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?

[1714307087]

1714307087

[1714307087]

1714307087

[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.