Hard fork to disable inscription.

[a8832021]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure. Then both inscriptoin supporter and objector can work on each chain. That may seeperate bitcoin value to two chain, and probably, one chain can gain more value,we can call the coin on this chain BTC, the other chain must called another name. Even though, the inscriptions inscribed before fork seem valid after fork.

[Ambatman]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure. Then both inscriptoin supporter and objector can work on each chain. That may seeperate bitcoin value to two chain, and probably, one chain can gain more value,we can call the coin on this chain BTC, the other chain must called another name. Even though, the inscriptions inscribed before fork seem valid after fork.

It would divide the community and in the case of Bitcoin reduce it's security.
Hardfork arises as a result of an alteration of a pre existing rule that causes a rejection from the existing egg Rule.
It is a scenario where the blockchain split in two and this two blockchain starts working independently.
Hardfork is still an altcoin and wouldn't stop those dealing with Runes to stop congesting the system of Bitcoin
Because whatever the hard fork creates would never be bitcoin and this ordinals are leveraging on Bitcoin security.

Hardfork would help nothing except creating another altcoin.
Nobofu

[FatFork]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure.
<cut>

Anyone is free to create a fork of Bitcoin to disable/enable anything they want in the software. But do you think miners/mining pools will support such a chain? (Or at least most of them?) What would be the incentive for them to do so?

[btc78]

But do you think miners/mining pools will support such a chain? (Or at least most of them?) What would be the incentive for them to do so?

If miners do not have incentives anymore, then the security of the blockchain might be in danger or at least in a more vulnerable position.

That’s exactly the thing that would divide our community and could lead to unwanted increase of volatility. Not having come to a consensus, investors might not know which one to participate in thus reducing both chains’ market value.

[MusaMohamed]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure.

They joined Bitcoin blockchain with their Inscriptions which are useless because they smelt chance to make hypes and get benefit with Bitcoin blockchain.

They know that if they hard fork Bitcoin blockchain to have a new chain that supports Inscriptions, their Inscriptions will die very quickly. The hard fork to block Inscriptions on Bitcoin blockchain will be good for Bitcoin users who dislike Inscriptions.

I feel uncertain that will this create argument as such hard fork to block something is a type of censorship that was not Satoshi Nakamoto's vision.

[Charles-Tim]

Anyone is free to create a fork of Bitcoin to disable/enable anything they want in the software. But do you think miners/mining pools will support such a chain? (Or at least most of them?) What would be the incentive for them to do so?

Miners can not support the fork because they are looking for what can replace block reward. These Ordinals, BRC20, Runes and others that are yet to come will replace the block reward with higher rate of transactions. I think it would be better for bitcoin developers to look for ways this will not subsequently be leading to mempool congestion.

[mocacinno]

Eventough a hardfork is always a strain on the community, i have to say that a hardfork solving this mempool flood would be interesting. I'd defenately think solving the mempool congestion with those inscription thingies would be a better cause than the last "big" hardfork (BCH).

If such a fork would exist, i'd think it would have a reasonable chance of getting adopted by the majority (depending on how many of the core dev's were willing to switch to said fork).
If enough users adopt the fork, miners would eventually switch since big adoption usually means an OK FIAT value, and eventough the block reward is getting lower, money could still be made mining the "new" fork. Personally, i think it would be great being able to make a transaction that doesn't need 200 sats/vbyte to have a decent chance of getting confirmed in the next couple of blocks... I'd also think it would be a good idear if the nodes didn't have to fill their disks with nonsense data when they store the blocks.

And censorship? What censorship? Those inscription thingies could still exist in the "old" chain. If they want to keep filling blocks with their data, they can do so, just not on the "new" chain... If somebody wants a chain to store even more ridiculous stuff, they can make their own fork, and if they gain some adoption, they have a network and they can store whatever they want... I don't see creating a hardfork to see if it gains adoption as censoring.

I'm not saying it's a good idear per sé, i'm not saying i would blindly follow such a fork, i'm just saying that such a fork would probably have more merit than BCH, and eventough BCH did not gain the biggest part of the community, it does still exist.

[HeRetiK]

Personally I don't think it would be worth all that drama because I'd expect Ordinals to fall out of favour within a halving reward era anyway. At least extrapolating from the current state of the NFT market and colored coins before that I would not expect them to be more than a temporary fad (famous last words of the non-visionary, I know).

Besides, lest we dumb down Bitcoin completely I'm pretty sure something else would simply take their place. In a way we're already seeing this with Runes, though I know too little about this project to know how much (or how little) it adds to Blockchain bloat compared to Ordinals.

[hugeblack]

You will find a more detailed discussion about disable inscription ----->  (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed
The bottom line is that we may have negative or positive opinions about Ordinals, but in the end, the decentralization of the network means accepting opinions that differ from yours as long as they are compatible with the protocol.
The main problem is the high transaction fees, for which we see that there are lengthy discussions without ideal solutions.

[ABCbits]

It's very drastic action, when we could just make Ordinals TX (or rather OP_FALSE OP_IF usage) become non-standard which force spammer to either give up or ask miner to add their TX manually at high cost. And IMO hard fork should be used for far more important upgrade/change, rather than only to make Ordinals TX invalid.

[TravelMug]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure. Then both inscriptoin supporter and objector can work on each chain. That may seeperate bitcoin value to two chain, and probably, one chain can gain more value,we can call the coin on this chain BTC, the other chain must called another name. Even though, the inscriptions inscribed before fork seem valid after fork.

We have seen it already, a hard fork could divide many people involved in Bitcoin like the developers and the miners and other player. So it's not the solution to have a fork and obviously it will not be the original Bitcoin that Satoshi developed. And for all we know, I think Bitcoiners by now learn to accept this inscriptions and those who try to sabotage the network and it seems that we are not affected by it. Currently, fees around 20 sat/vB could be the new norm for us, and for sure Bitcoin developers have seen the issues already and well aware of.

[Outhue]

Let's pretend that inscription doesn't exists right now.

It would have been a more painful experience for Bitcoin miners right now, the existence of runes and ordinals are benefiting the miners, more transactions equals more money for them.

But for random Bitcoin users out there, the existence of runes and ordinals are not looking too well, high transaction fee is showing up more times now compare to when these craps don't exist.

I don't believe that any hardfork will come that will erase off these inscriptions, mind you, there will come a time where Bitcoin miners will only make money from transactions only, the existence of these crap will make it fairly better, although I don't expect this to last very long, because inscription is giving me the meme coin vibes.

[Z390]

The only problem I have with ordinals is the higher transctoin fee on Bitcoin network, so if there is a chance that they can make this happen why not use this for something better? Ordinals shouldn't be getting all this attention right now, make Bitcoin better instead.

In few years time ordinals and all inscriptions can face an amount and like most altcoins always do, maybe no one will talk about them or have interest in them anymore? This is my believe, it is only a fool that will leave Bitcoin and choose to invest in inscriptions, I don't have one even when I know that the present investors can make a lot of money from it.

Looks more like the fools game to me, let's see how long this will last, it could exist in the next few years but the interest will be lot lower than it is right now.

[Lucius]

It's very drastic action, when we could just make Ordinals TX (or rather OP_FALSE OP_IF usage) become non-standard which force spammer to either give up or ask miner to add their TX manually at high cost. And IMO hard fork should be used for far more important upgrade/change, rather than only to make Ordinals TX invalid.

Technically speaking, is what you wrote technically demanding or is it easy to implement and are there any negative implications for security or anything else when it comes to Bitcoin? If it's "so easy" to remove ordinal nonsense, I wonder if the developers are afraid to take such a step because the miners signal it to them, or if they just don't care that the fees skyrocket every now and then?

[BlackHatCoiner]

How long will it take until the Bitcoin community accepts Ordinals as an inevitable outcome of a decentralized, censorship-resistant network? Regardless of what we do, there is always a way to bypass it. Treating addresses as chunks of arbitrary data is just one way.

Technically speaking, is what you wrote technically demanding or is it easy to implement and are there any negative implications for security or anything else when it comes to Bitcoin?

It is easy to implement a rule that will make these particular transactions non-standard. The thing is: it doesn't invalidate them. The Ordinal users can still broadcast them to mining pools, and miners can still mine them normally. The only difference is that some upgraded nodes won't accept them in their mempool.

[Amphenomenon]

You will find a more detailed discussion about disable inscription ----->  (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed
The bottom line is that we may have negative or positive opinions about Ordinals, but in the end, the decentralization of the network means accepting opinions that differ from yours as long as they are compatible with the protocol.
The main problem is the high transaction fees, for which we see that there are lengthy discussions without ideal solutions.

There is also another main problem from the fact that this makes bitcoin Non-Fungible since some sats worth more than others, like this post about someone paying 1 sats for 33.3 BTC simply because it is Rare https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5494171.msg63992220#msg63992220 though its an hard truth to say everyone choose what they use their bitcoin for but what about now when it also affect the fungibility of Bitcoin.

It's very drastic action, when we could just make Ordinals TX (or rather OP_FALSE OP_IF usage) become non-standard which force spammer to either give up or ask miner to add their TX manually at high cost. And IMO hard fork should be used for far more important upgrade/change, rather than only to make Ordinals TX invalid.

I`m curious, what kind of more important upgrade that needs to be done rather the Ordinals

[DooMAD]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure. Then both inscriptoin supporter and objector can work on each chain. That may seeperate bitcoin value to two chain, and probably, one chain can gain more value,we can call the coin on this chain BTC, the other chain must called another name. Even though, the inscriptions inscribed before fork seem valid after fork.

You can do anything you like.  The question you should be asking is if the rest of us would be prepared to follow you, or whether you're doing it on your own.

For me, personally, I wouldn't be following the tyrannical fork which is attempting to control what people can or can't do.  I can fully appreciate why people would like to prevent inscriptions, but for me, it's a slippery slope towards other varieties of censorship.  I want no part of that, but wish you the best of luck in your endeavours.

[pooya87]

Miners can not support the fork because they are looking for what can replace block reward.

I've got a bad feeling that this way of thinking is going to come back and haunt us in the future when the price has crashed hard since people will have had abandoned bitcoin due to prolonged high fees... By that time the reward+fee would not be worth the same amount of money as 3.125BTC is worth today at $60k.

[Zaguru12]

I've got a bad feeling that this way of thinking is going to come back and haunt us in the future when the price has crashed hard since people will have had abandoned bitcoin due to prolonged high fees... By that time the reward+fee would not be worth the same amount of money as 3.125BTC is worth today at $60k.

Sadly this to me is the reality we are facing right now, before the security of bitcoin network network was the aim of the community or developers right now it’s all about the how to make the miners more happy about getting more incentives. Although the reward for mining a block is reducing, but wouldn’t that at least take more years to complete be worthless with the potential that bitcoin price will grow in demand and subsequently more price of there is more adoption (high fees will certainly decrease that).

My only security concern about removing this inscriptions is that wouldn’t that at least affect our decentralization where nodes can every day make changes to the network even those that wouldn’t suit the community. But if there is no security risk then nothing much to worry about.

[Wind_FURY]

Could we make a hard fork to disable new inscription to reduce the network pressure. Then both inscriptoin supporter and objector can work on each chain. That may seeperate bitcoin value to two chain, and probably, one chain can gain more value,we can call the coin on this chain BTC, the other chain must called another name. Even though, the inscriptions inscribed before fork seem valid after fork.

If there's a proposal, and if it could get community consensus, then absolutely yes.

Miners can not support the fork because they are looking for what can replace block reward.

I've got a bad feeling that this way of thinking is going to come back and haunt us in the future when the price has crashed hard since people will have had abandoned bitcoin due to prolonged high fees... By that time the reward+fee would not be worth the same amount of money as 3.125BTC is worth today at $60k.

But ser, isn't prolonged high fees an indicator that there's high demand for block space in the Bitcoin blockchain, and therefore it's also an indicator that there's high demand for Bitcoin?

Plus it's not his way of thinking, it's merely a fact. Miners actually have no choice but to be incentivized in order to continue to provide security for the network.