Topic: Are you for or against ordinals? (Read 653 times)

Ordinals just showed the way how to abuse Bitcoin, others found out and built a business around spamming Bitcoin with trash for some cash, especially companies that newer were Bitcoiners in the first place and don't care or actually prefer that Bitcoin goes down to favor their own altcoins/nfts...
Remember that while common folk can't use Bitcoin for what it was invented for, others push trash for cheap since the protocol allows it. This whole year devs looked the other way, like it was nothing. Exploit clearly demonstrated, nothing was done about it, and here we have it again, it never went away.
A pool that uses its resources for dubious "trading" activities, is more than willing to spam Bitcoin for some liquidity that lets them play more casino...

You'll have to walk me through the rationale on that one.  If anything, will create less incentive to do that.  I doubt many of the people who are using websites to upload this stuff are bothering to secure the network with a node of their own.

Ordinals are good for the Bitcoin future because they can:

Increase the demand and value of satoshis, as each sat can become a unique and scarce asset.

Enhance the security and decentralization of the Bitcoin network, as more users will be incentivized to run full nodes and validate transactions.

Showcase the versatility and innovation of the Bitcoin protocol, as ordinals can enable new use cases and applications that were not possible before.

Attract more users and developers to the Bitcoin ecosystem, as ordinals can make Bitcoin more engaging and fun.


Ordinals are a new feature in the Bitcoin protocol that aims to make it more engaging and fun for users. They are not an attack on Bitcoin’s fungibility, but rather a way to celebrate its diversity and creativity. Ordinals are a testament to the power and potential of Bitcoin as a global platform for digital expression.

lets just say it can be done one of two ways

tip: there is a hint in what i have said. ill let you try and work it out

its not about push data's or opreturns or bloat in witness. ill let you work out where the reference would go and can be proven in transfers

I am personally against it. I'm still convinced that the only people who really benefit from this Ordinals mess are the managers of the big mining pools which are collecting the fees.
The fees have exploded, it's gotten worse than 2018 some days.

However I think being for or against Ordinals doesn't make much sense. They use the blockchain, and we all as Bitcoiners have enjoyed the decentralization and freedom that Bitcoin and its blockchain brings. So it's pretty hard to assume that she should "ban" Ordinals, it's just not feasible.

The problem for me, in addition to the very high transaction fees, is the size of the blocks. In the medium and long term, this will cause real hardware problems for the management of full nodes. For example, at the very beginning of Ordinals, some blocks were too heavy to be displayed and detailed by my full node.

There are still more useful things to do with the BTC blockchain than Ordinals, and I think it's a shame to clutter it up with this, the mempool is overflowing and congestion is almost continuous now. We'll see what happens in the long run.

So far when we talk about the Ordinals Attack we've covered the effects of this attack on the mempool size, blockchain bloat, high fees and the fact that they are using bitcoin ledger as a cloud storage. Another damage that I've not seen anybody mention is the increased burden this attack puts on full nodes when loading UTXO set to verify blocks/transactions.

Usually these spam transactions are using small value outputs that are a little higher than the dust threshold. As the scammers join in and start spamming the chain, they would want to decrease their cost hence they would decrease that amount as much as they can. Not to mention that as these outputs are spent they go down in value too (fee deduction). In the end the fools who "buy" these bitcoins would want to hold them hoping they can find another fool to sell them to.
After a while the UTXO database that nodes need to load up whenever they want to verify transactions, is going to be bloated with a lot of these unspent outputs. That would make running a full node harder as time passes and the bloat grows.



This chart shows the number of UTXOs and their total size. Seeing a rise in this chart is not abnormal, it is being affected by the adoption (eg. the recent price rise) and other factors. However the slope of this chart in the past month is higher than it usually is at similar times which shows the effects of this attack.
We still need more data to make a solid conclusion which could be acquired in a couple of months or when more scammers start participating in this attack.

"they"?
CORE (center of the network)
THEY chose the name on purpose THEY admit THEY are the reference client all should follow

THEY coded the new opcodes that allowed the bloat exploit
dont go trying to blame it on random users. THEY also didnt require random users to upgrade before THEIR exploit upgrade

YOU dont want the network of random users to prevent core from throwing in trojan exploits.. when there is a bug. you want the bug to remain because it harms most users utility to help aid your scheme of pushing people away from using bitcoin

as you say you want CORE to have the freedom and not the users

what you love is core having GOD-MODE because you idolise core devs as gods.. much like the cultish other schemes your promote and make your buddies recite

if another dev team came up and tried to do things against CORES roadmap you would treat another dev team as opposition/threat.
so where would this other teams freedoms be.. oh wait all of a sudden you will stop spouting freedom and start spouting conservatism and your other rhetoric to defend core devs.. rather than caring about the actual utility of a decentralised network

I said "if franky1 was in charge", you illiterate twunt.  No one is in charge.  That's the whole point.  You keep telling people what you think they supposedly can't do, yet they keep doing it anyway.  You can't stop them.  Freedom prevails.


//EDIT:


ANY dev
ANY user
ANYONE.

You can't tell anyone what to do, you ego-maniacal totalitarian fuck.  Your first instinct, the moment someone does something you don't personally approve of, every time, without fail, is to tell them they can't do it.  Except, the situation we find ourselves in appears to indicate they can, if fact, do things you don't personally approve of.

*franky1 says Devs shouldn't be allowed to code softforks*
*devs continue to code softforks*
*franky1 suggests something totalitarian to make them stop*
*no one listens*

*franky1 says Devs shouldn't be allowed to work on Lightning Network clients*
*devs continue to work on Lightning Network clients*
*franky1 suggests something totalitarian to make them stop*
*no one listens*

*franky1 says users shouldn't be allowed to spam the blockchain*
*users continue to spam the blockchain*
*franky1 suggests something totalitarian to make them stop*
*no one listens*

Are you noticing a pattern yet?  It's as though you wake up every morning and demand that reality gives you a fresh hard slap in the face because you're too fucking stupid to remember the one it gave you yesterday.     

dumbass sorry i mean doomad you think people need to be in charge. you cant understand a concept that does not require people being in charge. you pretend in some narratives that things are decentralised yet you adore core centralised control, where you think the only option for people to not follow core is to use a different network if they want differing rules to cores roadmap.. you hate any one with an opinion that differs from the core roadmap
anyone that even tries to propose things that are not part of cores plan you treat as a threat/opponent/opposition..
you love censorship, heck you love getting posts deleted, people banned from certain area's and you try to shut people up if they say anything different to your idealised roadmap cult


you are too recited speech heavy with your narratives.. so much so that you forget what a real opinion sounds like

oh and as for mixers. knowing that just using a mixer flags users funds as risk potential. no i would not promote mixers and never have.. they are stupid. there are other means to obfuscate identity linkages without having to use such obvious techniques that cause such obvious tagging of being watched more closely for something thats promoted to pretend to hide you.

yep using a mixer gets you highlighted more.. not hidden more

funny part is
in all the topics there are alot of people talking about not liking ordinals
but you are franky obsessed.

so lets make this clear

no i do not want to join your cult
no i dont want to marry you
no i dont want you to kiss my ass
no i wont kiss your ass

i know you dont understand consent. but you are also a stalker who thinks the world is core vs franky

sorry i wont be your mistress. so stop being obsessed to think your only choice of mistresses is core incest family or franky

i know maybe there is a bit of love lost where some of your family are moving away from your charade and your upset that they are not following your orders as much as they used to. but dont blame me. blame yourself for not having the facts

If franky1 was in charge, there would be no mixers.  He doesn't like you having that choice, so he would take it away from you if he could.  He is a fascist.  He believes all freedom must be stripped away.  Be thankful he is not in charge.  He does not have your best interests at heart. 

scammers like doomad that love people being conned and stuck with dirty money or abused by middle men are the only types of people that want to keep those schemes alive

they dont want their scams and schemes and alt networks stopped/unused/prevented/avoided censored because they get paid to advertise these scammy schemes of broken promises and they rip people off when victims use their schemes

scammers dont care about a system that does not need trust. they want people to trust other people so that scammers can break that trust.

yep bitcoin p2p doesnt need middlemen but scammers like doomad want people to use certain scammy markets, dark services and altnets with middlemen commissions

they have no idea what bitcoins purpose was, they just care about getting people to hand over funds and not get it back, and they really hate it when their snake oil sales pitches get ruined..

but the only way they can push people into these scams. is by them trying to ruin bitcoin first to then offer the alternative

doomad wants people to use fiat to buy btc to then hand over btc to some scheme where people think they are hoarding/owning a meme. just to find out later they own/hoard/possess nothing..

Against them for the simple reason that because of their size, they push normal tx's farther back in line. Their 1 good point is that quite often ordinals have some hefty fees attached to them.

I hate ordinals just as many Bitcoin fanboys out there but this can attracts load of money in the next bull season, since we are here to make money, I doubt I am the only one who wants to make money, ordinals might work the risk, I don't want to end up losing the opportunity, crypto money only follows hype in a bull season, the same thing happened with meme coins, we don't like meme coins because they are shit coins, yet they turn many into millionaires, thanks to the same hype we talking about. The newest thing happening in the crypto space now is Ordinals and Artificial intelligence.

Ordinals is not the only spammer, there have been at least two more publicly jumping in; so its best to ask about spam for or against. Do you like spam in your email? Same thing.

Why not? You can do that on testnet, it is quite easy:
1. Create zero satoshi output with any spending conditions you want.
2. Move it with SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY.
3. Whoever owns that output, owns your token.
4. To move this token forward, you use other coins to provide fees.
Because there are no limits on UTXO set size, any number of such UTXOs can be created on testnet. Fortunately, on mainnet there are dust limits to prevent that, but from consensus point of view, there are no hard limits to the number of UTXOs.

You can't create tokens using bitcoin scripts; period. Although I'm curious what you think is the way to create one using the protocol.

bitcoin does have a way to create a proof of reference and proof of transfer to create NFT.. but ordinals does not use it

yep ordinals are not NFT as they lack the features needed for transferable tokens


you sound like your forum-husband(doomad) today.. try to word things in your own words not his, try to put some thought into what you want to say..  .. your being too obvious that you are not thinking for yourself today...
you seem to lack the aspects of free thought to realise real world facts like what code can do. and the purpose of code

yes you can forbid things.. bitcoin is code and code creates rules.. thats what code does. so yes it can be done. by many many methods..

again for emphasis:  bitcoin is code and it has rules thats the whole purpose of code..
let me guess you believe we should not forbid a mining pool for wanting to create a coin reward of 50000 coins tomorrow..
or lets not forbid dogecoiners from sliding their transactions into witness like a carbon copy where they use bitcoins blockchain as their blockchain for storing their tx data..

oh wait bitcoin already forbids those things.. WAKE UP

you wanting to break the rules and have no rules is methods to break bitcoin
stop dreaming about breaking bitcoin to promote alt networks you prefer. realise true bitcoiners care about bitcoin unlike you and your forum husband

i think its time you divorce your forum-husband, or just let one of you speak. at the moment all i hear from you is your forum-husbands echos of his scripts and speeches and its just making you look dumb by reciting them without thinking

if you two are not married. what does have have over you that makes you a compliant sheep to his words.. it must be big.

One of the problems with the arguments surrounding this topic is that most people haven't yet realized that there is no tokens here. Bitcoin script language and smart contracts don't even have that capability to create a token (NFT or otherwise). And yet people keep calling the Ordinals Attack an NFT!

You know you can't forbid someone from doing it if he's willing to pay the millions. Unless of course you start dictating what's not eligible according to your moral standards, and turn Bitcoin in a censorship nightmare-- which fortunately are incapable of doing, because all you know is just whining.

People don't like paying more in fees. So they want to lower the total transactions, and projecting Ordinals as a stupid concept is one way.