Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 21. (Read 7631 times)

Very interesting. Is there some technology under consideration to replace the traditional "initial blockchain download", or some concrete research on one?

There was, of course, the "Mini-Blockchain scheme" [1] (Bruce, 2014) but it had been described as "flawed" (in a discussion I don't remember); I believe due to some attack vectors [2]. Another scheme is Rollerchain [3]. Maybe also [4] (Matzutt et al., 2020) and [5] (Sforzin, Maso et al.) are relevant.

It's an extremely interesting topic as it would also probably solve the problem with the "right to be forgotten".


[1] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Mini-Blockchain-Scheme-Bruce/2b52355f76fca0ac23c5730f4e1a6a7e653f0237
[2] http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Weaknesses_and_attack_vectors
[3] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Prunable-Blockchain-Consensus-Protocol-Based-on-Chepurnoy-Larangeira/48f1b027c7ec96fa8a4ca4f53e2be6b95643e3f4
[4] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-Securely-Prune-Bitcoin%E2%80%99s-Blockchain-Matzutt-Kalde/d855ac1c3fe47a5b47d808bf763ba95b993ce8da
[5] https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-the-Storage-Overhead-of-Proof-of-Work-Sforzin-Maso/21a1bdb3d54e1ab02ca23c1cf8d7c1b88aab4258

The solution to that is to always end up in the heaviest chain. There are altcoins based on double SHA-256, that are here and now completely unsafe, and can be reorged at any moment. What they should do, is to trace the heaviest existing proof of work, and burn (or lock to the future) their coinbase rewards, proportionally to their hashrate (so if some ALT has 1% of the total double SHA-256 chainwork, then miners should receive 1% of the coinbase). Mining 1 ALT should be as hard as mining 1 BTC, then people will have reasons to mine both (ideally, they should be pegged in 1:1, then there would be no additional coins, optionally they could use lower denominations, like millisatoshis in LN, if some altcoin does not have enough hashrate to create single satoshis; it is even possible to use merged mining for test coins, if someone wants to test new features, but does not want to "waste" computing power).

When it comes to NameCoin, that altcoin made many mistakes, and for that reason they are where they are. For example, there are some sidechains like RSK, where merged mining was successful, also because they have 1:1 peg. For domains, there is even no need to create any new monetary base in the first place, they should create domains directly in a vanity-like way. In that case, even limited supply is not needed, because then one miner can own "name123", and another miner can later mine "name456". There could be two parts: vanity part, and hash part. The network can easily guarantee that if you mined "name123", then when users will type "name", they will reach your entry. Later, when your "name" will expire, another user can mine "name456".

Instead of that system, they introduced new monetary base for no reason, and they decided to burn 0.01 NMC for every domain (that is also pointless, because then if that project would be more successful, that would mean it will halt at some point, when all coins will be burned in domain-buying transactions). Instead of commitments, they used explicit on-chain hashes (it is possible to create a system, where any user can prepare some name upfront, and where people will never know that any new name was created, until it will be revealed later, such transactions would be indistinguishable from a regular ones).

perhaps we see the future of electrical power turning into wealth differently.

I see scaling issues not solved for BTC
I see reward to fee ratio becoming a problem for BTC

I see Ltc+ Doge with 12x the blocks each minute as a better way to scale
I see Doge’s perpetually shrinking inflational rate as pure brilliance.
year 1 100%
year 2   50%
year 11 10%
year 21   5%
year 26  4%
year 51.  2%

So does btc simply do nothing but watch the brc-20 issue. They should do exactly that.

At least in my opinion. As I think it will self regulate.

I think cutting it out is heavy handed and will lead pools into setting minimum fees as early as 2032.

Hoping to reach 2032 as I would be 75 by then I think I can do that much.

Also hoping to see 100-150k by then for btc.

That isn't a use case for *Bitcoin* in that it's something Bitcoin doesn't actually accommodate on a fundamental basis: Bitcoin nodes don't need to store or provide access to historical blocks to operate.  They only do today (to the extent they do, many don't) to aid new nodes coming up securely, but in the future that will be accomplished via other means because transferring terabytes of blockchain to process and throw away whenever someone starts a new node won't be sufficiently viable.

So not only do you have to worry that it might become unavailable, it'll be inevitable, except in the sense that perhaps there may be some archive someplace or another that has the historical chain and might make it available to you at some cost.  But if that's good enough you could put your data on archive.org today or just put it anywhere on the internet and let the common crawl pick it up.  This file storage stuff will hasten the day when the historical chain becomes hard to access, because people will store illegal data in it and then node operators will be forced to shut down or face prosecution.  Already I'm being sued over accusations that I ran a node that distributed copyrighted data hidden inside transactions (by third parties without my knowledge or involvement). (so, please, preface any response that this is a speculative concern with a credible offer to cover my legal expenses and indemnify me should we lose)

To the limited extent Bitcoin accommodates it in practice today it's _exceedingly_ inefficient for it in the sense that the p2p network doesn't provide random access to the chain (and presumably won't be due to the abuse potential) so unless you don't mind downloading and processing a terabyte of data over the several days to retrieve your kilobyte of data it isn't available to you already from the network. It's also the case that other blockchains that care less about security or decentralization can do the same thing for radically lower cost (still a dumb idea to use a blockchain for this but if you must then almost anything else does it better).  Finally, not that anyone doing it cares, but it's also a abuse that was expressly argued against by Bitcoin's creator.

At the moment there is some webpages that provide access but those will be taken down after their operators give up wasting their money on them (or get tired of the issues with illegal content on them ... or when their collateral purpose is satisfied or abandoned)-- and in that case you're really counting on the websites to provide the service. No different that the *prior* sites that have done "files on the blockchain" in bitcoin (which has happened several times in the past, the files then are practically irretrievable now to anyone but an expert developer).

As an aside the data you're talking about doesn't make a lot of sense to store this way:  E.g. "seed phrases" -- because the stored data is public the *only* security for it comes from the private key used to encrypt it.  You could instead skip the stored data and derive all the bitcoin keys and website passwords from the same key with no storage.  Presumably if your key is secure then you have to store it too-- most mediums that can store 256 bits can also store 2kb.  I'll guess your key is really a passphrase which means that the thing the attacker has to attack is just that and not aes-256. A human memorized passphrase usually has less than 70 bits of security, so even worse to make the data public in that case.

[As a bonus: surprise the same person financing that copyright litigation against me is financing several of the high profiles ordinals companies.  Though I think the pretty clear fact that ordinals are being used as an attack on Bitcoin to destroy its decentralization (by driving up resource costs, by increasing the legal risk in running a node, by being used to justify vexatious litigation against tech people) doesn't mean all its users or the people who originally created it intended it as an attack. But it's the effect that counts.]

that's easy. i need a way to store encrypted data permanently and not have to worry about my data being deleted in 2 years like gmail might do due to inactivity. it's not a huge amount of data but maybe a few kilobytes. from time to time. i need it to have 100% uptime so that anytime i need it i can get it. 24/7/365. as long as i have an internet connection...

that data might consist of anything like login/passwords to important websites or bitcoin seed phrases or anything. i know some people think it's a bad idea to store that type of thing online but hopefully people have better things to do than sit around trying to crack some AES-256 encrypted ordinal.

Well lets see, in a whole day right the entire LTC and DOGE networks bring in a total of $1.58 million dollars combined from fees and inflation (fees being utterly insignificant).

Bitcoin, from *fees alone* without any inflation brings in $1.72million dollars/day.

This means that even with inflation completely gone in Bitcoin, Bitcoin already brings in enough in fees pay for significantly more security than those two altcoins achieve essentially entirely from inflation.  (You could, for whatever it's worth substitute or even add other semi-popular altcoins to that and still be less than Bitcoin, I just used the two you suggest)

"Merged mining" is significantly undermined by the central game theory argument for mining:  The game theory argument for mining is that to mine you expend costly energy, and if your work won't end up in the longest chain (or you manage to blow up the thing you're mining) then that effort is wasted so it is in your best interest to mine honestly.  It gets some participation advantage because you can just add it on, but as we saw with namecoin the low income quickly causes parties to either no bother or not maintain their infrastructure.

In the case of merge mining if one asset has meaningful income (like dogecoin maybe has with its perpetual inflation) and the other asset does not-- like litecoin once is subsidy is depleted (unless something changes). Then only the income side has meaningful security, the non-income side does not because the attacker isn't losing much if his blocks don't end up on the longest chain or if he sets the whole thing on fire.

Maybe you can see why many Bitcoiners really dislike altcoiners.  It's usually not that they have any issue with the altcoin itself, it's because people with some kind of investment in the altcoin glibly spread misleading claims about Bitcoin in order to rationalize, justify, and promote their altcoins.  The points are seldom well justified or considered.  I'd say that a simple majority of altcoin centric arguments about Bitcoin are actually points against the altcoins if considered with a bit of care, like this one.

There may well be reasons that you could advocate ltc+doge,  but fudding Bitcoin about its ability to fund security with fees is not one of them.  If Bitcoin's *current* fee-only income isn't enough security income for your taste than you should conclude that these other coins are *currently* insecure and lack any kind of trajectory to allow them to achieve even their current level of security in the future (after all, even doges perpetual inflation effectively dilutes the mining income down to nothing over time too; just at the cost of also debasing everyone's holdings at the same time).

Argues? Where? AFAICT noise, toxicity, and attacks got so bad the discussion just *stopped*, except a bit of chatter among gadflies and navel gazers that won't ever do the work and can't manage the navigate the public politics.  Maybe you've seen some arguments among  those people, but they were only ever there to argue.  Or it's just unoriginal repetition of ideas that were thoroughly explored in 2012 (like "lets switch to scrypt and merge mine with litecoin!"), getting the responses that could have been copy and pasted from the last three times. If there was real activity you probably wouldn't notice those noise discussions arguing amongst themselves.

When I looked recently the developer chat channel logs, they now regularly go days without any comments at all, yet back in 2013 they averaged 1866 messages per day-- a day without activity would have been a shock.  That isn't argument-- argument would mean activity.  The mailing lists have been widely unsubscribed, most posts are people who've never been extensively involved in development, and just haven't received the message about how dead things are in terms of meaningful change.

Of course, (reinvoking the prior offtopic diversion) bitcoin development "dead" is still significantly more activity than most altcoins get-- so altcoiners don't get any ideas from this comment.  Just about a year ago or so the entire doge network was completely unable to bring up a single new node for *weeks*  until a bitcoin developer friend had a friend that wanted to dump their doge (the outage actually drove up prices because it limited the supply of old coins).  He had to fix some gross incompetence that was preventing nodes from syncing  (such as completely re-validating the defectively expensive scrypt POW and the gigant MM proofs every time it read one off the disk to give it to a peer) then used his fixed node to fix the other nodes, and brought their essentially failed (but hardly noticed failure since pools and exchanges were still running) network back to life.  Maybe next time no family member of a real developer will have doge to dump and it will just stay dead?  who knows!

Not bad. I would support that.

Honestly I'd much rather see BTC merge mining with doge+LTC than with any of this inefficient BRC20 crap. Maybe BIP301 is on to something. But then again our protocol development has basically stagnated because discussing anything has become more like US congress where everyone argues with each other and agrees on nothing.

At least DOGE and LTC are widely agreed on to have actual value. While the popularity of Ordinals and BRC20 is basically not guarrenteed to stay as it is because get-rich-quicker's will tire of it and move to the Next Big Thing(TM).

the only alt algo with a good setup is scrypt.

they solved the ½ issue by merge mining LTC and Doge.

the reward to fee ratio issue that btc has. Has been reduced as doge rewards stay stable.

the meager blocks available to btc per day (144) has been solved by ltc 288 doge 1440

the 144 block limit mean great restrictions to scaling.

while 1728 a day for scrypt is 12x better.

Yeah BTC has first in the game edge and many times it is enough. But the LTC+Doge can do everything btc
can do and has more flexibility.

Now as a miner am I preaching  scrypt over btc no.

I have 200kwatts an hour burning as I type only 26kwatts are mining scrypt. The rest mine BTC.

As a guy that sees $ per watt is most miners code of business BTC needs to acknowledge that and find a way to deal with it.

Hey I saw vinyl die and come back
I saw eight track die not coming back
I saw cassettes die not coming back
I saw ipods die
we now stream music for the most part.

I watched tv with rabbit ears for antennas and only
2
4
5
7
9
11
13
68
were available.
cable did not exist.

I watch cable and stream now.

point is shit evolves and occasionally backtracks.

Do I see BTC evolving yeah.

taproot
segwit
LN

but scrypt can copy that and still has that 2+10=12 times the block per hour advantage.

by 2032 when blocks are 0.78 btc

Ltc will be 1.56 but doge will be 10,000

I dont see any BTC move to address that obviously better long term advantage scrypt has over btc.

I think what we are seeing with ordinals+brc-20+nfts is a backdoor effort for btc to catch up to scrypt’s better long term reward setup.

We are going to know a lot by 2032 if btc figures out what to do.

Why do you take that for granted? Bitcoin fee income levels (even the sustained ones outside of the recent traffic) are many times the entire fees PLUS subsidy of several competing altcoins combined.  Are they currently screwed?

Guess you don't live in an area where comcast has a monopoly. In many places they have a "100Mbps" which rarely performs, but lets them claim that they provide broadband for the purpose of government reports.

What "use case" are you referring to?  A description of a use case should not mention Bitcoin-- it should mention a problem people have which Bitcoin might be a solution.

I'll give some examples:

"My bank (and ANY conventional bank I can find) is only open for international wire transfers from (say) 10am to 3pm M-F or other such limited hours and I want to be able to send money internationally *at any time*, 365 days a year, because I don't know when a good opportunity will happen or an emergency will come up" Bitcoin solves this.

"I tried using online payments but Paypal froze my account randomly with no explanation and wouldn't give me my money back for a year" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to hold on to money but my government keeps printing it like its going out of style, debasing its value" Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation I kept wealth at home as silver but it took up an enormous amount of space and was easily stolen by thieves because it was hard to secure in a way that was impossible for others to access". Bitcoin solves this.

"To escape inflation AND theft risk, I stored wealth in gold bars in a safe deposit box, but because I didn't visit for two years the bank auctioned off the content (or alternatively the FBI came and took it all because some OTHER customers were suspected of drug dealing)". Bitcoin fixes this.

"I wanted to buy a telescope but they required 20 minutes of invasive security questions that a scammer could have answered anyways and I couldn't convince my bank it wasn't fraud and they froze my account and it took me three days and a dozen phone calls to fix it" Bitcoin solves this.

"I wanted to buy provocative comic books, but even though they are unambiguously legal where I live, the government leaned on payment providers to deplatform the vendor" Bitcoin solves this.

"I'm concerned that years down the line my country might be taken over by a theocracy and they'll get all the payment company records and start executing people who purchased birth control or subject them to some less dire punishment." Bitcoin can help here too.

Each of these cases Bitcoin can help with because it removes trusted third parties from the process of either transacting or storing your wealth, trusted third parties which fail to deliver a stable system, can capriciously interfere with your right to associate with others, or otherwise act against your best interest.  These are examples of the use cases Bitcoin set out to solve, which its fundamental properties are designed to satisfy and are mostly difficult to impossible for other systems to solve (except to the extent that they imitate Bitcoin's design).

Use cases which aren't exclusive-- that any old alternative will also do are fine, but they don't provide a reason for someone to use Bitcoin when they otherwise wouldn't-- instead Bitcoin will get used for those based on other factors like existing usage for the exclusive reasons or because Bitcoin is less expensive (but that is a pretty unlikely case for cases where a centralized alternative works, because centralized alternatives can always be cheaper if they choose to be).

he means bitcoin is headed for trouble unless miners can offset their dwindling block rewards somehow.

i seriously doubt people would be willing to pay for 100Mbps service and then only get less than 10% of it.


I support ordinals and any other things that bring more use cases to bitcoin so that miners can be incentivized to continue securing the network. how about you? 

What is that supposed to mean?

Those stats are boarderline lies, they're provided by ISPs trying to juice government mandates and incentives.  Beyond the bulk misrepresentations they don't really expose how bad upload bandwidth is or how poor delivered performance is.   It's pretty common to have 100 Mbit down which seldom does more then 8mbit, and only offers 5mbit up (but usually at least delivers close to it).

There is no they buddy, only you.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-internet-speed-by-state

in the usa, only california is under 100mpbs but they're sitting at 91. that's stone ages. most states in the usa are at least 300 or 400 mbps. that's still pretty slow...seems like the industry overall has stagnated in terms of higher speeds. stagnated for YEARS. they want to keep charging the same rates for sub-standard technology and service.

you're right. if they don't fix that problem then bitcoin goes back to low security network where people with home computers can mine it and the price becomes worthless...kind of like how it started out 

This is the flaw of BTC and current fee structure not the miners or pools.

Getting rid of BRC-20+ordinals+NFTS

only makes pools want to simply do a minimum tx fee of 30 or 40 or 50 sats a block.

In 2032 block reward will be .78 btc if fees are 1.22 a block will be 2 coins if coins are 100k

The smallest fee would be about 227 x 50 = 11350 sats or 0.00011350 btc or $11.35

I believe that the major pools will do everything they can to insure fees are high enough for their survival.

As a miner burning 5000 k-watts a day. or $250 a day I will be forced to use larger pools to avoid variance. So the problem of BRC-20/ordinals/NFT's is a smoke screen to the real issue top 5 pools have 87% of the hash and can set fees at 50sats or higher.

And at the same time they can greenlight fake 0.00000227 tx's to flood the blocks.

This has been done before my lock thread talks about it.

And I see 2032 as fairly close to this date now.

I say leave the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT shit alone and work on a bigger scoped solve that also deals with what I am talking about.

Or leave it all alone and do nothing to see where it goes and how fucked up it gets.

I do not like an out of the fire pan and into the fire solution.

The big inscriptions are non-standard still today, too.  The maximum weight of a standard transaction wasn't changed by taproot. ... but parties can and do pay miners to bypass those rules, and clearly have here.  So I think taproot is also pretty irrelevant for the huge ones too.

I don't think anyone can seriously deny that miners will accept payment to attack the network,  so I think the general skepticism for standardness as anything but a tool to protect forward compatibility mechanisms is probably well founded.

i doubt anyone here is going to be excited about that  since they seem to be clogging up the blockchain...

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/im-going-to-create-a-brc-20-liquidity-pool-5455647

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before.

There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did.

Thus:


... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN.

Is that what made it possible?  I'll admit I haven't looked into the technical aspect of this as much as I should have, but I don't believe what you're saying is true.  From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in. 

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network, which I believe is guilty of the exact same crimes of Ordinals, but since it is patented tech by Blockstream and Blockstream basically runs Core, we are all just supposed to blindly support it.

Yes but the problem is BTC is so fucking valuable that we will have scaling issues.

2009 to 2012 reward 50 btc    vs  fee 0.01 or 5000 to 1 ratio

2012 to 2016 reward 25 btc    vs  fee 0.025 or 1000 to 1 ratio

2016 to 2020 reward 12.5 btc vs fee  0.050 or   250 to 1 ratio

2020 to 2024 reward 6.25 btc vs fee 0.100 or  62.5 to 1 ratio


note the fees are an in my head guess as the the average value of each block fee

we know 2023 block fees got up to 6 coins

but the Long term average over last 3 years is closer to .1 btc a block

I am okay at math and figuring some trends out.

the reward to fee number ratio shrinks every 4 years.

5000.000 to 1 2009
1000.000 to 1 2012
  250.000 to 1 2016
    62.500 to 1 2020       note in my head estimate.

this means

   15.625 to 1  in 2024 or    3.125 reward and   0.20 in  fees on average
     3.906 to 1  in 2028 then 1.5625 reward and 0.40 in fees

btw we are over the fee average for 2020-2023  of 0.1000 btc

As of the  last 10 blocks

793263-0.96
793262-0.90
793261-0.69 2.55
793260-1.02
793259-0.76
793258-0.91 5.24
793257-0.98
793256-1.11
793255-0.59
793254-1.04
    
they are about 0.896 btc a block

I have read various number for fee average during 2020-2023 as high as .15 btc average as low as .07 average I picked .1 for my ratio comparison

it is easy to see May 1 to June 7 we are above .07 .1 or .15 in fact we are over 1 btc a block for about 37 days.

But it dropped a bit  as May 5 to May 12 it was 2.5 btc a block

now it is .896 btc a block .  This is ordinals+BRC-20+NFT clutter.

I have shown ways in a prior thread that pools can push fees up and turn profits.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-miners-need-to-mine-on-a-pool-that-pays-them-the-tx-fees-2634505

a method of pushing fees upward and not being able to directly prove any pool does it.

All of that thread's concepts  can be done by 3 large pools with the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT clutter.

And proving it is hard.

It is obvious people are testing the Blockchain right now to see how easy they can jack fees turn profits and not be fingered for doing it.


I don't fear any of that as much as I fear the top pools simply black list all tx's under 50 sats a byte.

I think we are heading that way.

BTW if ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs are barred and fees drop to 0.1 per block

The top 5 pools will be incentivized to blacklist all 50sats per  or 40sat per and lower tx's

So Once again I say leave the ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs just as they are,

 as I rather deal with a wild dog(brc-20) than a wild lion (blacklisting of <50sats a byte tx's)

oh some opec news

"OPEC+ countries also agreed to extend oil production cuts they announced in April through the end of 2024, reducing the amount of crude they pump into the world market by more than 1 million barrels per day." 3 days ago  from google search "opec to lower oil"