Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 25. (Read 7605 times)

I do understand the purpose of such limitations, but please acknowledge this isn't going to prevent people from using Bitcoin as a cloud storage. You can't prevent that, even if you completely break forwards-compatibility and invalidate every transaction that isn't standard. You're just going to make the rules stricter, making the Bitcoin network vulnerable to enforcing rules based on subjective criteria.

Because now people make usage of it, and because I'm not so ignorant to tell what people are allowed to do in the most freedom-supporting network on the planet.

Note that I wasn't into Bitcoin when SegWit was activated, so I have to accept rules that you may had found me disagreeing with.

I don't see any difference between BRC-20's use of the blockchain and the Lightning network's use.  I also don't think taproot is what enabled the current issues as much as segwit, but what do I know? 

You say Bitcoin was designed as a method for peer-to-peer exchange, and then go on to say it has become digital gold.  Is evolution of the protocol a good thing or a bad thing?  Did you expect that the Lightning network would continue to have a blockspace advantage without thinking other projects wouldn't take advantage of it as well?  If anything, this BRC-20 stuff is long overdue.

How can I misunderstand this?



It's not my quote and you couldn't have answered any of my posts since that one was my first post in the topic.  


Worse than the Bitcoin Foundation fiasco? Doubt it!
Besides, there is a huge difference between one hundred people showing their proposals and 1 million voting for what they think is the best one and one guy telling others how things will be done. This is the thing with decentralization, there is no official spokesperson, and the community decides who the best spokesperson is by following him and agreeing with his choices. Any other "solution" is just reverting to a centralized dictatorial system.


Sorry, but you missed the second point.
Banning monkeys or orcs 20 or borgs 40 or whatever won't help the people of Salvador if every of the 100 million Indians that supposedly own Bitcoin would decide to make a tx.  Even if 10% of the people in Salvador will make one onchain tx per day it will be enough just for them to clog the network. Bitcoin needs to scale, that's it! It doesn't get any more simple than this.

I'm not sure if that's the case. People just want an excuse to launch ponzis and new NFT projects, which can make them money, and using the Bitcoin network just gives them this air of being "a new thing". You already need to jump a bunch of hops just to use Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens, and everything is very user unfriendly... even I thought it was way too complicated and full of issues i.e if you spend a "specific sat", you lose your Ordinal... like wtf...

Don't you think that the pandora box has been opened and people will keep finding new ways of using the Bitcoin protocol as a ponzi ecossystem? A new software won't stop people, so I feel like this is a lost battle. Also, some people say this makes attacking BTC easier, but this is plain false. 1 MB in Ordinal transactions = 1 MB in "normal" transactions (and any bad state can overpay to clog up the network, with or without Ordinals/BRC-20 tokens).

You calling it censorship also doesn't make any sense because you never called version 0 censorship when it placed a limit on the witness size preventing exactly this attack. So why all of a sudden requiring to place similar limit on version 1 is considered censorship?!
BTW the incentive is the parallel market for gambling on these fake-tokens that provides the money they need to spam the chain with their arbitrary data. In other words the fees won't bother or disincentivize them.

With this line of thinking, there ends up being no spokesperson for Bitcoin at all, which is not necessarily a good thing. It means nobody is voicing any decisions of their own. Consensus depends on many people making their own decisions and picking a majority.

Now, if everyone says what they think should be done (as opposed to doing, which, as you can see, nobody really has the power to do by themselves), the opinions end up cancelling out each other until we get some sort of majority.

---

Now, and this is for all of you:

Do you guys really think the arguing w/ each other like this, in Bitcointalk, will solve anything?

We could be going on like this for 20 pages but it won't change a thing about the state of the network.

The only way about this, is to argue with the people with a shard of power in implementing changes (that is, core developers, exchange bosses, and anyone who makes a Bitcoin software) or by arguing with those who flood Bitcoin with tokens, in the hopes that it changes their mind.


Those of you who believe that Ordinals should be eliminated from the network, take an action against it as outlined above. A majority of Bitcoin users taking a stance against it will force people and companies to start acting.

If it's so profitable to mint a PepeShitDoge #1133 NFT even if with a $20 tx fee, can anybody tell me how blocking Ordinals' and BRC-20's current solution is enough to prevent those users from finding another way of ""exploiting"" the network to give life to their frog images?

Let's say we patch how Ordinals/BRC-20 currently sees and interacts with their tokens and now you can't send a single 1000 vByte tx to mint your jpeg. Don't you guys think that they will find other ways, let's say, by designing a protocol that allows 5 txs to address X resulting in a "mint"? Will this actually stop anyone?

Space is still limited, the network is still permissionless and anyone can send as many txs as they want. If there is incentive (or a reason and enough capital), people can clog up the network. Am I wrong?

Neither do I want that, but I want it less than I want to not turn Bitcoin into a censorship nightmare. I'm honestly curious if you've read my points. There's no way to prevent someone from using it as a cloud storage; yes, you can disincentivize financially, but we already do that. It's called block size limit. Anything beyond that introduces subjectivity into play. If there's real demand for these Ordinals, which I think it's questionable but say if, then it won't take long until they avoid your "measures" and turn into indistinguishable Bitcoin transactions.

You either being sarcastic or you completely missed the point and misunderstood me!

I was answering directly to this quote of yours.


This is not about me as you made it look here! I could have said the same. It's not just because other people need this garbage that make it more viable to be inserted in the blockchain.

Excellent point! Can you imagine how much this spam is hurting El Salvador? Their minimum wage averages around $300/month. The BRC-20 transaction fee was >10% of what they earned in a month. This bug that was introduced a few months ago must be strangling global adoption of Bitcoin. Even the current fee is prohibitive. Anyone who was using Bitcoin in El Salvador must be switching to alternatives now.

This argument really boils down to who will use Bitcoin?
1. A few elites who want to use Bitcoin to stick a $27,000 copy of a monkey picture in the blockchain
2. Everyone who wants to send a trustless, unrestricted, decentralized, peer-to-peer transaction, which Bitcoin has already served reliably as for over 14 years.

That's a great point. The fee is how Bitcoin controls what is "reasonable." Supply and demand increases this fee and limits how many people can send Bitcoin. This ordinals bug has artificially changed Bitcoin's purpose in support of a few moneyed individuals, eroding its original use case for the last 14 years. Demand will fall as people abandon Bitcoin in favor of other coins.

Demand is falling...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-outflows-poor-bitcoin-btc-sentiment-coinshares

This is where you and I disagree. I say we should not allow bitcoin blockchain to be largely used for something other than a "peer to peer electronic cash" ledger, in this case for cloud storage.

The "cost" you are talking about is also a soft preventive measure and it can not work against this type of attack where there is an incentive. We need a hard limit on the witness version 1 size (similar to version 0).

Keep in mind that this could only be the start. There is nothing stopping others to continue using bitcoin as a cloud storage at a much larger scale effectively rendering it useless as a payment network.

You mean like having a sushiswap on the bitcoin blockchain? 

would that mean bitcoin is destroyed at least temporarily until fees got back under control?

not for people that don't like paying big fees. they just want fees to go back down to reasonable levels but the problem is there is nothing in the bitcoin protocol that defines what a reasonable fee is. it could be anything.

DeFi is around the corner for btc , sooner or later someone will find a way to make it real , then the real pain will kick in . If that happens i expect insane fee prices , what happened so far in mempool will look like a fart compared to a nuke . Anyway , it's an interesting time to see how things will evolve .

Paradoxically, I'm anti-censorship and I also hate ordinals spam at the same time. Fighting spam has nothing to do with censorship. I also really hope that this attack will end naturally and we won't be forced to take any counter-measures (censorship as you call it). 

Precisely.  That is why calls from impatient, entitled censorship advocates will fall on deaf ears and devs will continue to focus on scaling and other important factors.  Devs see the big picture and understand what they're building towards.  Whereas the entitled censorship advocates will make a lot of noise, completely fail to raise a single valid point (because they understand very little) and they'll never lift a finger to enact change.

Censorship advocates are already on the wrong side of history.  They just don't know it yet.

rolling up my sleeves:

well that would mean the mempool of unconfirmed transactions would be huge. how big? well, assuming the lower end at 100 million users and say the average transaction size is 500 bytes. Then we would be looking at 50,000 MB mempool or 50GB. It gets worse though. Assuming the often quoted 7 transactions per second, and assuming a transaction would stay in the mempool until it got confirmed (which is not the case obviously) and everything worked on a FIFO basis, people could expect their transaction to clear in about 82 days. That's over 2 months. Slower than the US Postal Service by orders of magnitude. But still more reliable...

Well yeah, don't send as often. Maybe wait for times when fees are lower. That's about all you can do.

No. You twisted my words. I never said we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage. I find it a very dumb idea. I implied that if a group of people want to use it as cloud storage, they can have the option as long as they pay the respective cost. If I wanted the former, I'd be a strong supporter of big blocks; the 4 MB blocks make such concept too pricey to carry on.

As you have rightly pointed out, we can't stay the same... Unless of course our goal isn't global adoption. The way I see it, is that the average Joe will never want to switch to Bitcoin, unless there's repealing of cash which will introduce the need for electronic cash, but that's just one extreme scenario for the time being. The average Joe never prioritized self-custody, so I doubt handing it over will mind him much.

Does Bitcoin know about this?
Who made you the spokesperson of Bitcoin?

If I remember correctly, one of the garbage that Bitcoin was supposed to get rid of was centralization, so we wouldn't have a single leadership and a guy deciding what is best for millions, and look where we are, somebody suddenly feels like Jesus and he's speaking for all of us!


I'm starting to doubt this. According to some around here, a bunch of JPGs and daily fees that are not even the budget of third rate government agencies are enough to launch a terrorist attack on bitcoin and make the network unusable by the average Joe with only whales being able to use Bitcoin.

I'm genuinely curious how Bitcoin will see global adoption in this case if 500k extra transactions are "hurting" the network that badly.
I've seen numerous threads about how Bitcoin has 100-200 million users worldwide, now, the simple question is, what will happen if every single on of them would want to just do a transaction? 
A regular, normal transaction, that is not a jpg monkey, verified by all peers, eco friendly sustainable, with a positive value to the economy, rated 5 stars even by the defenders of the Palantir or how the hell does the mob of anti ordinals call themselves?

What do we do then to bring the fees down?
- we ban mixers and tumblers?
- we ban consolidations?
- we ban tx between 0.04645 and 0.38651 ?
- we ban tx sent any other time than between 8-16 during weekdays?

Or, and bear with me on this horrendous idea, we adapt?

Yes they are losses. If a user paid 1sat/byte for a transaction before ordinals attack and now the same user has to pay 100sat/byte because there are 500000 monkey pics queued in mempool the user is losing money/Bitcoin. The network has come to a complete stall now after the BRC20 attack joined ordinals attack in a massive ddos targeted at Bitcoin. 

You are basically saying that just because other people's transaction doesn't matter to you then we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage because that junk data also doesn't matter to you!!!