Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 22. (Read 7631 times)

i didn't realize cpu speed is an issue when running bitcoin core. i am sure that a simple dual core cpu from 2010 would be fine still in 10 years for running bitcoin core just like it probably is today. a core i5 would be better but i'm not sure it's really necessary. but bitcoin doesn't need high end cpus. it never will.

if someone doesn't have a 100Mbps download speed today they are in the stone ages, just being honest. If in 10 years they're still in that situation then they really have no business downloading a 1Terabyte blockchain. Just being honest. There's companies who just don't want to increase their customers speeds so they try and force them to stay at lower speeds too but that's a different story.

probably not practical but if it was done then that would certainly encourage people to consolidate their coins. 

just don't try and use ssd for something like chiacoin. i heard it eats them for lunch. churning through and doing a bunch of wear and tear.

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?


Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.


Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.


The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term.


I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top  pools decide to do that.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

Note bold question.

I mine it is a business
I need fee income
Every ½ ing fee income is more critical and the Block reward lessons.

I will be the first to say while I like to see a 6.25 reward and 4.75 in fees = 11 btc per block but I know it hurts the business of btc if it continues for say 1 or 2 years in a row.

My fears for down the road of ½ ing rewards are getting fees to work well enough for

miners, pools and users of btc.

6.25 + 0.75 = 7 seems to work okay

6.25 + 5.7 = 12 seems to be an issue if it goes for a long time 6 months a year seem bad.

so in a year

3.125 + 0.875 = 4 seems okay

3.125 + 5.875 = 9 seems wrong a real problem

in 2028

1.5625 + 0.9375 = 2.5 still may work

1.5625 + 5.4375 = 7.0 seem wrong a real problem



on and on and on

I worry for this to get worse as time goes on.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).


With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now


And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.


But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

Though I don't expect low-fee tx's to get any priority from them as long as the Unisat hype continues.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. 

As long as the top five pools do not blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte.

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools


Miner / Pool--------Percent

Foundry USA-------33.333%

AntPool-------------22.337%

F2Pool--------------13.574%

Binance Pool--------9.794%

ViaBTC--------------8.419%

total of ----------- over 87.2%

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.

I quoted myself about a month later. Fees are down to under 1 btc a block vs 2+ btc a block

last 10 blocks on June 5th

792990 ----- 0.61
792989 ----- 0.73
792988 ----- 0.72 > 2.06
792987 ----- 0.48
792986 ----- 0.56
792985 ----- 0.54 > 3.64
792984 ----- 0.59
792983 ----- 0.63
792982 ----- 0.57
792981 ----- 0.73 > 6.16



far less than may 9th date of my quoted post.

789000-----2.19
788999-----3.93
788998-----5.69 ----- 11.81
788997-----1.78
788996-----3.35
788995-----1.76 -----18.7
788994-----1.73
788993-----1.85
788992-----1.73
788991-----1.84-----25.85



Developers did nothing and fees went down bigly. May 9th to June 5th.

give the developers a pat on the back for the "wait and see move".


6.16 is way down from 25.85

Look at the definition of spam , you can't call spam a transaction that pays more fees than normal . Try to find another term .
 If you had a store and someone was willing to pay you more than your asked price would you deny him your services ? On the contrary , you would leave the other customers and try to please him the most you could . You asked for a fee market , you made it and now people want to pay more to have their transactions validated . Why you call something an attack when it doesn't fit your narratives ?

Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

Really ? History proves you wrong https://cirosantilli.com/cool-data-embedded-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain#illegal-content-of-block-229k
Not to mention that satoshi himself used blockchain as a "cloud storage" for his timestamp message .

You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.

P.S. this is repost since my previous post was deleted by mistake.


Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.


This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-the-reason-for-not-being-strict-about-taproot-witness-program-size-5340900. See above detailed response by @gmaxwell.

Ordinals don't grant you the permission to use a nearly instant payment network with minimum transaction cost.

They are literally the opposite. Ordinals require abruptly large sized transactions, while lightning makes the best transaction compression to this date.

If this second layer solution didn't exist, I, as an average user, would have paid much more in on-chain fees in the last months.

And complete indolence does harm the network, and "steals" from the miners, because it sets limit on how usable Bitcoin is as currency. Without second layer, it's quite unusable for a 100 millions.

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners . Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .

I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.  Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.  The only difference between the two seems to be how the users want to use the blockchain.  They both benefit from the same subsidies that should have never been created anyway.  My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.  I don't know, maybe the super simple merged mining system satoshi himself thought was genius and would give users choices without burdening Bitcoin's blockchain to push some patented solution by a single company.

*facepalm* I accidentally deleted ETFbitcoin's post above my reply, it's content is preserved in my quote (I'm not sure that it's all of it, unfortunately)... the quote/edit/delete buttons are right next to each other, and I don't use BCT much of late.  I'll send him a PM to repost it, and I'll fix the thread order.  

1 and 2 are correct, 3 is incorrect because it's talking about a different thing.

The post you've linked to is saying, effectively,  "The rules for witness type v0 further restrict the scriptpubkey to have exactly 20 or 32 bytes of payload, since that's the only sizes v0 can use.  With v1, instead, if the size isn't exactly 32 bytes (the only size that v1 can use) then the v1 rules aren't applied and those are treated the same as the other versions or v1 before the change: nothing is done, only the same validity rules apply as apply for all scriptpubkeys"  -- none of this has anything to do with data in the witnesses.

So for a scriptpubkey to get v1 treatment it must have v1 and exactly the right sized payload.  This leaves room e.g. to create a v1a that (for example) uses 33 bytes to add the sign back to the scriptpubkey or introduces 448 bit ECC without having to burn up an additional witness version number.

This consensus rule design doesn't improve people's ability to spam using large scriptpubkeys because the same large sizes are valid for non-segwit transactions and those couldn't be made consensus invalid without potentially destroying the bitcoins of someone who happened to have encumbered them with an nlocktime release that involves some large script.

Maybe the invalidity risk there is fringe enough that it could still be argued for, I think not, since the underlying attack that you'd be trying to stop doesn't really care *how* the data is encoded, closing off one will just cause them to use others-- but regardless, going around hobbling bitcoin's consensus rules to try to play wack a mole against some spam vector is a pretty *distinct* concern, and should be handled if at all separately and holistically.   Could you imagine if BIP 342 had an "oh yeah, and also all scriptpubkey's-- not just v1 but all unused witness types and non-segwit too are now limited to X bytes, hope you don't have any funds using long scripts that you can't move before BIP 342 gets activated!"? lol

numbering satoshis is not something casey came up with. that idea was born somewhere around 2012 because there's a thread on this forum about them. someone bumped that thread recently!

i'm sure he's a brilliant guy when it comes to technical aspects of bitcoin but he seems like he is in this bubble of people glorifying him and his "invention" whenever i heard him talking. these people just don't get it - the ones he's giving presentations to. they think is invention is great for bitcoin!  and apparently he does too so that's why i say he is dumb. for being a bit naive about how people really feel. i guess by now he knows though if he's had his ear to the ground at all.

maybe you should reach out to casey. he was smart enough to design it. maybe he can help you mitigate it. but make sure you schmooze up to him. he seems to really shine when that's happening...