Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 18. (Read 7631 times)

THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".

That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

Nope , miners an pools will work in any case , either fees are low or high , of course profit maximization is a plus for them ( find me a business that's against that ) . Those that were looking forward for such high fees as a result of limited blocksize were those in the maxis camp . Btc just gets what maxis wanted , so you should look others than miners and pools to blame .

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

Or rather, there is no money to be made in a fork because if a hypothetical Ordinals coin was ever listed on an exchange it would be immediately short-sold.

While Bitcoin Cash was profitable to make at least initially for the miners because there was a sizable group of people who supported it.

A pure Mimblewimble chain like Grin is very inscription resistant, but Beam has added many features, some of which (smart contracts in particular) can be used to store arbitrary data [1].

[1] https://forum.beam.mw/t/beam-inscriptions/822

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.

The actual reason for the creation of ordinal is just to make money with NFT shit and the person who created knew that it is going to get huge hype and that is why the thing is still in the trend and some investors do believe that this NFT token is going to be the next big, poor people who have no idea and still risk their money.

I just hope something can fix the ordinals that are exploiting the Bitcoin network while doing great harm and I don't know how long this can go on meanwhile shitcoins claim and convince Bitcoin is done and make some money for themselves.

It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Creating a copyfork (called Bordi? lol) would create something less successful than the shitforks in the past (mainly 2017 era).

Yeah, and it's going to have the same effect as vegans boycotting Dinosaur Bar-B-Que.

By rejecting all block that contain ordinals your node will simply become useless, and you can have 90% of the nodes doing the same, as long a no block with zero ordinals is mined all this solves zero, the nodes that do relay blocks with ordinals will keep doing so and miners will keep adding more to the chain, zero impact whatsoever.


No, the opposite, we're going to have Bitcoin as we know it now and a dead coin from the start, something called Luke's vision or whatever.

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen. An outright rejection of inscription activity imposed by devs is more likely to cause a chain split not in the favor of Ordinals Disrespectoors. We will have Bitcoin (BTC) as it is today and Ordinal Disrespectoor Coin (ODC), for maxi idealists that refuse to adapt to this new paradigm.

A middle ground, as I've been suggesting for months now, would be to place some kind of thoughtfully-placed limitation on taproot script length where things such as coinjoins are still under the data limit yet 1 MB monkey pictures are not.

FWIW it's possible on Monero mainly because it has TX_EXTRA field which sometimes used to interact across different cryptocurrency network.


Reject block? No sane people would do that since the block contain some non-ordinals TX. His script would make sense if it doesn't relay all Ordinals TX.

Yes, and that is what cannot happen. Bitcoin is not a cloud hosting service, which allows you to store things forever, at an excellent cost.

But, I believe that a solution will soon emerge from the developers. Afterwards, the support of the entire bitcoin community will be needed to actually be able to implement it.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

It's about size of the arbitrary data and its purpose.

Satoshi including a tiny message (a couple of bytes) in the coinbase of the very first mined block in an extremely restricted way (coinbase script size can not exceed 100 bytes) is very different from including any arbitrary data in any transaction in any block at any size without any restrictions.

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

BRC-20 made the network congested, and consumed too much storages.

I understand what you mean, but (I don't remember exactly when it was) I remember that a few years ago, there was a change that miners/pools weren't willing to support, and they ended up following this change because of the developers and community Bitcoin.




Thank you for sharing these links, which clearly show Satoshi's position and opinion on this topic.
But, there he is, he is not the owner of Bitcoin, but I think that remembering his opinion can be helpful in making decisions.

This patch is not enough. And also, it has a lot of flaws. Because:

1. It is possible to create a transaction, with non-Ordinal witness, that would be rejected by this patch.

For example: "020063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_CHECKSIG"
Another example: "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"

2. It is possible to create another flood, just by wrapping Ordinals in a new format, just to avoid those magic bytes, and it will not be censored.

For example: "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF OP_PUSH_3('ord')".

Just change "0063036f7264" into "0164036f7264", and then you can flood all nodes with such censorship. Now, it is too late for rules, which could be so simply evaded. It could be good one week or one month after Ordinals were introduced, but they are not sufficient here and now.

Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

As far as I know, similar code was already written by other developers and is this a reinventing of bicycle? I also haven't found this article on other major crypto news websites. By the way, aren't Taproot Wizards the ones who wanted to make Bitcoin magical again by letting you to upload jpeg files on blockchain?

---

By the way, I recently read an article that states that Polygon version of Bitcoin Ordinals also significantly increased gas fees and I just have a logical question like normal human, how many ordinals/nfts are created each day and how many millions of people pay money in these NFTs? Maybe we all are stuck and missing something here while the world keeps moving on. What's going on?

Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

No. If developers would want to "make miners happy", then they could just increase default fee rates. Or, if you need a more covert way, do a transition from secp256k1 to something "bigger", that would be "quantum safe" (or whatever), which means "more complex", and of course "more expensive". But this is not the case: if it would be, then Ordinals could be just the part of Bitcoin Core, but as you can see, this is not included, and some developers even created some minority versions to reject Ordinals (but other developers didn't, because there are worse things than Ordinals, and thankfully, they are not yet present on-chain, as long as spammers are focused on Ordinals instead).

It is not that easy, if you quote what Satoshi said about "Lady Gaga videos", or about "BitDNS". Unless you say that those posts are not written by Satoshi, but those people are beyond saving.

Today, that kind of message could be included as a commitment instead. But of course, there are many improvements, that could be done, if someone would want to reinvent Bitcoin. For example, if someone is going to create another altcoin, then there is no reason to have more than one address type. And if that would be the case, then the message from the Genesis Block, could be just included behind that public key, as a commitment.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1617
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28917

Yes, you are right, Satoshi does not have any direct power in Bitcoin. But it still has its influence. This influence is still felt today, related to several aspects that have remained unchanged since the origin of Bitcoin, such as the size of blocks.

The point now is: why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network? 

Either way, you said the fundamental thing: Bitcoin was created with a payment system! And I think that was the main pillar that Bitcoin should continue to follow, and prevent other things from harming that pillar.