Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 2. (Read 7605 times)

There is no way that the "cure" will work, not today. When too many people see how the images of pixelated dumb apes are getting sold for millions of dollars, how dumb pepe memecoin gets a huge market capitalization, how out of nowhere dead meme coin overnight turns into a coin with a huge market capitalization, it's hard to make people believe that this crap is a waste of money when potentially it's possible to make tons of money out of thin air.

I think tat NFTs, Memecoins and similar nonsense piece of arts are the place where most of the crypto money gets laundered.

At best, you can reach a very small percentage of them. If gullible people wouldn't fall for scams, there wouldn't be any scammers left.

Plus teach the newbies that there are more efficient, and cheaper ways to do some shitcoinery if they actually want to do it the "right way". The "right way", merely saying that if you can do it for fees that are under 0.01 cents, then that's where you should probably do it.

That's probably why Runes developers should start pushing the shitcoinery to the Lightning Network, or some sidechain/other off-chain network sitting on top of Bitcoin.

Having looked at a few of the discussions on GitHub and the mailing list, that's the conclusion some developers have drawn, yes.  Moving the goalposts only gets you so far.  At best, you're causing a temporary inconvenience to people who are financially motivated to create this spam.  The best "cure" to the problem is to educate people that buying this crap is a waste of money and a con.  That would eliminate the incentive to create it in the first place.  

And the same is true for signatures: they can be much bigger. It is non-standard, but valid. And you can always combine OP_CHECKSIG with OP_NOT to make it spendable, or do other tricks, like 1-of-3 multisig, where only one signature has to be valid.

Also, this post alone, written by Satoshi, can show you exactly, why OP_RETURN was introduced in the first place: because there are other ways to do the same thing, and those other ways can be more abusive, than having a standardized way to ignore a given output.

That's a standard rule not a consensus rule. Technically your output script with or without OP_RETURN can be so big so that it fills the entire block. In other words there is no limit on its size other than block size.

if it was meant to be a payment system then it should always be designed with that goal in mind. at the forefront to make sure that any new feature would not allow it to be used for something else.

that's a very old transaction. i thought OP_RETURN was limited to 80 bytes.

hmm. you just described some ways people could abuse bitcoin. of course, a signature can only be 74 bytes apparently so i don't know why they would do that since OP_RETURN is 80 bytes.

with that said though you are absolutely right that bitcoin's scripting language allows people to do things that they have no business doing. one of the problems of bitcoin: things that are not explicitly disallowed seem to be allowed whereas it should be the REVERSE. but you can't just say "here is a scripting language anything that evaluates to true is good". bad design. poor result.

1. It was hard before Taproot, even if you use Segwit.
2. Since Ordinals, some people can get even non-standard transactions mined, in that case, they could just use Segwit v2, and push any data they want. Or even use a bare Script, and then it is even worse.

1. BAVO refer to name of the token created using BRC-20 protocol.
2. MINT 1000 means someone mint/create 1000 BAVO token.
3. Someone probably mint/create bunch of BAVO at once.


I think you missed the point. I think his point is that adding arbitrary data to "fake" address/public key leads to longer time to verify transaction, while using witness doesn't have such impact.

Bitcoin not being a perfect payment system doesn't mean it is not a payment system used by many people to pay for something. Whether or not I, as an individual, used it for payment doesn't change that fact either.

I think you missed the argument entirely.
The point is Bitcoin has a purpose and a utility. That is to be used as a payment system. If you use it for something else (storing arbitrary data), I call that abuse.

OP_RETURN is method of storing arbitrary data in this payment system. That makes it an abuse. But it is standardized, accepted and tolerated. Most importantly because it is part of the protocol, it does far less damage (eg. the outputs are provably unspendable and aren't included in UTXO set) compared to the exploit used in Ordinals attack.

SegWit is NOT a way to store "arbitrary data" in transactions. It is a way to fix malleability and also help the capacity increase of this payment system.
Finding an exploit in SegWit to create Ordinals Attack is a different matter that doesn't categorize SegWit itself as an "abuse".

i'm not sure what you mean by "utxo data" but utxos don't have signatures attached to them. they have to be signed to be spent. a utxo is just a transaction id with a particular output index number. nothing more than that. in practice though i think the output index number is looked up and replaced with the value and scriptpubkey. but still. we aren't needing to store any signatures in the utxo set.

for non-segwit transactions the signature is stored in the scriptsig field of transaction inputs. but they are not needed. so once you have validated a particular transaction you could just throw it away. and just store any of its outputs you needed to in the utxo set.

i understand that segwit solved transaction malleability and that it segregated the signature from the transaction itself. those things should have been done in the very beginning but anyway. i'm not arguing against the merits of segwit but you are/were (?) a bitcoin developer. surely you can't really agree with allowing a segwit signature to hog up the entire block taking up the full 4MB can you? what do you think the developers were thinking when they allowed that loophole?

keeping non-segwit block size limit at 1MB but telling people "oh, you can do segwit transactions and the block can go up to 4MB and not only that but you get a 75% discount on the fee and guess what, you can store arbitrary data too in the witness signature and it can be as large as you want it to be" that's about as open an invitation to spammers as you could make. kind of unreasonable!


you're acting like they will always find a loophole. well it wasn't very hard to find with taproot was it? it was more like an open invitation to spam the blockchain with huge data.

The number of TXs load endlessly and all of them seem to be ordinals. This address has done 11,624 transactions (still creating new ones as I am writing), who the hell spent 165 Bitcoins into this?
By the way, do you know what does this mean? (Click on image for high resolution). What does BAVO mean? BAVO MINT 1,000? And why are they so much on this image? It's from the address that you posted.

---

Do you guys notice the trend of Solana memecoins? Now I think that ordinals, runes, meme coins, etc, they purpose is to launder money and that's why millions of dollars are paid in pixelated dumb ape images and so on. Someone paid 8.2 million in The Rotating Mud in real life

I agree, although if you make up to 200 TX per month (especially to few same seller), it's one of cases when LN could be useful. It's also worth to mention with current Bitcoin price and minimum relay fee rate (imposed by full nodes), you'll need to pay at least $0.1 even with 1 sat/vB fee rate.

But it's too high to go mainstream. I think we, as a family, make up to 200 financial transactions per month. If we'd have to pay $1 for each of those, that would take a significant chunk out of our monthly budget. Obviously this won't be fixed by removing Ordinals (and others), but this is how I compare costs when thinking about a scaling solution.

At very least, we know transaction which use Ordinal, Rune or similar protocol doesn't have purpose to send Bitcoin to someone else. That alone is enough to make some people classify those TX as spam.


And what's your point? Some transaction doesn't need very fast confirmation and today's fee (about $1 based on https://mempool.space/) isn't that expensive if you don't make micro-transaction.

They don't take up the "same space".  In order to validate blocks utxo data needs to be quickly accessible as the access speed bottlenecks validation speed, witness data doesn't need to be stored *at all*, since once you've validated it once you can forget it, so the long term cost of witness data is orders of magnitude lower.

Unfortunately the weight calculation can't disregard witness size completely because if its too disregarded it will make nodes bandwidth constrained, because witness and non-witness data are equivalent for the purpose relay at the tip.  Most nodes are far from bandwidth constrained and other known improvements at the time segwit was designed were expected to get nodes 2-4x bandwidth reduction (in terms of their ongoing p2p traffic).

In any case, the perspective you're adopting is a confused one-- I think a confused one specifically engineered by malicious parties attempting to engage in consensus cracking.

There is exactly one metric that matters when it comes to the ability to spam and the cost of spam: the capacity of the network relative to the demand.  Segwit did increase people's ability to add spam, but it did so purely by virtue of adding capacity.  Any other way of adding capacity would have the same effect.  Perhaps the particular spam *encoding* chosen might be different depending on how the capacity limit was constructed, but that's immaterial to anything you care about.   (and fortunately, the weighing scheme has caused the spammers here to encode their bullshit as witness data, which radically lowers the carrying cost of it for the network). 

so would you consider segwit to be another "tolerated and standardized abuse"? how does 2 things that take up the same storage space on disk and yet one of them has an artificial thing that weighs it less? sounds like abuse to me. ripe for abuse.

Last week. Your point being?

Beg your pardon, when was the last time you used BTC and paid something with it?
BTC is slow and expensive.

It is time to moderate the Whitepaper. Bitcoin is not a payment vehicle any more.

At the end of the day Bitcoin is a payment system not a cloud storage. So whether they use the witness exploit to inject arbitrary data to the chain or OP_RETURN, it can be categorized as abuse and when it is done on a large scale we can call it spam.

However, OP_RETURN is a tolerated and standardized abuse that bitcoiners came up with to prevent abusers from using output scripts to "inject data" into the chain and create unspendable UTXOs.