. if it costs more than i like i get cold feet about supporting the network. that's a bad bitcoiner!  

If the fees are becoming prohibitive for normal people to use bitcoin, then we need to work on scaling, not on censorship.

you've mentioned scaling a few times and i'm curious what type of scaling you have in mind exactly. i'm all for making bitcoin scale so it can have bigger thouroughput.

remember doomad and oeleo do not support bitcoin scaling.. they support offramping to other subnetworks where middlemen can syphon routing fee's for unsettled payments(insecure non-immutable), which they call offramping as "scaling solution" they love high bitcoin fee's as it promotes their favoured subnetwork as "the solution"..
thats the real reason they dont want it to stop

they are ok with(rail train analogy) economy class passengers being kicked off te carriage. but they want the first class morbidly obese passengers to stay as it makes the business class passengers pay more so that the only passengers on the train become the obese junk eating first class that underpay their seating and businesses

those 'dont stop the junk' trolls you follow and admire are happy bitcoin is not for the unbanked anymore

[larry_vw_1955]

remember doomad and oeleo do not support bitcoin scaling..

i don't know franky. i'm not even sure what we mean by "scaling" but i thought it meant "larger blocksize" basically. i don't know their views on that but since i respect them both a great deal, i would respect their opinion on the matter. just like i can respect yours.

they support offramping to other subnetworks where middlemen can syphon routing fee's for unsettled payments(insecure non-immutable), which they call offramping as "scaling solution" they love high bitcoin fee's as it promotes their favoured subnetwork as "the solution"..
thats the real reason they dont want it to stop

oeieo even said in this thread he doesn't like high transaction fees but he's willing to pay them. to support the network. that doesn't sound to me like someone that runs off to LN to avoid transaction fees he's a real supporter of bitcoin, franky. which is why i respect whatever his view on this matter.

those 'dont stop the junk' trolls you follow and admire are happy bitcoin is not for the unbanked anymore

so there's people that don't have a bank account but yet they can do everything they need using just bitcoin? i guarantee you that no one that lives on the streets is in that category.

[franky1]

remember doomad and oeleo do not support bitcoin scaling..

i don't know franky. i'm not even sure what we mean by "scaling" but i thought it meant "larger blocksize" basically. i don't know their views on that but since i respect them both a great deal, i would respect their opinion on the matter. just like i can respect yours.

but their version of "bigger blocks" is to exagerate "1gb" speaches and "but visa does" speaches.. thats called LEAPING and they do that to try to quash any debate
scaling is progressive (rational) growth/increases... literally the meaning of the word scaling
scaling is not just progressive small growth of blocks (rational), but also tweaking the cludge of how transactions at the moment are treated to become leaner to allow more transactions in allowed blockspace. and also penalising spammers and junkers so they transact less so genuine bitcoiners can have more opportunity in the space

they support offramping to other subnetworks where middlemen can syphon routing fee's for unsettled payments(insecure non-immutable), which they call offramping as "scaling solution" they love high bitcoin fee's as it promotes their favoured subnetwork as "the solution"..
thats the real reason they dont want it to stop

oeieo even said in this thread he doesn't like high transaction fees but he's willing to pay them. to support the network. that doesn't sound to me like someone that runs off to LN to avoid transaction fees he's a real supporter of bitcoin, franky. which is why i respect whatever his view on this matter.

the network worked fine when the reward was 6.25 * $17k last year=~$107k .. miners dont need transactions to go from ~$2  to ~ $30 in that same year comparison.. because the bitcoin reward is 6.25 $40k+ = $250k
and we have not even got to the halving.. so basically miners are getting more income then they need. they dont need extra subsidy via fee.. so dont play the scripted sales pitch to put up with junk  "due to the poor miners".. they are not poor, so dont fall into those crappy traps
their game is make fees higher so it advertises their preferred subnetworks.. its that simple

those 'dont stop the junk' trolls you follow and admire are happy bitcoin is not for the unbanked anymore

so there's people that don't have a bank account but yet they can do everything they need using just bitcoin? i guarantee you that no one that lives on the streets is in that category.

many sanctioned countries cant do international fiat transfers..
many developing countries have low income but can and do buy bitcoin
heck even CZ of binance got fined millions of dollars (equivalent to the fees) for the transactions he processed from sanctioned countries that cant use the normal banking system internationally.. now we all know those fee's are only 0.x% of value. which shows the value of the "unbanked" of just the clients CZ of binance helped with,, is billions of dollars of value transfer

so dont dismiss the "unbanked"
bitcoin was meant to hedge against the banks that mess with peoples lives. for many reasons people dont have full international access of bank services. its not just the peasant on the streets

there was a lady in arizona that put her life savings into an account. they closed it due to "breach of terms of use" and the bank lost it...
nigel farage in the UK had account closed due to political views
(stories sound familiar?)

[pooya87]

However, I will suffer ordinals and I will pay higher fees if this is the price to keep bitcoin as freedom money and stop a small group of people censoring transactions they do not agree with. Bitcoin as a concept is far more important than the personal inconvenience of higher fees.

To be fair the preventive measure discussed here and also what I've suggested from day one has been "standard rules" not "consensus rules". Meaning it wouldn't make Ordinals exploit invalid, it would only make it non-standard which means it still can NOT be censorship if the community is deciding to enforce these rules on the full node they run.

The problem is that despite the length of time that has passed we haven't seen the option to reject Ordinals type spam in full node implementations (except the very recent Knots thing in OP) so the community never had that "choice". So you can not say whether it is a "small group" or a "big group" of people who don't want this spam on chain.
First that choice has to be added to the implementations then those who don't want to see this spam would start activating that option and reject the spam txs and those who want to see this spam would start running nodes and relay the garbage! Then we can see if it is actually a small group or not.

That's how Bitcoin should always work.

[franky1]

its only censorship when certain people want malicious stuff to continue.. otherwise its called mempool purging/pruning, relay dropping, block rejecting
which are actual bitcoin features to stop people for instance trying to broadcast litecoin or dogecoin or bsv transactions the bitcoin network
also when people try to broadcast already spend utxo's(double spends) or try to do other stuff the network does not want..

there are many reasons transactions get dropped..
an exploit that allowed junk should not be considered a "feature" just because devs ignored the warned 6 years ago and pushed ahead and allowed the exploit..
exploits need fixing otherwise not fixing exploits will compromise the network security more then the naive thoughts that fixing exploits would be treated as anti-bitcoin

[EarnOnVictor]

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).

Ordinance and others should leave our Bitcoin for us in peace, I don't know why some people would just come up with what would continue to be a problem for the network. It could be highly insane for the Bitcoin transaction fee to be as high as $12+, which was the highest I saw just last week, and this was still very little compared to the high fees experienced in July. It can be frustrating and annoying. I don't truly know how people would want to use the Bitcoin network for their businesses if it persis like this, and it would only be a matter of time before they will be turning their backs. Even on this forum, campaign managers are being forced to voice out and start suggesting alternatives to Bitcoin. If such frustration could happen in a Bitcoin forum, it can happen anywhere.

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 hope they will be able to fulfil this, Bitcoin is in dire need of it. A low transaction fee will make Bitcoin more competitive as owning it alone is not the beauty of it but building businesses around it as well. The grace it is still enjoying is that it's the number 1 of all the cryptocurrencies, if not, even businesses would have been turning their backs now as it doesn't pay them with the high fees associated with the congestion.

As for ORDI, I have not seen many dumps in it for now, it's still about x10 of the level that Binance enlisted it. Currently, at about $52, it's still not responding to any of the dumps as much but only retraced its former gains. This is a reason why I fear whether this project could ever push through. My major fear when I wanted to buy ORDi was the evil in the project and how it was affecting Bitcoin, but painfully, I had to lose all the earnings that it would have delivered into my account.

[kingvirtus09]

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.

Whether we admit it or not, the higher fee on bitcoin transactions does not really do anything good for all bitcoin holders. Why are there bitcoin holders who want a high fee for every transaction they make here? Do you want that?

That's why if the high Bitcoin transaction fee continues, maybe one day this will be the last Bitcoin halving cycle. Of course, who else would be interested in buying Bitcoin to hold it if they knew its bitcoin fees were so high? Although I know it's impossible to happen right now, No one knows what will happen in the future.

[franky1]

As for ORDI, I have not seen many dumps in it for now, it's still about x10 of the level that Binance enlisted it. Currently, at about $52, it's still not responding to any of the dumps as much but only retraced its former gains. This is a reason why I fear whether this project could ever push through. My major fear when I wanted to buy ORDi was the evil in the project and how it was affecting Bitcoin, but painfully, I had to lose all the earnings that it would have delivered into my account.

the cost of a tx to pretend binance has control of ORDI and cost to withdraw is ~$53+ total(fees were $30 each) so dont expect binance users to sell for less
thats their tx fee break even with zero value for the junk idiots want to pretend they are buying

[nutildah]

That's only $10,000 per block, even at the price of $100 million. At the moment miners are earning about $250,000-$300,000 per block. And what when the subsidy is actually zero? Fees alone will sustain the network, and banning swaths of transactions which pay high fees will not be sustainable.

I'm of the opinion that the hash rate will come down after block rewards get closer to zero; of course we're talking decades down the line. So it won't be as expensive for miners to do their thing -- theoretically, in terms of the ratio of mining cost to BTC price. The hash rate is already inconceivably high.

First that choice has to be added to the implementations then those who don't want to see this spam would start activating that option and reject the spam txs and those who want to see this spam would start running nodes and relay the garbage! Then we can see if it is actually a small group or not.

That's how Bitcoin should always work.

You can be happy, resting assured that's exactly the way things are already working right now...

Of course, you can always run a pruned node as well, that option was always available.

[ABCbits]

I'm honestly not sure how much more write-up you'd like but I'd say there was enough of it for people to make an informed decision.

i reviewed all 3 links you referenced but none of them had a big warning that someone could hog up an entire 4MB block with a single transaction or that people could use the witness field to store pictures and audio and video clips. was that supposed to just be understood and assumed that everyone knew those things could happen and was ok with it without even mentioning it at all? i don't think people are that smart, in general. but the developers should be. no question about that...

Including single TX (excluding coinbase TX) always has been possible if miner/pool wish do that. But i guess even developer don't expect witness data would be used to store arbitrary data. Although this link mention 4MB block is possible if it's mostly contain witness data.

Is the segregated witness soft fork equivalent to a 4MB block size increase, a 2MB increase, a 1.75MB increase, or what? I keep hearing different numbers.

The current proposal for soft fork segregated witness (segwit) counts each byte in a witness as 0.25 bytes towards the maximum block size limit, meaning the maximum size of a block is just under 4MB.

However, blocks are not expected to consist entirely of witness data and each non-witness byte is counted as 1.00 bytes towards the maximum block size limit, so blocks near 4MB in size would be unlikely.

According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6MB and a block filled with 2-of-2 multisignature transactions would be about 2.0MB.