Ordinal blockchain irking me, causing almost $40 median fee now...

[pinggoki]

~

A few year ago "big blockers" lost their shit over the devs plans to have high fees forever on BTC and have all low value transactions goto LN, do you not remeber that?
now we are locked in...
Layer1 is for high value transactions only ( ex Elon musk selling tickets off this sick sad world) and Layer2 is for the presents ( ex you buying a 12pack of beer and bag of chips )

pretty sure devs arent doing anything about this because its plays in prefectly into their plans to get you on "btc's second layer"

But I've heard that there's already a solution to this and that they're not just deploying it, if I recall correctly this ordinal is a vulnerability and they already identified the vulnerability and know the solutio to it. I don't remember much about what you're talking to but I'm sure the devs didn't have that plan.

[1715106969]

1715106969

[1715106969]

1715106969

[1715106969]

1715106969

[1715106969]

1715106969

[1715106969]

1715106969

[1715106969]

1715106969

[Wind_FURY]

If it's truly a nefarious entity that's using Ordinals as an attack vector, then that entity will provide tools and apps for newbies to make it easier to send their Ordinals transactions to a miner.

We always make spam harder not impossible. Every single standard rule can be broken if you contact a miner. But mining pools aren't the most willing to become pariahs in the Bitcoin community by explicitly accepting something that is being rejected by majority of the network as non-standard (assuming it gets implemented for Ordinals Attack!) which means we make it "harder" to spam.

Ser, what makes everything in the network stick together is the incentives. The Core Developers are more than welcome to find a technical solution to prevent the "feature" from being abused, but if you believe miners and mining pools will stop doing their jobs and  start rejecting particular transactions, then you will be disappointed.

You should also consider the pool owner's fear of having their mined block rejected. Take a look at this case here. A perfectly valid but non-standard transaction that they refused to include in their blocks regardless of its high reward. It took more than a year and an actual block being mined on testnet to show them it is valid to get it picked up.

But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future?

[shield132]

~I made some snips~
mempool.space
I don't want to spend $40 to consolidate here.  I guess I'll just have to wait.  And wait & wait & wait???   
Maybe only a much higher BTC price will stop those ords from infesting the mempool....

There is no option other than to wait. While you wait, feel free to use altcoins with low transaction fees. There is simply no other option.
Btw I think transaction fees will go way high when bitcoin price increases because we have experienced similar fee issues during bull runs when there were no ordinals.

It's a pain, but the only option is to wait. Consolidating multiple small inputs have been impossible impractical since October and looms to remain so for sometime more.

It was my huge mistake to combine small inputs into a single one, today I can't do it. I need to make a Bitcoin transaction, even with the coins control option on Electrum, making a transaction with 1 input and 1 output costs me a lot, but it isn't worth it.

If you're in a hurry, try using a transaction accelerator and a lower fee (above the minimum for the mempool now).

Which free transaction accelerator? ViaBTC is immediately filled and there is no other free transaction accelerator. Paid ones cost too much to handle.

[DooMAD]

It's weird to me that the devs aren't doing anything about this

It's not that they "aren't doing anything".  There's just some disagreement in how best to do something about it, without causing damage elsewhere.

But I've heard that there's already a solution to this and that they're not just deploying it

Not exactly.  The proposed "solution" was akin to building a short fence that someone could easily step over.  It wasn't robust.

[nutildah]

Nobody's bothered posting what Adam Back had to say about the situation, so here you go:



I don't always agree with him, but what he says makes a lot of sense here. There's no point in continuing to have unreasonable expectations about the devs doing something to suit your whims.

It's weird to me that the devs aren't doing anything about this

[bettercrypto]

...

mempool.space

I don't want to spend $40 to consolidate here.  I guess I'll just have to wait.  And wait & wait & wait???   


       


Maybe only a much higher BTC price will stop those ords from infesting the mempool....

The Bitcoin fee yesterday was really crazy, the charge fee was around 43-44$, in fact it reached around 600 sats using mempool. And this is the image you can see below.



Then now he is still high which can be considered to be around more than 200 sats. The amount of the fee is a big deal to me and the size of the amount being deducted from my balance is a bit painful, but I can't do anything like you said but just wait for the bitcoin fee to drop again.

[NotATether]

I refuse to apply any transaction fee below 50 sats/vbyte . Maybe if I'm desperate, I will use 75 sats/vbyte but I think it's absolutely ridiculous to pay hundreds of sats per byte just to get a transaction confirmed.

[pooya87]

But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future?

I still don't get why some people insist of using the false term "censorship" when referring to an "exploit fix".
But as I've said a million times, we've been "censoring" a lot of abusing transactions that would fall under similar protocol exploits for as long as Bitcoin has existed so I don't see how things would be any different if we fix this newest exploit in the protocol!

[/url]

That's complete and utter nonsense. The tweet itself is a paradox! Layer suggests it is on top of something else, meaning the "base" has to work fine for the layer to also work. For example you can't apply a coat on an already corroded (rusty/pitted) iron and claim things are fine now!

If making an on-chain transaction is extremely expensive and nearly impossible for regular users because some scammers are using an exploit to spam the chain, nobody would ever bother using Lightning Network that requires on-chain settlements.

He is essentially saying that Bitcoin is for scammers that have money and incentive to spam the chain at any cost (fees) and we're not gonna do anything about it; and the real Bitcoin users should stop using Bitcoin!!!
The community needs to beware of naïve statements such as this and I'm too kind for calling it naïve and not malicious.

[franky1]

But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future?

arnt you and your forum daddy the guys that are screaming that bitcoin cant cope with all bitcoiners transacting and instead the limits should not be raised to allow more bitcoiners space on the bitcoin network... you instead want bitcoiners to use another network... while then acting the idiots by saying bitcoin can cope with the junk so do not touch the junk...

seems to me you want bitcoin to be a junk network just to promote another network as the go to thing..

seems like you are censoring bitcoiners while allowing junkers

..
many years ago. devs actually cared about byte utility where code actually made rules to decide what belongs in a block. where transaction formats actually had format conditions and content expectation..

all this crappy "assume valid" "is valid"(no expectation of content to validate) has shown how many transactions these days are not actually fully validated anymore.. but a certain idiot group dont care because its an advert for their preferred other network they want people to migrate over to

[nutildah]

I still don't get why some people insist of using the false term "censorship" when referring to an "exploit fix".
But as I've said a million times, we've been "censoring" a lot of abusing transactions that would fall under similar protocol exploits for as long as Bitcoin has existed so I don't see how things would be any different if we fix this newest exploit in the protocol!

I don't get why you're using the term "we." You haven't been doing anything. Neither have I, but I don't harbor any sort of delusion that its at all up to me. The people who do have any sort of say are probably doing some careful balancing of pros and cons, putting a lot of consideration into potential "fixes" before taking any kind of action.

That's complete and utter nonsense. The tweet itself is a paradox! Layer suggests it is on top of something else, meaning the "base" has to work fine for the layer to also work.

The base layer is working fine. Its doing exactly what its supposed to do.

[digaran]

Adam Back seems to be a reasonable and conservative kind of guy, I don't know him at all but based on that tweet, I'd say he is right, IMO it's not good to censor, they need to make the cloud storage expensive enough to make it a balanced situation, where monetary transactions pay less, but ord/garbage pay more.
There is also another option, all monetary users either use LN/second layers, or move to alts temporarily and when miners see everyone has left, they would submit to even a hard fork if there is a need. 😉

[Wind_FURY]

But if censoring trivial transactions such is Ordinals is in the future of Bitcoin, then imagine what other transactions they could start to censor. What would be the of POW in such a future?

I still don't get why some people insist of using the false term "censorship" when referring to an "exploit fix".
But as I've said a million times, we've been "censoring" a lot of abusing transactions that would fall under similar protocol exploits for as long as Bitcoin has existed so I don't see how things would be any different if we fix this newest exploit in the protocol!

In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,

- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.

[franky1]

In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,

- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.

they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse
i know you got your scripts from your forum daddy.. but for once try to actually learn about bitcoin.

bitcoin was made to validate data, and know the purpose of each byte..
by you wanting validation bypasses and junk and uncounted bytes.. your the idiot

the validation bypass is the exploit
bitcoins consensus have softened over the years allowing more exploits

learn this stuff instead of promoting you want more of it

years ago there were not this many opcodes that bypassed validation.. learn who added them
learn how they softened consensus
learn who and when things happened.. and i emphasis this. dont ask your forum daddy. he has no clue

they did not all exist in bitcoin from 2009.. no matter how much your forum daddy tries to imply they were
learn bitcoin. learn the scripts you recite are wrong and you are the idiots promoting that exploits should not be fixed..
listen to yourself trying to allow more exploits.. listen to how screwed up you sound wanting to make bitcoin worse

[blckhawk]

It's a pain, but the only option is to wait. Consolidating multiple small inputs have been impossible impractical since October and looms to remain so for sometime more. It's ridiculous the amount of fees paid on regular transactions, much less one with lots of inputs.

If you're in a hurry, try using a transaction accelerator and a lower fee (above the minimum for the mempool now).

That's not the option that people like me can take though, I need to pay some loans and stuff in bitcoin so I can't afford that transaction fee to be higher than the usual when I do transactions. Thankfully, the people that I've owed to are considerate and that they don't mind me not paying for awhile as long as the price of the transaction isn't going to go down. I don't get what's the hype behind these ordinals, I've seen this before shared by my connection in LinkedIn and I've read what it is, can't find the point of the inscriptions and the utility of these, I just hope the miners get tired of all these.

[franky1]

I just hope the miners get tired of all these.

miners are not involved.. they have no decision on transactions

POOLS decide on the transactions.. hope POOLS get tired of it

[ABCbits]

Nobody's bothered posting what Adam Back had to say about the situation, so here you go:

I'd rather not pay $9.67 (current high priority fee from https://mempool.space/) just to open LN channel when i don't plan to pay with Bitcoin frequently. And while you can exchange for Bitcoin located on sidechain (such as L-BTC and R-BTC), you'll need to prepare altcoin or fiat if you want to avoid high fees on Bitcoin on-chain.

[nutildah]

- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.

I'm willing to be you most miners don't see it as an "attack vector." So long as somebody is paying a fee, the system is working as intended.

[franky1]

- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.

I'm willing to be you most miners don't see it as an "attack vector." So long as somebody is paying a fee, the system is working as intended.

miners dont see the transactions!!

mining pools decide on the transactions
stop using the scripted PR campaign shown to you by dumb-dumb group to try to make it as if its the miners are the cause

miners dont handle transactions.. they just SHA256 hash
miners are not making political decisions on code
miners do not write code
miners did not open the exploit
miners are not the ones to fix the exploit
the exploit has nothing to do with asic firmware
thus has nothing to do with miners

the core devs opened the exploit the core devs can close it.
adam back is not even a dev. but a manager of the devs and he has commanded that they do nothing..
he hypocritically then says devs should work on other networks and promote other networks instead.. as the things bitcoiners should use (facepalm)

core devs should fix bitcoin issues not be subverted into helping subnetworks become popular due to their employers politics

bitcoiners should not be made to move over to other networks

bitcoin devs should concentrate on bitcoin issues not the politics of their employer

[jeraldskie11]

I just hope the miners get tired of all these.

miners are not involved.. they have no decision on transactions

POOLS decide on the transactions.. hope POOLS get tired of it

But since the mining pool is a group of miners they still can't do anything with it.

So the best way to do if we are not in a hurry if we transfer Bitcoin is to wait or do a transaction with specific fee you can afford and later on when the Bitcoin fee went back to normal it will immediately being processed.

The cause of this is network congestion, which is caused not only by an increase in Bitcoin demand, but also by the quick growth of brc-20 tokens..

[Wind_FURY]

In your own personal opinion it's an "expoit". But if it's functioning within the consensus rules, then technically it isn't. But this is is what I'll tell you, and I believe we could be of the same opinion,

- Ordinals by itself is not technically an "exploit", BUT it can be used as an attack vector to impede and interrupt financial transactions in the Bitcoin blockchain.

they use a validation bypass mechanism.. a thing that is bad for bitcoin.. known as a trojan horse

 

frankandbeans, you're making it sound as if there's truly an "exploit" that "hackers" could covertly use to break the consensus rules. Laughable.