Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription

[o_e_l_e_o]

Do you guys want massive adoption?

Not at the cost of fundamentally altering one of the core tenets of bitcoin - censorship resistance.

High fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. As I've said before, bitcoin cannot survive long term without high fees. If we can't tolerate these fees, then we need to innovate to increase capacity, not censor transactions we don't like.

[1714633328]

1714633328

[1714633328]

1714633328

[Synchronice]

Do you guys want massive adoption?

Not at the cost of fundamentally altering one of the core tenets of bitcoin - censorship resistance.

High fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. As I've said before, bitcoin cannot survive long term without high fees. If we can't tolerate these fees, then we need to innovate to increase capacity, not censor transactions we don't like.

We don't want to increase block size, we don't want to get rid of ordinals. This is ridiculous. We have to do something, not every solution will ever get 100% support but something has to be done. I don't plan to move on Lighting Network because that's not why I am here. Why should I be forced to move on LN? No reason. Ordinals have also never been a part of Bitcoin, it all started recently. So, blocking them is not cersorship. But okay, leave it, let the people buy shit, I see no problem into it but shouldn't we increase block size? When this question gets asked, someone comes and says, I think it should be 8MB, 16MB, 1GB. Then someone says why should it be 8MB and not 9MB and so on.

You say that high fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. I want to say it again, in the future. At the moment, high fees are not necessary. These fees just give unnecessary extra reward to bitcoin miners while hugely and unnecessarily taxing regular users. This is not the network security, this is robbery.
And if we talk about future, I'll say this: Number of daily bitcoin transactions will skyrocket and if we increase the block size according to the increased demand, miners will still get solid profit because they'll earn small commission but in very high quantity.

Just imagine this (Today):
- 100K daily transactions, 4K transaction included in each block
- Miners get 0.001 BTC from each transaction (on average), i.e. 4 BTC from each block.

In the future:
- 800K daily transactions, 64K transactions included in each block
- Miners get 0.0005 BTC from each transaction (on average), i.e. 32 BTC from each block. Users pay less but they get more.

So, if bitcoin price, number of bitcoin users and transactions grow, mining will be still secure without enormously high fees.

[o_e_l_e_o]

You say that high fees are the only way the network remains secure in the future. I want to say it again, in the future. At the moment, high fees are not necessary.

A sustainable fee market needs to develop organically over time. We cannot manipulate the system to keep fees low for as long as we want and then expect there to suddenly be a competitive fee market when we need it. Are we going to go the other way when fees are 1 sat/vbyte and no longer enough to secure the network, and start uncensoring transactions or reducing block size?

And if we talk about future, I'll say this: Number of daily bitcoin transactions will skyrocket and if we increase the block size according to the increased demand, miners will still get solid profit because they'll earn small commission but in very high quantity.

Ok, great. So let's start a discussion about further increasing block size, or further changing the weighting on different parts of transactions to make non-ordinal transaction relatively cheaper, or batched tree payments, or some other layer two, or some other scaling solution. All are preferable to censorship.

This is all of course entirely theoretical. As I've pointed out before, there is no way to actually censor ordinals. If we ban the method they are currently using, there are countless other ways they can embed their data in transactions including some which are impossible to ban, and many of these other methods are less efficient and will therefore make things worse, not better.

[nutildah]

We have to do something, not every solution will ever get 100% support but something has to be done.

We're not doing anything, unless you count bitching and moaning as "something."

Ordinals have also never been a part of Bitcoin, it all started recently.

Technically speaking, Ordinals has always been a part of Bitcoin since the genesis block. Its just a serialization system for satoshis. This is the full list of "rare" satoshis:

https://ordinals.com/rare.txt

The first transferrable "rare satoshi" was mined in Block 1.

At the moment, high fees are not necessary.

Paying more than 96 sat/vbyte is necessary if you want to include your transaction in the next block.

These fees just give unnecessary extra reward to bitcoin miners while hugely and unnecessarily taxing regular users. This is not the network security, this is robbery.

This is exactly the way the network was intended to function.

How do you know that a hasty increase of the block size limit won't just lead to more & bigger monkey pictures, thus more blockchain bloat, storage & bandwidth, making it more costly to run a node? It may very well lead to a temporary decrease in fees, but at what cost? These are the things people far smarter and more familiar with the subject than us are currently contemplating.

[franky1]

We have to do something, not every solution will ever get 100% support but something has to be done.

Technically speaking, Ordinals has always been a part of Bitcoin since the genesis block. Its just a serialization system for satoshis. This is the full list of "rare" satoshis:

wrong
if you know anything about economics and maths(doubt you do) if you knew how bitcoin treat UTXO value and then fee's and then value in a block
you will notice that the way that bitcoin accounts for sats is that the output to destinations is the "change" after fee
meaning the utxo value pays out fee's first and the remainder goes to destinations. so the "first sat" goes back to pools in real math/economics of bitcoin..
thats why ordinal sat counting is a failed policy. because it just doesnt actually count sats properly.
also the sat counting done by ordinals was not invented in 2009. it was created BADLY in 2020+

emphasis: ordinals theory of counting sats was not implemented in 2009
emphasis: ordinals theory of counting sats does not follow the spending economics of sats from 2009 economics

[0t3p0t]

For me, if the developers really wanted to fix this issue they had to find alternatives to totally stop these "attacks". Why? Because this will ruin the true purpose of existence of Bitcoin as a "new kind of money" and the other one that says "innovative payment network" that contradicts the current situation because who the heck wanna spend more fees for just a small amount of transaction?

[Abiky]

This is exactly the way the network was intended to function.

How do you know that a hasty increase of the block size limit won't just lead to more & bigger monkey pictures, thus more blockchain bloat, storage & bandwidth, making it more costly to run a node? It may very well lead to a temporary decrease in fees, but at what cost? These are the things people far smarter and more familiar with the subject than us are currently contemplating.

It can be very challenging to raise the block size without affecting decentralization. There's no perfect balance to be honest. Either developers add more block space at the cost of higher centralization (which leads to lower network fees) or all the other way around. I think users will vote in favor of banning/filtering Ordinals for the sake of lower fees. Miners won't like the decision, but it's the majority that counts. How can we call Bitcoin a digital "Peer-to-Peer electronic cash system" with higher fees than Fiat? It doesn't make any sense.

I'd bet people from developing countries (eg: El Salvador) are suffering dearly from the current situation. If Ordinals are to be kept, they should be moved to a sidechain or L2 network. Or move to a smart contract platform like Ethereum or Solana. Who knows how long will the craze last?

[franky1]

I'd bet people from developing countries (eg: El Salvador) are suffering dearly from the current situation. If Ordinals are to be kept, they should be moved to a sidechain or L2 network. Or move to a smart contract platform like Ethereum or Solana. Who knows how long will the craze last?

ordinals theory wont work on subnetworks
think logically
if a user has a "special sat". that user locks it into a funding tx for a subnetwork..
ill emphasise this "locking it"
heck lets say it 3 times to really drill in the point LOCKING IT to the federated multisig/channel

whereby any subnetwork payments then does not move the special sat because the sats are locked to the funding lock
the recipient of new balance is not getting balance from the "special sat" funding lock. they get balance from another allotment of locked coins they are partnered with elsewhere on the subnetwork
when the scammed recient wants to close the channel/federated multisig. they are not closing the special sat lock to claim it.. they are instead closing their own arrangement with their own partners elsewhere on the network, far away from the special sat lock

as for junk memes
if you want junk meme scamming to continue where they pretend to change ownership via a bitcoin subnetwork. again means using the bitcoin blockchain for publishing and then scam spending an output to a lock. where the subnetwork then doesnt do anything about the junk because the junk is on the mainnet.
yes sidechains could relax their code to allow 4mb of junk. but they are not going to be dumb enough to do that

overall ordinals just needs to be stopped because the ordinal theory of counting sats and assigning arbitrary meta data, does not follow the rules of bitcoin, nor economics, nor maths, no immutably proven linkage to destination

and no, these junk do not follow the bitcoin rules
bitcoin rules have been relaxed to no longer byte check every byte for specific content. new opcodes that bypass validation have been added and its this exploit that ordinal junk uses. core devs need to re-engage stronger ruleset of expected bytecount/content relevance of opcodes and disable unconditioned opcodes. whereby new opcodes only get enabled when network readiness is there to validate the rules of new opcodes that have expectation of bytes/content, via consensus upgrades

[Synchronice]

A sustainable fee market needs to develop organically over time. We cannot manipulate the system to keep fees low for as long as we want and then expect there to suddenly be a competitive fee market when we need it. Are we going to go the other way when fees are 1 sat/vbyte and no longer enough to secure the network, and start uncensoring transactions or reducing block size?

That is the problem we have to worry about after 100 years. I believe things won't be the same today and 100 years later. Today we have a different reality and things have to be adjusted to this reality. I don't understand why it should be a problem to increase block size two times and probably even more. If we think that 100 years later 8MB, 12MB or 16MB block size won't be enough to secure the network, then we can be confident that Bitcoin has failed because it lost popularity and people don't use it. If Bitcoin gets more popular and that's what is the hope, then today's 1 sat won't be the same in value too and focus here is not about 1 sat/vByte. We don't even know if we have USD as a currency 100 years later, I think it's too early to worry about the moment when miners won't be able to mine btc, there are many things to consider and that's impossible to predict: active global currency, the purchasing value of that currency, Bitcoin's price, electricity costs and so on.

And if we talk about future, I'll say this: Number of daily bitcoin transactions will skyrocket and if we increase the block size according to the increased demand, miners will still get solid profit because they'll earn small commission but in very high quantity.

Ok, great. So let's start a discussion about further increasing block size, or further changing the weighting on different parts of transactions to make non-ordinal transaction relatively cheaper, or batched tree payments, or some other layer two, or some other scaling solution. All are preferable to censorship.

This is all of course entirely theoretical. As I've pointed out before, there is no way to actually censor ordinals. If we ban the method they are currently using, there are countless other ways they can embed their data in transactions including some which are impossible to ban, and many of these other methods are less efficient and will therefore make things worse, not better.

Why should we move on layer two? Let's move Ordinals on layer two Ok, I'm joking.
If it's impossible to actually censor ordinals, then does it mean that Bitcoin as a P2P version of electronic cash is a failed project and it's only left for those who want to send JPEG files?

At the moment, high fees are not necessary.

Paying more than 96 sat/vbyte is necessary if you want to include your transaction in the next block.

I mean that Bitcoin's price is enough to keep mining profitable and there is no necessity of super high fees to keep network secure at the moment. I mean, mining will be very profitable with way lower transaction fees.

[o_e_l_e_o]

That is the problem we have to worry about after 100 years.

We will need a high fee market long before then. It is only going to take 20 years for the block subsidy to fall below 0.1 BTC. If BTC is worth $100,00, that's only $10,000. Even if you think bitcoin will be $500,000, that's only $50,000. Miners are currently earning upwards of $300,000 per block. A high fee market isn't some distant problem to worry about, and we can't kick the can down the road and then have this exact same discussion in 10, 15, 20 years when the hashrate starts falling.

If it's impossible to actually censor ordinals, then does it mean that Bitcoin as a P2P version of electronic cash is a failed project and it's only left for those who want to send JPEG files?

Bitcoin failed as P2P electronic cash a long time ago when the majority of users started using centralized exchanges and letting third parties hold their coins.

[apogio]

Bitcoin failed as P2P electronic cash a long time ago when the majority of users started using centralized exchanges and letting third parties hold their coins.

Personally I consider Monero as pure P2P money and I am very happy that Binance will delist XMR. Seriously, I think where Bitcoin fails, Monero jumps in and reminds me why I bought Bitcoin in the first place. Well, now I hold both, but Monero serves my original purpose much better.

I think it's not too late though for Bitcoin. I don't want to derail the conversation but I believe that instead of killing ordinals, we should focus on running more nodes and more miners. It is sad because a bitcoin node requires minimal hardware to work and people rely on other nodes. At the same time, people use exchanges as you said. I think we must focus now on expanding the network horizontally. When that happens, we can consider more changes, but for now, I believe more devices should be running. It will not solve the problem, but it will definetely follow the original purpose of Bitcoin in a meaningful way.

[franky1]

That is the problem we have to worry about after 100 years.

We will need a high fee market long before then. It is only going to take 20 years for the block subsidy to fall below 0.1 BTC. If BTC is worth $100,00, that's only $10,000. Even if you think bitcoin will be $500,000, that's only $50,000. Miners are currently earning upwards of $300,000 per block. A high fee market isn't some distant problem to worry about, and we can't kick the can down the road and then have this exact same discussion in 10, 15, 20 years when the hashrate starts falling.

you have no clue
if you think 1btc is only going to be worth $100k in 20 years you really are scratching at the bottom of the scarecrow pole holding up a strawman

why is it idiots like you and your small group of echo chamber scripts that keep failing at math and economics and actual bitcoin concepts to pretend the extremes of low market or high blocksize are the only options.. you have no clue about rational thought of actual scaling and deflation and spot market dynamics

look we all know you adore the fee war. it helps promote the subnetworks you prefer people to use.. we get your promotions.. but can you try for 2024 to stop thinking about your desires of pushing people off bitcoin via high fee's into your middle men services. and just once actually think of things that benefit bitcoiners that want to use bitcoin

Bitcoin failed as P2P electronic cash a long time ago when the majority of users started using centralized exchanges and letting third parties hold their coins.

your favourite subnetwork LN failed P2P cash its first day because it requires middlemen and locked up value

[Abiky]

Personally I consider Monero as pure P2P money and I am very happy that Binance will delist XMR. Seriously, I think where Bitcoin fails, Monero jumps in and reminds me why I bought Bitcoin in the first place. Well, now I hold both, but Monero serves my original purpose much better.

I think it's not too late though for Bitcoin. I don't want to derail the conversation but I believe that instead of killing ordinals, we should focus on running more nodes and more miners. It is sad because a bitcoin node requires minimal hardware to work and people rely on other nodes. At the same time, people use exchanges as you said. I think we must focus now on expanding the network horizontally. When that happens, we can consider more changes, but for now, I believe more devices should be running. It will not solve the problem, but it will definetely follow the original purpose of Bitcoin in a meaningful way.

Agree. Monero is more decentralized than Bitcoin now, probably because it's not driven by VCs own interests. While a spot Bitcoin ETF is good for investors, it will do more harm than good for BTC's decentralization. Ordinals are hated by users simply because they raise on-chain fees. The wealthy, however, love Ordinals because it makes them a lot of money in the process. Elon Musk and Michael Saylor are both avid supporters of Ordinals inscriptions.

Is Bitcoin meant to be a system for VCs and institutional investors? Or a currency by the people, for the people? It seems to me things are heading into the wrong direction for the premier cryptocurrency project. Long gone are the ideals of true decentralization and censorship-resistance. You can see why Monero is disliked by many (governments, banks, exchanges). BTC has entered uncharted waters, so expect the unexpected.

[Synchronice]

If it's impossible to actually censor ordinals, then does it mean that Bitcoin as a P2P version of electronic cash is a failed project and it's only left for those who want to send JPEG files?

Bitcoin failed as P2P electronic cash a long time ago when the majority of users started using centralized exchanges and letting third parties hold their coins.

It will be interesting to hear, why do you support Bitcoin then? To be honest, I came up with a conclusion that Monero is everything that some people wanted bitcoin to be. Monero is anonymous, decentralized, delisted from centralized exchanges.
Right now, for me it looks like, Bitcoin is the number one currency because it is the most marketed one by millions of individuals, billions of money is invested into it the fact that its creator(s) is unknown, it's promoted as the only decentralized currency because of that but actually it's very much centralized because centralized exchanges hold the most reserves, they all are KYC enabled and at the same time, mining two major mining pools own more than 51% of hashrate. Long story short, governments managed to get it in their hands.

why is it idiots like you

Why do you call him an idiot? He is a very smart and good guy, he is a great asset of this forum. He knows a lot, is very helpful and the most important thing is that he never says something out of thin air, what he says is always verified. This is the case when there is a disagreement on this opinion between him and other users. He has his arguments, I have mine and you have yours. Maybe you, me and him don't agree with each-other but this doesn't make him idiot.
I like to read posts written by both of you, you two are very informative, for me at least. Hope I am not on the wrong path.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It will be interesting to hear, why do you support Bitcoin then?

Because I'm not ready to give up on it quite yet. I do agree with the points about Monero though, and Monero now better encapsulates many of the reasons I got in to Bitcoin in the first place. I've said many times it's the only coin I own and use other than bitcoin and one of the very few alts which I consider to not be a shitcoin. It also remains a lot easier to spend Bitcoin nearly anywhere than it is to spend
Monero, but that is slowly shifting as time goes on.

Why do you call him an idiot?

Haha, classic franky1. I've had him on ignore for a long time. You and I disagree with each other, but can discuss that like adults and put forward our reasoning. franky1 is unable to do that - he is 100% right on all matters and anyone who disagrees with him on any topic is an idiot, as far as he is concerned.

[franky1]

why is it idiots like you

Why do you call him an idiot? He is a very smart and good guy, he is a great asset of this forum. He knows a lot, is very helpful and the most important thing is that he never says something out of thin air, what he says is always verified. This is the case when there is a disagreement on this opinion between him and other users. He has his arguments, I have mine and you have yours. Maybe you, me and him don't agree with each-other but this doesn't make him idiot.
I like to read posts written by both of you, you two are very informative, for me at least. Hope I am not on the wrong path.

i call him an idiot when he is blind to facts, data, real world math and economics and he is just repeating crap he read from another idiot..
its the times he sounds like a brainless echo chamber of someone else that i call him an idiot.
times where he uses extremes of empty sentiment to ignore the actual proposals
times where he says things that go against code and blockdata
where the only thing backing him up is a club house of echo chamber scripts repeating repeating each other as a form of confirmation bias without using any actual thought or intelligence

in the post said by him i quoted. he was talking about nonsense extremes that in 20 years the btc market price will be just $100k/btc and how transactors would need to pay more sats then they are this year.. completely ignoring logic, economics and maths of bitcoin utility/deflation, market reaction to several halvings. and ignoring basic assumptions of things like more transactions per block solves the fee total issue he cries about, more then the demands he wants to impose on less transactors to pay more

if he wants to be called an idiot less, he should stop being a blind copy and paste of some scripted rhetoric being repeated and instead think about what he writes and use some code, data and math, basic common sense and logic
i also call his echoed club house mates blackhatcoiner, windfury and others idiots when they too just repeat the same crap rhetoric. they can all avoid being called idiots by simply stopping repeating the foolish rhetoric which is obviously repeated without thought or consciousness

when certain group of people want bitcoin to be too expensive to transact but then promote that everyone should shift down to some flawed subnetwork.. its obvious they prefer bitcoin to be ruined to promote their favoured other network that uses locked up value and middlemen.. and that shows how little these idiots care about bitcoin.

..
he has the gall to try to incite REKT campaign to avoid fixing an exploit. by pretending its inferior node, inciting people should just avoid it, but in same post promotes an even lessor known/ more inferior deamon that doesnt even have a good GUI or wallet functionality..
he is too determined to want the exploit to continue and cause more annoyance/expense of using bitcoin all so he can promote his favoured alternative services that involve middlemen

when he sounds like a scripted snake oil salesman pitching things that do not help the bitcoin community, he deserves to be called an idiot

the most important thing is that he never says something out of thin air, what he says is always verified.

so you think him saying individuals paying fee's need to increase.. and you think thats not out of thinair and think thats verified
so you think him saying bitcoin wont be deflationary and will be stuck at just $100k in 20 years. and thats not out of thin air but verified

come on even common sense of the previous 15 years shows that a 2.2x rise in next 20 years is not the limit

he says stupid thin air extremes nonsense of 1btc=$100k in 20 years.. to then set some numbskull entry of his scripted narrative he read by some other clown that wants fee wars to remain. wants exploits to remain, wants junk to bloat the blockchain. because they have an agenda, whereby he is either complicit. or ignorant of his own following of their scripts

[ChiBitCTy]

Good, it's insane what these ordinals are doing to the bitcoin network.  I was never really a fan of the idea of adding something like this to bitcoin.  I always thought that smart contracts were better suited for smart contract coins like Ethereum, for example.  Perhaps in the future when bitcoin scales better, or they open up another layer or whatever, then it could be a positive, but right now I see it as a much bigger negative than positive.

[Mate2237]

Good, it's insane what these ordinals are doing to the bitcoin network.  I was never really a fan of the idea of adding something like this to bitcoin.  I always thought that smart contracts were better suited for smart contract coins like Ethereum, for example.  Perhaps in the future when bitcoin scales better, or they open up another layer or whatever, then it could be a positive, but right now I see it as a much bigger negative than positive.

But I don't think this developers of Bitcoin are doing anything to douse this problem of high transaction fee because it has passed one month when the hike of fee started but nothing has been done to stop this problem but instead these ordinals are doing all there best to stop all the channels which people are using to accelerate the transaction and spam the network.

These ordinals are making things unbeatable for Bitcoin users. People have been waiting for this transaction fee to come down so they can withdraw their money but no way because the fee is equivalent to the total amount of Bitcoin in the wallet. I don't blame the ordinals but the developers for allowing the ordinals to come into the network.

[Abiky]

Good, it's insane what these ordinals are doing to the bitcoin network.  I was never really a fan of the idea of adding something like this to bitcoin.  I always thought that smart contracts were better suited for smart contract coins like Ethereum, for example.  Perhaps in the future when bitcoin scales better, or they open up another layer or whatever, then it could be a positive, but right now I see it as a much bigger negative than positive.

Bitcoin should stick only to financial applications (money transfers). Otherwise, it would add more burden to the blockchain than necessary. Why were altcoins invented? To take off the load from the main Bitcoin blockchain. It's the reason why BTC can't be the only cryptocurrency to handle everything it's thrown at.

Smart contract platforms such as Ethereum and Solana are better suited as multi-purpose chains due to the way they were designed. It's no wonder why they're the King of "De-Fi" and NFTs. Ordinals inscriptions should move to these chains to make Bitcoin great again. Lets see what the community decides in the long run. As long as decisions are made with decentralization in mind, nothing else matters. Just my opinion

[o_e_l_e_o]

But I don't think this developers of Bitcoin are doing anything to douse this problem of high transaction fee because it has passed one month when the hike of fee started but nothing has been done to stop this problem

This has been discussed on the mailing list since as far back as January last year, when the first wave of ordinal spam hit the network. And it was rightly pointed out on the mailing list that banning this kind of data is technically impossible, as I've also said many times in this thread, since the spammers can just move their data to other parts of the transaction which are impossible to ban, such as embedding it with public keys themselves.

People have been waiting for this transaction fee to come down so they can withdraw their money

Have you considered your biggest issue is using centralized exchanges from which you have to withdraw "your" money in the first place? Why should we start censoring transactions and adversely affect the future security of the network because you didn't use bitcoin peer to peer but instead let a third party take ownership of your money and dictate fees to you?

Why were altcoins invented?

For 99.99% of altcoins, to make their creators rich.