Do Ordinals and Runes help Bitcoin to be a better system of electronic cash?

[we-btc]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

[1715417036]

1715417036

[1715417036]

1715417036

[1715417036]

1715417036

[1715417036]

1715417036

[Medusah]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

Ordinals are not an addition to Bitcoin Core.  People just take advantage of Bitcoin allowing arbitrary data being embedded in transactions. 

What is the justification for them?

What kind of justification would be sufficient to you?  They are valid transactions, and therefore are allowed by the protocol. 

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They don't make the network less efficient.  They just increase the fees.  That's expected to happen either way sooner or later to sustain the miners' income. 

[we-btc]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

Ordinals are not an addition to Bitcoin Core.  People just take advantage of Bitcoin allowing arbitrary data being embedded in transactions. 

What is the justification for them?

What kind of justification would be sufficient to you?  They are valid transactions, and therefore are allowed by the protocol. 

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They don't make the network less efficient.  They just increase the fees.  That's expected to happen either way sooner or later to sustain the miners' income. 

My understanding is that the block size has been increased from 1MB to 4MB to accommodate the additional storage.  Is this correct?  The Ordinals and Runes are stored on-chain.  As far as I know this was not a part of the original code.  It was added.

[franky1]

They don't make the network less efficient.  They just increase the fees.  That's expected to happen either way sooner or later to sustain the miners' income.  

incorrect
deflationary market spot price moves up by more then 2x per halving cycle.. so the spot market takes care of reward changes, not fee's
high fee's, penalising everyone for the acts of a few spam/bloaters is not good for bitcoiners

also bitcoin should allow more fully validated transactions that actually count every byte AND where 'every byte counts'(has purpose), so individuals pay less but the total combined tx's give a nice BONUS to mining pools

Ordinals are not an addition to Bitcoin Core.  People just take advantage of Bitcoin allowing arbitrary data being embedded in transactions.  
..
What kind of justification would be sufficient to you?  They are valid transactions, and therefore are allowed by the protocol.  

with the exploits core added and were warned about when they added it, which allow junk UNCHECKED to be included. the junk is not a valid transaction. the junk does not even go through any validity checks they just get treated as 'assumevalid' which bypasses validity checks of the bytes of data. which is different than actual validity checked transaction data.. its a softening of the rules to let things in unchecked. thus an exploit not a feature

[OgNasty]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

Ordinals are not an addition to Bitcoin Core.  People just take advantage of Bitcoin allowing arbitrary data being embedded in transactions. 

It's just using the loophole that the Core team put in to give the Lightning Network a leg up.  I wish people had the same energy for Ordinals that they have for Lightning, both are equally dumb.

What is the justification for them?

What kind of justification would be sufficient to you?  They are valid transactions, and therefore are allowed by the protocol. 

No justification is ever needed to anyone for using the blockchain.

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They don't make the network less efficient.  They just increase the fees.  That's expected to happen either way sooner or later to sustain the miners' income. 

I think they do serve a good purpose.  They show the developer bias and that Bitcoin is being run by a team of people who want to control what you use it for, while expecting other developers not to use the same tools to build that they do.  This hypocrisy has gone to extreme levels.  I see devs on social media bashing people for shilling shitcoins and then in their next post they're shilling liquid tokens or some other nonsense.

[Ambatman]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

Like Medusa has said they are not really addition to the Bitcoin core but something like a loophole that was first introduced by Casey something by adding images or additional datas to individual satoshis in the Blockchain.

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient??

People benefit from its adoption. Many sell their NFTs while miners benefit from the higher fee. So yes ordinals are Supported by some and opposed by others, most me included admire it's creativity but feel it's just sacrificing long term benefit for short terms.

My understanding is that the block size has been increased from 1MB to 4MB to accommodate the additional storage.

No,  they debate to do such is still ongoing. Bitcoin Block size is still 1mb. You missing it up with Segwit. Which is a soft fork that was created to improve the scalabilty of Bitcoin.

They don't make the network less efficient.  They just increase the fees

They kinda do. Recall that efficiency means achieving maximum result with the minimum effort. So you can't say it doesn't reduce efficiency when fees increases drastically.

[Medusah]

As far as I know this was not a part of the original code.  It was added.

Correct, but you could always embed arbitrary data.  It's just easier now with tapscript.  

It's just using the loophole that the Core team put in to give the Lightning Network a leg up.  I wish people had the same energy for Ordinals that they have for Lightning, both are equally dumb.

What's the loophole for the lightning network?  And how come it's equally dumb?  It allows a few people transact small amounts instantly and with near zero cost.  What's the problem?

I think they do serve a good purpose.  They show the developer bias and that Bitcoin is being run by a team of people who want to control what you use it for, while expecting other developers not to use the same tools to build that they do.  This hypocrisy has gone to extreme levels.  I see devs on social media bashing people for shilling shitcoins and then in their next post they're shilling liquid tokens or some other nonsense.

How can the Bitcoin Core team control how I use it for?

They kinda do. Recall that efficiency means achieving maximum result with the minimum effort. So you can't say it doesn't reduce efficiency when fees increases drastically.

Just because there are more transactions, it doesn't make it less efficient.  It's just more expensive currently, because other people are willing to pay more than you do. 

[we-btc]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

Like Medusa has said they are not really addition to the Bitcoin core but something like a loophole that was first introduced by Casey something by adding images or additional datas to individual satoshis in the Blockchain.

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient??

People benefit from its adoption. Many sell their NFTs while miners benefit from the higher fee. So yes ordinals are Supported by some and opposed by others, most me included admire it's creativity but feel it's just sacrificing long term benefit for short terms.

My understanding is that the block size has been increased from 1MB to 4MB to accommodate the additional storage.

No,  they debate to do such is still ongoing. Bitcoin Block size is still 1mb. You missing it up with Segwit. Which is a soft fork that was created to improve the scalabilty of Bitcoin.

So you are saying that you think Ordinals and Runes are helping to make Bitcoin a better electronic cash system?  The fee to get into the next block is now $6 US.  This would make it cheaper to use Visa for transactions under $240US.  And what about all of those stranded Sats.  Sats in a wallet valued at less than $3-$6 US get stranded and never seen again.  

I also don't understand how you can store Ordinals(NFTs) and Runes(fungible tokens) on-chain without increasing the storage required.

[we-btc]

As far as I know this was not a part of the original code.  It was added.

Correct, but you could always embed arbitrary data.  It's just easier now with tapscript. 

It's just using the loophole that the Core team put in to give the Lightning Network a leg up.  I wish people had the same energy for Ordinals that they have for Lightning, both are equally dumb.

What's the loophole for the lightning network?  And how come it's equally dumb?  It allows a few people transact small amounts instantly and with near zero cost.  What's the problem?

I think they do serve a good purpose.  They show the developer bias and that Bitcoin is being run by a team of people who want to control what you use it for, while expecting other developers not to use the same tools to build that they do.  This hypocrisy has gone to extreme levels.  I see devs on social media bashing people for shilling shitcoins and then in their next post they're shilling liquid tokens or some other nonsense.

How can the Bitcoin Core team control how I use it for?

The issue with Lightning is that merchant transactions require a 3rd party liquidity provider.  In addition every transaction adds financially motivated middle men.  Bitcoin is supposed to be P2P in order to prevent financial institutions from taking control of the network.

[Ambatman]

So you are saying that you think Ordinals and Runes are helping to make Bitcoin a better electronic cash system?  The fee to get into the next block is now $6 US.  This would make it cheaper to use Visa for transactions under $240US.  And what about all of those stranded Sats.  Sats in a wallet valued at less than $3-$6 US get stranded and never seen again.  

I also don't understand how you can store Ordinals(NFTs) and Runes(fungible tokens) on-chain without increasing the storage required.

No. I'm not a supporter of ordinals
Reread my reply maybe my wordings was confusing that's why I said ordinals is people chasing short term benefit while neglecting things in the long run.
Ordinals like I said before are stored in different satoshi in a taproot transactions.You can read more about Taproot transactions and Segwit(which provides additional 3mb making the total 4mb) to understand better. The Taproot upgrade allows as much data that a block can carry to be stored,This makes it possible to accommodate more than an MB.  

Just because there are more transactions, it doesn't make it less efficient.  It's just more expensive currently, because other people are willing to pay more than you do.

Which goes against efficiency to me. Paying more to get the maximum result.  You said currently?  Do you think it would get better or worse after halving? If there's not regulated it's going to affect Bitcoin as a P2P method.

[Medusah]

The issue with Lightning is that merchant transactions require a 3rd party liquidity provider.  In addition every transaction adds financially motivated middle men.  Bitcoin is supposed to be P2P in order to prevent financial institutions from taking control of the network.

And I never said it's ideal.  I just said that it helps some people.  What's your or the other user's problem if they are satisfied by that?

Lightning network is peer-to-peer, not as in Bitcoin, but still.  Third party liquidity providers do not gain custody of the peers' cash, so it meets my conditions to be called p2p.  It is just less permissionless, the less the number of your channels. 

[DeathAngel]

Ordinals have zero utility, it’s just a bunch of nerds, trolls & autists being morons. They don’t make anything better, it does seem that they are slowing down or getting bored for various reasons you can send a transaction with a fee of 20 sat/vB & get confirmation within 3 blocks. A while back it was getting absurdly expensive to use Bitcoin due to these guys. Hopefully this craze dies soon any way.

[we-btc]

The issue with Lightning is that merchant transactions require a 3rd party liquidity provider.  In addition every transaction adds financially motivated middle men.  Bitcoin is supposed to be P2P in order to prevent financial institutions from taking control of the network.

And I never said it's ideal.  I just said that it helps some people.  What's your or the other user's problem if they are satisfied by that?

Lightning network is peer-to-peer, not as in Bitcoin, but still.  Third party liquidity providers do not gain custody of the peers' cash, so it meets my conditions to be called p2p.  It is just less permissionless, the less the number of your channels. 

Liquidity providers can track every transaction (privacy), They can shut down the channel (permission) and they charge a fee for their services (bank).

The point of Bitcoin is to be p2p to avoid all of these issues and provide a trustless transaction. Unfortunately lightning is not peer-to-peer and does not make Bitcoin a better electronic cash system unless you think cheaper means better.

But back to the topic.  How do you feel about Runes and Ordinals?  Are they making Bitcoin a better peer-to-peer electronic cash system?

[we-btc]

Ordinals have zero utility, it’s just a bunch of nerds, trolls & autists being morons. They don’t make anything better, it does seem that they are slowing down or getting bored for various reasons you can send a transaction with a fee of 20 sat/vB & get confirmation within 3 blocks. A while back it was getting absurdly expensive to use Bitcoin due to these guys. Hopefully this craze dies soon any way.

Are you familiar with Runes?  This is the next update coming to add fungible tokens to Bitcoin. It is scheduled for Mid April.

[franky1]

Lightning network is peer-to-peer, not as in Bitcoin, but still.  Third party liquidity providers do not gain custody of the peers' cash, so it meets my conditions to be called p2p.  It is just less permissionless, the less the number of your channels.  

all crypto is PERMISSIONED
they all require a signature from someone..

you are confused between self custody(your own permission(you sign tx) is needed if someone else wants to be paid(they cant take money from you))
vs cusodians where you need a middle mans permission to make payments on your behalf of balance they hold they suggest was yours

only the CSW scammer wants bitcoin to be permissionless so that he can take the satoshi stash without needing a signature

as for the core group. they have other games at play

the foolishness of dev politics buzzword misinformation.. is that they want to pretend we are no longer owners of our own value, that funds dont need out permission, but that value belongs to the bitcoin brand, and we are just signing witness statements of observing funds moving..(much like trustee's dont own the value in a trust but are signed witnesses of following the trusts rules)

those dev politicians (core government) want to try to change how we treat bitcoin via their word play. pretending we are no longer authorised to own our assets, but just witnesses(trustees) of the bitcoin brands trustfund (contracted rules, they can change, without notice/requirement of peoples mass consent), suggestion of who gets to witness(sign witness scripts) of funds and benefit from being holders/trustees/beneficiaries(not owners)

[DooMAD]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Either you have an unusual manner of phrasing things, or you don't quite understand the situation.  

Embedding non-transactional data has always been possible.  It makes no difference whether people argue about justification.  It's just something that's possible.  The main reason it has become popular to do now is because people have monetised it.  They've managed to convince idiots that silly images are somehow an asset class, so that has created a financial incentive to embed silly images.

It was always possible, but there wasn't previously much in the way of incentive to pay the cost of embedding an image.  Now there is.  Ignorant people are blaming the code.  What you need to blame is the scammers who convince people that silly images are an asset class.  They are the ones who have created a fake economy.  And they've done the exact same thing on other blockchains which notably don't have the code ignorant people are mistakenly blaming.  DOGE, for example, doesn't have Taproot, but silly images exist on that blockchain too.



I can't tell if this is a deliberate disinformation campaign or not, but I keep seeing the same names spreading the same nonsense.  It does not go unnoticed.

[franky1]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Either you have an unusual manner of phrasing things, or you don't quite understand the situation.  

Embedding non-transactional data has always been possible.

it has NOT
it has no always been possible to add 4mb of junk data.. to the end of the tx..

the exploit that allows junk metadata appended to the end of a transactions (after signatures) only occurred after a 2017 exploit was added, where data using a certain new range of opcodes were added and activated after july 2017, which allowed upto 4mb of junk

the opcodes that allowed all this junk did no exist in 2009

even in 2009-2017 you could not even add 1mb of junk to a tx
bitcoin had hardened rules pre august 2017

[we-btc]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Either you have an unusual manner of phrasing things, or you don't quite understand the situation.  

Embedding non-transactional data has always been possible.  It makes no difference whether people argue about justification.  It's just something that's possible.  The main reason it has become popular to do now is because people have monetised it.  They've managed to convince idiots that silly images are somehow an asset class, so that has created a financial incentive to embed silly images.

It was always possible, but there wasn't previously much in the way of incentive to pay the cost of embedding an image.  Now there is.  Ignorant people are blaming the code.  What you need to blame is the scammers who convince people that silly images are an asset class.  They are the ones who have created a fake economy.  And they've done the exact same thing on other blockchains which notably don't have the code ignorant people are mistakenly blaming.  DOGE, for example, doesn't have Taproot, but silly images exist on that blockchain too.

I can't tell if this is a deliberate disinformation campaign or not, but I keep seeing the same names spreading the same nonsense.  It does not go unnoticed.

If I understand your response, you are saying that it was always possible to store ordinals on-chain?  You are telling me that this is an exploit that is increasing fees? Is it a bug in the original code that could be fixed?

[DooMAD]

If I understand your response, you are saying that it was always possible to store ordinals on-chain?  You are telling me that this is an exploit that is increasing fees? Is it a bug in the original code that could be fixed?

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data.  "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible.  But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash.  And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise.  That's what needs fixing.  People need to know that silly images are not assets.  They are snake oil and trash.

[we-btc]

If I understand your response, you are saying that it was always possible to store ordinals on-chain?  You are telling me that this is an exploit that is increasing fees? Is it a bug in the original code that could be fixed?

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data.  "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible.  But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash.  And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise.  That's what needs fixing.  People need to know that silly images are not assets.  They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement.  There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

[Cookdata]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Ordinals don't slow transaction in real sense, what the do is that they make mempool becomes spammy with their transaction and that makes ordinary transactions to fight for space in the next block. Because these ordinal guys has the bitcoin to pay for transaction, so these cause a distortion in the mempool and makes fee to increase drastically because everyone is fighting for the first place in the next block.

Different talks has been discussed about ordinals and all is left for the developers to patch that bug in the protocol. Some people believes the ordinal demands is just a phase and people will forget it and some think they are good to be around, at least to gives more incentives for miners. What I think is that they are not supposed to be welcome on the protocol but if miners are not complaining of mining and doing their computational work together, then I have nothing to say again.

[franky1]

before the junk data of appended data after signature
there was op_return
but this too was not used as a data exploit in 2009-2014
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#rebranding-to-bitcoin-core

back then core pretended to be against wanting bitcoin to be used as a junk data exploit, yet, stupidly opened the exploit to allow 40byte(later 80) and then others opcodes were added(pushdata) that allowed 520, then others allowing uto 4mb using a different opcode. and other(opsuccess) aded more recently to make it now have hundreds of opcodes that can be abused

it has never "always been possible"
it has only been possible since core jumped in and changed things

[we-btc]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Ordinals don't slow transaction in real sense, what the do is that they make mempool becomes spammy with their transaction and that makes ordinary transactions to fight for space in the next block. Because these ordinal guys has the bitcoin to pay for transaction, so these cause a distortion in the mempool and makes fee to increase drastically because everyone is fighting for the first place in the next block.

Different talks has been discussed about ordinals and all is left for the developers to patch that bug in the protocol. Some people believes the ordinal demands is just a phase and people will forget it and some think they are good to be around, at least to gives more incentives for miners. What I think is that they are not supposed to be welcome on the protocol but if miners are not complaining of mining and doing their computational work together, then I have nothing to say again.

The net result of ordinals is increased fees.  For the same fee a transaction will be slower.  A person can always pay more to get into the next block and we all know a block is created every 10 minutes regardless of the fees.

What about the additional storage on nodes? If you are going to allow 4MB of storage on the nodes per block the additional data could be used for additional transactions increasing the speed by 400% and decreasing the fees.

[franky1]

dont use wording of transaction speeds
use words of transactions accepted per interval

like a train at a train station
the train passengers do not get to a destination faster due to a faster train. but instead where the train(at normal confirmed speeds) has more available seats to fit more passengers per same speed journey.. without obese people taking up most of the seats, whereby letting in obese people taking up the seats leaves other passengers at the station waiting for the next train, hoping there is a spare seat to sit in on the next train

[DooMAD]

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data.  "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible.  But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash.  And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise.  That's what needs fixing.  People need to know that silly images are not assets.  They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement.  There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

No.  We are not in agreement.  You do not understand me at all.  That isn't remotely what I said.

I'm now pretty sure you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.  

[we-btc]

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data.  "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible.  But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash.  And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise.  That's what needs fixing.  People need to know that silly images are not assets.  They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement.  There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

No.  We are not in agreement.  You do not understand me at all.  That isn't remotely what I said.

I'm now pretty sure you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.  

My motivation is to promote financial freedom and individual sovereignty  by advocating for "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash".  I hope that is what we are all doing here.

I also realize that there is always a learning opportunity so if you feel I have misstated something, please feel free to correct me.

[SamReomo]

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They are being added because of the greedy investors or those lazy fellows who want to mint their memes. They are of no use to Bitcoin network but we can't yet remove them from the network and that's the main reason why they are still part of the network. In simple words, Ordinals are the shit things on the network which still can't be flushed out.

[franky1]

I also realize that there is always a learning opportunity so if you feel I have misstated something, please feel free to correct me.

aww we-btc wants to be recruited into the doomad cult of stupidity..
seems we will have another echo chamber of nonsense repeating silly crap soon

[we-btc]

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They are being added because of the greedy investors or those lazy fellows who want to mint their memes. They are of no use to Bitcoin network but we can't yet remove them from the network and that's the main reason why they are still part of the network. In simple words, Ordinals are the shit things on the network which still can't be flushed out.

I couldn't agree more! Thanks SamReomo!

[thecodebear]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

These are not additions to "Bitcoin Core" by which I assume you just mean the Bitcoin protocol. These are optional things that people have made that use an unintended loophole in the protocol to allow data to be jammed into transactions and used as NFTs.

There is no justification. People figured out it can be done so they did it. I don't even know what you mean by justification.

They were created because people in the community recognized the flaw the update to the protocol would allow such things and so they took advantage of it to create these things. Yes they make the network less efficient. And no they don't have anything to do with Bitcoin being money so they don't help Bitcoin be a better monetary system, rather they hurt it being that. But the people who made it and use these things are more concerned about NFTs than they are about Bitcoin as money, so they did it. Nothing to stop it now unless the protocol devs do something to close that loophole that ordinals exploited.

[avikz]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Addition to Bitcoin core! Hell no!

There's no justification at all. Some people are exploiting a loophole and everyone else is suffering from slower transaction time and expensive fees.

There was a discussion at the Bitcoin Dev team to ban these nuisances. But not sure how far it has reached. Until these are banned completely from the Bitcoin network, there's no other way but to suffer.

You can also try LN for the time being.

[Crypt0Gore]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

The last time I checked, the only good thing that ordinals and runes have done for Bitcoin is the increase in profits for BTC miners, even after the halving becomes a success and the reward gets lower, the existence of ordinals and runes will keep miners at work.

The high transaction fee will keep becoming a problem once in a while I hope that a solution will come for this issue, this is the only problem I have with ordinals and runes but money can still be made here, I am not just sure about the future of ordinals and runes, only time will tell.

[franky1]

There was a discussion at the Bitcoin Dev team to ban these nuisances. But not sure how far it has reached.

its been a known flaw even before the flaw was added. and core devs did nothing to re-formulate the opcodes to limit the risk.. then for years have just been trying to ban, moderate and delete posts of anyone discussing proposals to stop/raise awareness of the issue even before ordinals abused the flaw

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..

 we will definitely see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

You can also try LN for the time being.

the solution is not to abandon bitcoin and use another network and just stay on another network for years being patient waiting for core to change.. as their game plan is to lock users into other networks, so why would they change if you fell into their trap

they have already had 8 years of knowledge of the flaw and have only shown ignorance and avoidance of wanting to fix it. as fixing it goes against their roadmap

[DooMAD]

My motivation is to promote financial freedom and individual sovereignty  by advocating for "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash".  I hope that is what we are all doing here.

Advocate for anything you like.  Just keep in mind that your preferred use-case may not correlate with the desired use-case of other people.  No one gets to unilaterally dictate how other people choose to use the protocol.  Even if you don't approve of what they are doing, doesn't mean you can prevent them from doing it.  You do what you want, they do what they want.

All you can hope to achieve is educating them that silly pictures are a scam and have no value beyond what the greater fool is prepared to pay.

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures.  This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done.  The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures.  There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

[blckhawk]

No. It doesn't help bitcoin in anyway that I can think of, probably the only benefit of inscriptions is that if you're a miner or a creator of those annoying electronic vandalisms, you get paid especially the miners that are cashing in bigger checks when the transactions are getting slower and congested thus creating a problem in which the price of a transaction is increasing. It doesn't even have anything to do with becoming a better system because it's like an NFT. Think of ordinals and the like as this, a 100$ bill is the bitcoin, the inscriptions are the defacings that the bill is being subjected to.

[shield132]

The only positive effect that I noticed from Ordinals is that they showed us how Bitcoin is not ready for massive adoption. People scream we want massive adoption but in reality Bitcoin is not ready for that, it couldn't handle large number of transactions that was caused by ordinals spam and if we get massive adoption, then the number of legit transactions will be much higher than the ones generated by ordinals spam. How will Bitcoin handle them?
Btw in overall, Ordinals don't help Bitcoin, it's a loophole in the code and NFT spammers take advantage of it for scamming people.

[franky1]

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures.  This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done.  The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures.  There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

bitcoin is not self created AI...
bitcoin is code.. and that means developers wrote it.. so yes you look at who wrote it, why and what their reason and agenda was/is
then when you see which group created the initial flaw, which then got exploited. you find out who to blame

as for pointing fingers to other networks. those other networks just forked CORE code(+added minimal script kiddy tweaks). so again the other networks that allow junk allow it due to the flaw CORE created initially.

stop treating core devs as untouchable gods..
stop thinking " No one gets to unilaterally dictate how other people choose to use the protocol, unless they are core"
you care too much about core dominance, but care little about user utility, or bitcoin(unless it affects core dominance)

when core devs retire or get bored your religion will fall apart.. and you may(i doubt it) then realise you should have defended bitcoins code integrity by not wanting bitcoins code integrity softened to allow your dev gods omnipotent power.. but i still foresee you preferring users TRUST being governed by centralist group so you will continue with your cultish god admiration of core devs

[ABCbits]

before the junk data of appended data after signature
there was op_return
but this too was not used as a data exploit in 2009-2014
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#rebranding-to-bitcoin-core

back then core pretended to be against wanting bitcoin to be used as a junk data exploit, yet, stupidly opened the exploit to allow 40byte(later 80) and then others opcodes were added(pushdata) that allowed 520, then others allowing uto 4mb using a different opcode. and other(opsuccess) aded more recently to make it now have hundreds of opcodes that can be abused

it has never "always been possible"
it has only been possible since core jumped in and changed things

Before OP_RETURN exist, people exploit Bitcoin address to store arbitrary data which bloat UTXO.

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures.  This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done.  The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures.  There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

Less quantity of arbitrary data is better than nothing. And IMO not adding 10000 bytes limit on Taproot script is a mistake, when such limit exist on different kind of script.

[bettercrypto]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

The question is, does Bitcoin need the ordinal and rands? or the ordinary and runes they need the bitcoin? This matter can be said to be debatable, to be honest. Because, in my understanding, bitcoin does not need ordinary coins or Runes.

Who came first, Bitcoin, Ordinals, or Runes? Right, Bitcoin, so what is the main reason why Bitcoin needs Ordinal and Runes when Bitcoin is the reason why other cryptocurrencies came into being? Right?

[Ambatman]

aww we-btc wants to be recruited into the doomad cult of stupidity..
seems we will have another echo chamber of nonsense repeating silly crap soon

Wow I thought this beefs might have ended by now
I guess is still ongoing
Hopefully the two faction can find a common ground and agree on something or respecting one another view from without countering the others view.
The only positive effect that I noticed from Ordinals is that they showed us how Bitcoin is not ready for massive adoption

The only positive effect that I noticed from Ordinals is that they showed us how Bitcoin is not ready for massive adoption

If nothing is done to improve its scalabilty,  I don't think Bitcoin would ever be ready to be used as a medium of exchange across the globe but more of an Asset.

Less quantity of arbitrary data is better than nothing. And IMO not adding 10000 bytes limit on Taproot script is a mistake, when such limit exist on different kind of script.

Hopefully they seen the flaw to their previous upgrade and may likely correct or improve on it. 
https://goquick.ly/k1kpf (used a link shortener thus the name), it shows that there might be correction on ordinals in the next Bitcoin core upgrade.Dont know how true it is though.

[DooMAD]

Wow I thought this beefs might have ended by now
I guess is still ongoing
Hopefully the two faction can find a common ground and agree on something or respecting one another view from without countering the others view.

There aren't "factions" here.  There are just those who can recognise reality and those who can't.  And the ones who can't are inept and completely unable to change anything.

[ChiBitCTy]

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

[bbc.reporter]

@ChiBitCTy. On what we have witnessed on the development of bitcoin, it appears that the fees can be manipulated to centralize usage for the whales who can pay for fees if they are expensive. It also appears that censorship resistance will only be available if you can pay for them hehehehee. However, we are very lucky that Monero and Litecoin are available to use as a medium of exchange. I reckon bitcoin has become a cryptocoin for store of value and speculative investment.

[taufik123]

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc.

Many Whales are indeed leveraging Ordinal to make more money by trading NFTs and launching their own NFTs.

And what is quite new at the moment is the Rune Protocol, which is still to be developed with the aim of better anonymity.
Making using Bitcoin Easier because it doesn't have to enter a long wallet address and is friendly enough for new users, is simpler, more efficient and more secure.

Although the development of Ordinals and Runes is still in its early stages, I also do not deny that with the presence of Ordinals alone the state of the Bitcoin network is getting denser so that transaction confirmations will take longer.

These are some of the problems that need to be resolved and developed for the better because there are many Pros and Cons about the presence of Ordinals, especially the Protocol Runes that will appear immediately after the halving.

https://github.com/casey

[bbc.reporter]

@taufik123. Bitcoin has not become increasingly functional because it can presently include unique data. Functionality will only increase if the blocks are allowed to be bigger. The small blocks preserve bitcon's decentralization, however, they are also causing it to centralize on the people who can pay for the expensive fee. If you are a small minnow, you should use an altcoin as a medium of exchange and use bitcoin as a store of value, speculative investment.

[franky1]

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc.

casey did not make ordinals which allows bitcoin to include unique data

casey used an existing exploit created by core (that made it possible to add junk data to the blockchain by far more(mb's) than the small byte(40b) amount previous to cores inception), where by casey created software to make it super easy for idiots to add such junk data

unchecked data, miscounted bytes are not a feature of bitcoin. adding junk is not a function of bitcoin.. its an exploit thats been abused

why do idiots:
a. pretend core had nothing to do with this junk crap
b. pretend this junk crap appended to the end of transactions was possible since 2009
c. promote it as a feature that should remain

oh right, to make bitcoin more of an expensive headache to then promote people should abandon bitcoin to use other networks
(in regards to (a) if it was not due to the changes CORE made in 2017, the unchecked post-tx-data(after signature) metadata junk would not be possible)

[ABCbits]

And what is quite new at the moment is the Rune Protocol, which is still to be developed with the aim of better anonymity.
Making using Bitcoin Easier because it doesn't have to enter a long wallet address and is friendly enough for new users, is simpler, more efficient and more secure.

Although the development of Ordinals and Runes is still in its early stages, I also do not deny that with the presence of Ordinals alone the state of the Bitcoin network is getting denser so that transaction confirmations will take longer.

This is first time i hear Rune is being developed with anonymity feature. Even Casey blog[1] doesn't mention that. Can you share source or proof of that anonymity feature? It's not that new either since it's supposed to be launched soon[2].

[1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/
[2] https://decrypt.co/221962/bitcoin-runes-launch-at-the-halving-heres-everything-you-need-to-know

[Casdinyard]

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Just to reiterate what the people before me have already stated, these "additions" aren't included to the bitcoin core, and hence are not part of its main protocol, these are added features/perks which personally speaking, are made to just limit test bitcoin and nothing else.

All this time bitcoin was only good at one thing and people never dared to explore the implications of let's say, having more features than it being an electronic cash system. Ordinals, although unhealthily, challenged that notion by introducing the NFT narrative to the equation and we since then realized that because of the limitations, mainly the block size, we can't really reliably support other forms of crypto product in the bitcoin network, as compared to versatile protocols like Ethereum and Solana.

So yeah, it didn't contribute anything towards bitcoin's standing as a P2P payment system, it tried to break the mold, but that turned out horribly wrong, and as of now our eyes are opened to the fact that unless we work on bitcoin's scalability issues first, we're not going to get anywhere.

[Wind_FURY]

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc.

casey did not make ordinals which allows bitcoin to include unique data

casey used an existing exploit created by core (that made it possible to add junk data to the blockchain by far more(mb's) than the small byte(40b) amount previous to cores inception), where by casey created software to make it super easy for idiots to add such junk data

unchecked data, miscounted bytes are not a feature of bitcoin. adding junk is not a function of bitcoin.. its an exploit thats been abused

why do idiots:
a. pretend core had nothing to do with this junk crap
b. pretend this junk crap appended to the end of transactions was possible since 2009
c. promote it as a feature that should remain

oh right, to make bitcoin more of an expensive headache to then promote people should abandon bitcoin to use other networks
(in regards to (a) if it was not due to the changes CORE made in 2017, the unchecked post-tx-data(after signature) metadata junk would not be possible)

frankandbeans, you probably could call it an "exploit" - in your opinion, but don't spread lies/disinformation to make people, especially newbies, believe that the Core Developers coded something on purpose for a developer like Casey Rodarmor to "exploit". Criticize if you need to criticize, but don't spread lies about anything. Although Roger Ver would laughably say that there might be a conspiracy to keep the blocks small, he would never spread any lies/disinformation about Bitcoin or the Core Developers. His heart is still in the right place.

[OgNasty]

From what little I know about them, and what I've read in this thread so far...I think ordinals were/are a complete waste of time and money.  For me, in order for bitcoin to highly succeed and have longevity, I need lower tx fees and transaction speeds.  How does the Dev team justify wasting time on stuff like this when they could be working on much more important things.  Just my two slightly educated opinion.

Whether it's actually a waste of time and money or not, but Ordinal developers like Casey created Ordinals with the aim of making Bitcoin increasingly functional that allows Bitcoin to include unique data, images, videos, text, sounds etc.

casey did not make ordinals which allows bitcoin to include unique data

casey used an existing exploit created by core (that made it possible to add junk data to the blockchain by far more(mb's) than the small byte(40b) amount previous to cores inception), where by casey created software to make it super easy for idiots to add such junk data

unchecked data, miscounted bytes are not a feature of bitcoin. adding junk is not a function of bitcoin.. its an exploit thats been abused

why do idiots:
a. pretend core had nothing to do with this junk crap
b. pretend this junk crap appended to the end of transactions was possible since 2009
c. promote it as a feature that should remain

oh right, to make bitcoin more of an expensive headache to then promote people should abandon bitcoin to use other networks
(in regards to (a) if it was not due to the changes CORE made in 2017, the unchecked post-tx-data(after signature) metadata junk would not be possible)

frankandbeans, you probably could call it an "exploit" - in your opinion, but don't spread lies/disinformation to make people, especially newbies, believe that the Core Developers coded something on purpose for a developer like Casey Rodarmor to "exploit". Criticize if you need to criticize, but don't spread lies about anything. Although Roger Ver would laughably say that there might be a conspiracy to keep the blocks small, he would never spread any lies/disinformation about Bitcoin or the Core Developers. His heart is still in the right place.

The exploit was what they needed to give the Lightning Network an advantage.  Ordinals have shown that the Core devs are willing to use an exploit to push their own agenda, but anyone else uses it and the community needs to get together to censor these transactions.  It's ridiculous.  We needed Ordinals to put the Lightning Network on display for the garbage it is and I think any time you see someone mention Ordinals in a different light than Lightning, it is an obvious sign that person either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they've been compromised and are on Blockstream's payroll in one way or another.

[franky1]

frankandbeans, you probably could call it an "exploit" - in your opinion, but don't spread lies/disinformation to make people, especially newbies, believe that the Core Developers coded something on purpose for a developer like Casey Rodarmor to "exploit". Criticize if you need to criticize, but don't spread lies about anything. Although Roger Ver would laughably say that there might be a conspiracy to keep the blocks small, he would never spread any lies/disinformation about Bitcoin or the Core Developers. His heart is still in the right place.

do some research for once.. and dont cry that you should avoid research simply because i asked you to do it, do it for your own benefit of learning stuff.. if you done proper research, you would not need to get filled with vapour comments of gaseous statements from your idiot mentor, to then fear getting burned when someone else enlightens you..

core knew in 2016 their yet to be activated new opcode set could be exploited to fill the blockchain with junk and what the cause and effect was before their code even activated. (emphasis they knew as far back as 2016 before it activated in 2017).. they for the 8 months of having code published only achieved 45% consensus and time was running out for their sponsored deadline,
instead of realising they were only getting 45% acceptance and going back to the drawing board and offering a different feature without the exploit, because people were wising up to the ramifications of their proposal.. core doubled down and forced pushed(mandated) it into activation using their comrads(their sponsors(NYA)). the blockdata proves they achieved unnatural 100% by august 2017.. you can check for yourself and realise the blockdata doesnt lie.. nor does the code releases in summer 2017 that caused it.. so do your research on hard data..

so dont pretend they had no knowledge of the repercussions dont pretend "the community wanted it" because its your mentor telling you the lies about how things occurred has a agenda of his own..
learn something using actual code and data and realise its your mentor who has been lying and misinforming you about core devs(hes the one filling you with the gas)..
and before you auto-respond with your mentors next gaseous statement to blame mining pools.. mining pools did not create the code, infact they were blackmailed into the mandated activation.. now go do your research without asking your mentor for the next script to recite, try some independent research for once using code and data that is publicly available

The exploit was what they needed to give the Lightning Network an advantage.  Ordinals have shown that the Core devs are willing to use an exploit to push their own agenda, but anyone else uses it and the community needs to get together to censor these transactions.  It's ridiculous.  We needed Ordinals to put the Lightning Network on display for the garbage it is and I think any time you see someone mention Ordinals in a different light than Lightning, it is an obvious sign that person either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they've been compromised and are on Blockstream's payroll in one way or another.

the funny part about subnetworks like LN is they had no world wide existing protocol. so could have wrote something new and made it bitcoin compliant. but the teams sponsored to make LN(who were core devs) wanted to change bitcoin to adapt to the flaws LN system that had design flaws from the beginning, all because of the sponsorship deals of agenda's of not wanting bitcoin to scale up, but to promote how everyone should abandon bitcoin and use other networks
runes is not made to make bitcoin better.. this whole topic is essentially a subliminal advertisement to get people to learn about runes as a advertisement of runes.. its of no benefit to bitcoin but has more annoyances that can potentially harm bitcoins economics yet again

[we-btc]

I hear a lot of agreement here.  There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

[franky1]

I hear a lot of agreement here.  There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

BIP is a brand of process owned by core. it comes with their moderated policy of how to formalise a BIP.
BIP's are about the moderated discussion of kissing/sucking up, compromising and pledging loyalty to the core lead maintainers asses to get them to even consider changing their roadmap.. goodluck with that

the other option is not to create a altcoin and see who adopts to then convince core devs to change the roadmap (the idiot brigade pretend thats the only option outside BIP)

the other option is to get people to realise that core are not the sole diety everyone should follow
by releasing a full node reference client thats not associated with core but runs on the bitcoin network, and hope it doesnt get rekt by the cultish idiot brigade group before its even able to offer its own proposals to sort out the network

meaning establish a new brand of full node reference client that for a while just does what bitcoin does, no variation.. to earn a place side by side core.. then later offer proposals and see who gets majority. FAIRLY via features that benefit bitcoiners not corporate fiat sponsors.. again before cultish tribes try to REKT it using stupidity/social influence

goodluck with that. the cultish power of wanting to stay in core tyranny is high

[we-btc]

I hear a lot of agreement here.  There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

BIP is a brand of process owned by core. it comes with their moderated policy of how to formalise a BIP.
BIP's are about the moderated discussion of kissing/sucking up, compromising and pledging loyalty to the core lead maintainers asses to get them to even consider changing their roadmap.. goodluck with that

the other option is not to create a altcoin and see who adopts to then convince core devs to change the roadmap (the idiot brigade pretend thats the only option outside BIP)

the other option is to get people to realise that core are not the sole diety everyone should follow
by releasing a full node reference client thats not associated with core but runs on the bitcoin network, and hope it doesnt get rekt by the cultish idiot brigade group before its even able to offer its own proposals to sort out the network

meaning establish a new brand of full node reference client that for a while just does what bitcoin does, no variation.. to earn a place side by side core.. then later offer proposals and see who gets majority. FAIRLY via features that benefit bitcoiners not corporate fiat sponsors.. again before cultish tribes try to REKT it using stupidity/social influence

goodluck with that. the cultish power of wanting to stay in core tyranny is high

This is fundamental to Bitcoin's existence.  Any ideas on how to get the core principles back into focus is worth working on.

[DooMAD]

There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

Let's make sure you can walk before you run first, okay?

Before you go putting together any sort of proposal, could you start by acknowledging what the code involved in the "exploit" was intended for?  No developer is going to take you seriously if you can't recognise what they were trying to achieve when they built that.  It certainly wasn't for the purpose the silly picture brigade are butchering it for.

[franky1]

There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

Let's make sure you can walk before you run first, okay?

Before you go putting together any sort of proposal, could you start by acknowledging what the code involved in the "exploit" was intended for?  No developer is going to take you seriously if you can't recognise what they were trying to achieve when they built that.  It certainly wasn't for the purpose the silly picture brigade are butchering it for.

are you now admitting you now know the code didnt exist in 2009 and was added later on?
so your story is changing and you admit it was later code made for a feature (which has not helped alleviate congestion nor high fees)

so now you admit it is associated with a later 'feature' we can move on from your misinformation that meme pictures were always possible from genesis

next question. the 'feature' they promised the code would enable.. what promises still remain today to show the feature does what core promised the feature would do?. oh and dont say malleability, because you would be wrong

[Wind_FURY]

frankandbeans, you probably could call it an "exploit" - in your opinion, but don't spread lies/disinformation to make people, especially newbies, believe that the Core Developers coded something on purpose for a developer like Casey Rodarmor to "exploit". Criticize if you need to criticize, but don't spread lies about anything. Although Roger Ver would laughably say that there might be a conspiracy to keep the blocks small, he would never spread any lies/disinformation about Bitcoin or the Core Developers. His heart is still in the right place.

do some research for once.. and dont cry that you should avoid research simply because i asked you to do it, do it for your own benefit of learning stuff.. if you done proper research, you would not need to get filled with vapour comments of gaseous statements from your idiot mentor, to then fear getting burned when someone else enlightens you..

frankandbeans, please listen to me. What you're making it look to the people who read through the topic is that the Core Developers wanted and coded the "exploit". Tin-foil hats on, there are no conspiracies within, or against, Bitcoin. The decisions made are to keep the network chugging along for decades, not mere years.

IF you believe it's time to start the block size debate again, then start it, BUT don't spread lies, disinformation, and don't gaslight people. More people in the community might be on your side with simple honesty.

[ABCbits]

I hear a lot of agreement here.  There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track.  How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki. But even if it's approved (as in get a number), it doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin Core (or other software) will implement it. For example, Bitcoin Core never implement BIP 39.