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

[TrustedBitcoiner]

- 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

i'm not sure there is much the devs can do

makeing Ordinal transactions invalid would require a hardfork, miners wont go for that...

making Ordinals a type of "spam" that minners can choose to include or filter out of their blocks is the only way forward (isnt?) and its hard to see how much hashing power would choose to filter Ordinal and massivly cut into their profit margin, for some minners not including this spam might make them unprofitable...

[1714640108]

1714640108

[1714640108]

1714640108

[1714640108]

1714640108

[dansus021]

It's different today. I don't think I saw the fees surge this high and stay high this long before. I have argued for censorship-resistance and that they have the same right is everyone to use the network, but I'm annoyed and I am worried to be honest.

Yes its totally different its not just because bitcoin get pump high it is also because the ordinal transaction it does really push the limit of bitcoin, the ordinal should think again tho since if there any "real user" that using ordinal they should worry about the growing fee like this.

Image the NFT marketplace with high fee for long period of time, I do believe this will got abandoned soon unless there is fishy reason behind this transaction

[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

 

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

you do realise that this junk is causing a form of DDoS attack. stopping users having the ability to transact freely
you do realise by not needing general population full node vote of readiness before activation. a sybil attack by economic nodes can mandate pools comply or have their blocks rejected(yep it happened and is backed up by blockdata and code)
look into the NYA look into things like blockstream Fibre, look into the mandates. look into the blockdata to show real versions of events
look how "nonstandard" used to not relay pre-confirm. and now does
see how things have changed

consensus has been softened, it has never been this soft since the start

start caring more about bitcoin for your own funds security, rather than your forum daddys emotional security

consensus has already been compromised.. LEARN "backward compatibility"
nodes no longer validate all data. they allow junk in and nodes cant veto an upgrade anymore

thats what core love, being able to trojan in new funfy stuff nodes dont understand without the consent of the masses
learn what this entire issue is all about. and no dont ask your forum daddy for a new script to recite full of silly buzzwords you dont understand
learn about bitcoin for once

core added a f*ck-tonne of new opcodes that bypass validation.. they then use the strawman that there is no point stopping one opcode because exploiters will just use one of the other..
well disable the pre-confirm relay of the f*ck-tonne (they refuse because it then requires node readiness to then activate, meaning they cant slide new funky tx formats in themselves
but by having node readiness before activation means the network secures itself again. as it should do to prevent a dev from just sliding things in before nodes are ready

and no dont respond that core devs should be permissionless and should be able to do anything without consent.. because thats BAD security to allow them full control with no responsibility/consent of the majority of the network

[BitcoinCanSaveUsAll]

The solution is really quite simple.  Just run a bitcoin core node in v 20.x and you won't pass along the mempool spam that's increasing the fees.  Also I would suggest enabling the permitbaremultisig=0 is set.  Just my 2 sats.

[Natsuu]

It's different today. I don't think I saw the fees surge this high and stay high this long before. I have argued for censorship-resistance and that they have the same right is everyone to use the network, but I'm annoyed and I am worried to be honest.

Yes its totally different its not just because bitcoin get pump high it is also because the ordinal transaction it does really push the limit of bitcoin, the ordinal should think again tho since if there any "real user" that using ordinal they should worry about the growing fee like this.

Image the NFT marketplace with high fee for long period of time, I do believe this will got abandoned soon unless there is fishy reason behind this transaction

Right and it’s understandable to be concerned about the prolonged surge in fees, especially when it affects censorship. The strain on Bitcoin's network due to high transaction volumes does raise valid worries because users rely on the network for genuine transactions like those in the NFT marketplace. I think balancing scalability with decentralization remains a challenge for blockchain but we’ll get there

[pooya87]

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.

We've already established this a long time ago. I believe it was in spring!
Everyone who disagreed with me calling it "Attack" agreed that Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol to spam the chain ergo it is an exploit itself.

Keep in mind that saying "it is functioning within the consensus rules" doesn't change the fact that it is an exploit. Consensus rules can be broken and in need of a fix too. Sometimes it is a very severe case like the value overflow incident[1], sometimes it is less severe like the countless number of cases being patched by standard rules.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

[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.

you do realise that this junk is causing a form of DDoS attack.

 

"DDOS Attack". The network congestion IS TRULY annoying, but there isn't anything like what you're making everyone believe that there's an "exploit" that "hackers" have been using covertly to break the consensus rules. The high fees are simply the product of increased demand for having their transactions to the next block + the fee market.

Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network.

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.

We've already established this a long time ago. I believe it was in spring!
Everyone who disagreed with me calling it "Attack" agreed that Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol to spam the chain ergo it is an exploit itself.

Keep in mind that saying "it is functioning within the consensus rules" doesn't change the fact that it is an exploit. Consensus rules can be broken and in need of a fix too. Sometimes it is a very severe case like the value overflow incident[1], sometimes it is less severe like the countless number of cases being patched by standard rules.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.

[mrust_mobile]

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).

Wait… and quit using btc because if you keep using btc at the moment you will be sitting on a bigger problem than you previously had. Every incoming btc tx on your wallet will increase the consolidation price. It is already bad when you have 10 unconsolidated inputs and imagine what will happen when you have 100 or more.

There was another guy on another thread who paid 300+ sats/b but still waiting in the queue for hours because he had 500 unconsolidated inputs.

[ABCbits]

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.
--snip--

But don't expect pool to follow miner's demand, unless many of them retaliate by moving to different pool.

Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network.

Almost 2 months is more than temporary inconvenience[1].



[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd

[Wind_FURY]

Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network.

Almost 2 months is more than temporary inconvenience[1].



[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd

Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.

[franky1]

Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.

you are saying things without understanding what you are saying (you are on autopilot)
you are reciting your forum daddy without knowing what you are saying

its funny because, by closing the exploit of using unconditioned(validation bypass) opcodes, it would then require core to not be able to just throw any new format in when they want and instead need to actually propose stuff and get the network onboard before activating again..

your forum daddy hates that old version of consensus requiring network readiness before activation.
your forum daddy prefers core to have absolute permissionless control to slide in changes at a whim without consent of the masses, he loves speedy implimentations. he adored the fact that core after 10 months of only achieving 45% willingness of old consensus(nov 2016-june2017), then pushing through a mandated change in 2 months(july2017 aug 2017)

understand how your forum daddy tells you silly things but then cant back up what he tells you because he has a different agenda then the one he portrays
like pretending he hates ordinals.. but secretly loves them because he doesnt want them to stop. even though he wants normal bitcoins to stop using bitcoin.. he loves high fee's. he wants the fee wars to continue.. read how many posts he literally jizzes at when he says the buzzword "freemarket"

[FP91G]

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

On Thursday, Ocean—the company behind the mining pool of the same name—said that miners can now decide if they want to process Bitcoin blocks that contain non-financial transactions. Previously, the pool prohibited such actions.

While the announcement did not expressly name it, many Bitcoiners speculate that the “spam” Ocean referenced in its announcement refers to the wildly popular Ordinal inscriptions that have flooded the network in 2023.
https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions

[pooya87]

But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.

It is an exploit when it is not the expected behavior and when it is using an oversight by the developers who left the validation rules loose.

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

On Thursday, Ocean—the company behind the mining pool of the same name—said that miners can now decide if they want to process Bitcoin blocks that contain non-financial transactions. Previously, the pool prohibited such actions.

That sounds like a good move and it has nothing to do with "having a change of heart" about the attack known as Ordinals. Not just miners, but also full node operators should have the choice of what they want to relay specially when it comes to abusive spam transactions.

[mrust_mobile]

I don’t think we should call these transactions “spam” if some people somewhere willing to pay thousands of dollars to create catpic transactions.

The feature shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Now it is there and the demand is clearly big for that kind of use, bitcoin can’t be used as a currency anymore. It is because some people somewhere are willing to pay a lot more than those who want to use btc as a currency.

This is a free market indeed which works against the people who want to use bitcoin as intended (or used to be)

Despite all the smarts Vitalik had, even eth couldn’t handle the abuse which came from crypto kitties. Who teh fuck thought bitcoin could succeed it?

Protocol-wise it is not an attack.

The attack is the dumb dev who implemented it.

[Wind_FURY]

Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent. Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.

--Snip--

I know what you're doing frankandbeans, but it's OK. I'm a mere pleb who's merely walking a path of my own Bitcoin journey.

But what every newbie needs to see is your trust-rating and ask, should they listen to a troll that spreads misinformation, or listen to two trustworthy people in the Bitcoin community who are, not by coincidence, Bitcoin Core developers.

But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.

It is an exploit when it is not the expected behavior and when it is using an oversight by the developers who left the validation rules loose.

That's precisely the point, it's debatable. Because other developers/users, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, would consider it a "solution" to the problem "How do we bring NFTs and tokens in the Bitcoin blockchain". It might be an inefficient, inelegant "solution", but for them it's probably enough to build on.

[franky1]

I know what you're doing frankandbeans, but it's OK. I'm a mere pleb who's merely walking a path of my own Bitcoin journey.

you are not on your own path.. thats the issue..
so much so you cant even think up your own buzzwords, heck you cant even think up your own insults

But if it isn't breaking the consensus rules, then technically, it isn't an "exploit". Perhaps in your opinion it is, but it's debatable.

It is an exploit when it is not the expected behavior and when it is using an oversight by the developers who left the validation rules loose.

That's precisely the point, it's debatable. Because other developers/users, and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, would consider it a "solution" to the problem "How do we bring NFTs and tokens in the Bitcoin blockchain". It might be an inefficient, inelegant "solution", but for them it's probably enough to build on.

they are not even NFT.. thats how badly you have been indoctrinated into a certain agenda
you dont even understand the things you talk about. you only support their continuance because someone else told you they should continue.
even if its affecting you negatively you ignore how it affects you and instead want the junk to continue because someone else told you it benefits them..
your going against your own value security, your own risk measure, your own needs just to stay with a path that someone else has taught you to recite.. you really do sound brainwashed when you repeat certain things.
try to find your own path and stop being a sheep/echo of other people. they are not helping you

..
see how you have been trained wrongly by your forum daddy..he made you believe they are NFT
as for my trust rating GUESS WHO INSTIGATED it.. yep the crowd your forum daddy adores and cries to each time he is proven wrong

your like an idiot at school that asks the head teacher to talk to someone and then uses the teacher talking to them as an excuse as to why no one should listen to the truth because your crowd cry so much

how about stop crying when proven wrong and instead just learn bitcoin and use blockdata and code .. instead of each others cries and hugs and ass kisses to back each other up

GROW UP, essentially

[ABCbits]

Can anti-Bitcoin trolls use that to take advantage and spam the network? Yes they could, but it will come with a cost of paying higher fees. The bad-actors will waste their Bitcoins merely to cause a temporary inconvenience. From Bitcoin's viewpoint, where did it fail? Because it didn't. It's still chugging along producing block after block, incentiving miners for providing security the network.

Almost 2 months is more than temporary inconvenience[1].

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average-transaction-fee-usd

Two months might not be enough time to say that it will be permanent.

I didn't say it'll be permanent.

Plus the Core Developers would probably be in a better position to do something if they study the issue more slowly/carefully. Bitcoin is currently valued at almost $1,000,000,000,000. That's ALMOST ONE TRILLION. The developers SHOULD be more careful and they shouldn't do anything too hastily. Because if the network breaks, there goes the evolution of money.

Ordinals gaining popularity since early 2023 and it's not first time people add arbitrary data to Bitcoin blockchain or we experience high fees. I expect few Bitcoiner claim it's already broken due to high TX fees. And if they plan to introduce new change, they'll test it first on dedicate test network (such as segnet for testing SegWit) so they wouldn't break Bitcoin network.

[Rampagoe004]

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

On Thursday, Ocean—the company behind the mining pool of the same name—said that miners can now decide if they want to process Bitcoin blocks that contain non-financial transactions. Previously, the pool prohibited such actions.

While the announcement did not expressly name it, many Bitcoiners speculate that the “spam” Ocean referenced in its announcement refers to the wildly popular Ordinal inscriptions that have flooded the network in 2023.
https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions

This really sucks but this is a reality that we have to accept. This means that the existence of Ordinals is enough to make costs rise so high that it is impossible to carry out small transactions at the current costs. I don't know clearly what Ordinals are but from some of the replies above it seems like it's something similar to NFTs on the ethereum network, right? What is the motivation for people to create NFTs on the Bitcoin network when we know that it will be a huge burden on the network? Is there a particular website where we can make Ordinals transactions? Are there already examples of Ordinals that are similar to NFTs? For example, a particular image?

So what are the possibilities for a solution using LN to speed up transactions at low costs?

[Z390]

I made some transaction this morning using my trust wallet but I noticed that the auto transaction fee is almost $20, imagine I don't know that one can adjust the fee? The question is why these wallets are asking for such ridiculous fee and when you adjust them it still send the Bitcoin fast.

This isn't fair for those coming into Bitcoin right now and the existence of ordinals isn't even necessary,  I understand that Bitcoin mining will be less profitable as time goes on and the existence of Ordinals will make Bitcoin mining great again but what about the users?

I don't hate ordinals, but still I wish it never existed, now there is going to be multiple new projects running on this BRC20 and there is nothing anyone can do than to accept this BTC fate, even if BTC transaction fee goes down it will never last even in a bear market.

[God bless u]

What a crazy thing out there. Luckily I haven't had small inputs for a while thanks to having consolidated with the minimum fee when I could and thanks also to having read LoyceV's useful thread about it. The best thing to do now is to wait. Paying $15 per transaction is not going to last forever.

Bro considering the current network situation and how the blockchain is congested due to Ordinal chaos. if your transaction gets confirmed for only $15 transaction fee than I think you getting a great deal there. I've seen people paying as much as 0.001 BTC (around $43) per transaction. which is really crazy. it used to be $1 to $5 (10k Satoshi) a few months ago.
According to t a CoinDesk Article this is Since April 2021 (2 years ago)
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/12/18/bitcoin-fees-spike-to-2-year-high-as-ordinals-bonanza-gives-windfall-profit-to-btc-miners/