Pages:
Author

Topic: 'Attack on Bitcoin’ Claims Circulate as Transaction Fees Climb Higher - page 2. (Read 1042 times)

legendary
Activity: 4102
Merit: 7765
'The right to privacy matters'
here are your last 50 or so block fees are huge.


so for a miner getting 2 btc in fees and blocks at 8.25 coins btc is more like

8.25/6.50 = 127% or 54576 usd a coin

not bad but if the ½ ing drops us to  3.125 coins add 2 in fees you get 5.125 coins a block. lets say 3.5 should be correct.

then 5.125/3.5 = 146% which means to that miner  a 43000 coin is 62964 usd.  I think we are seeing what miners want to accomplish after the ½ ing. (big 100 megawatt farms)

I think we need to gear ourselves to exchanges that offer LN.  Keep 1 btc on the chain in you own wallet and 0.10 or less on an exchange that gives you LN. people you need to adjust.


last 50 blocks:

legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1351
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
The situation is VERY annoying, but as what has been said before, Bitcoin is still doing its job, and doing its job well. It has been chugging along, producing block after block, while also incentivizing the providers of network security. But is it currently giving its users the best UX? NO, and although I agree that something should be done, I believe it shouldn't be taken by the community as a sort of drama/social/philosophical issue. I believe many developers would contend that it's a technical issue.

Yes. Claiming Ordinals inscriptions are a "technical issue" or a "vulnerability" is completely wrong. This is more like a feature than a bug as it proves Bitcoin's use cases far beyond finance. High fees may be annoying, but I believe things will settle after the hype. Even without the Ordinals craze, network fees were going to rise due to high demand. The more popular BTC gets, the more congested it will be. It's up to developers to introduce scaling techniques that will keep network fees as low as possible.

Censoring Ordinals is not an option because it goes against the fundamentals of Bitcoin which are freedom/liberty/censorship-resistance. Aren't banks censoring Fiat transactions at will? Then why should BTC do the same? It must make a difference by being a viable alternative to Fiat currencies in every way possible. We can't predict what will happen in the future, so lets hope for the best. Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 2324
Merit: 454
it doesn't matter who is responsible for the attack and what types of transactions are flooding the blockchain... someone is paying for this.
Transactions are vitamins to keep the network lively. People who are readily to pay those expensive transaction fees deserve what they do but it affects other people who are not ready to accept very expensive transaction fee. They are either smart enough or poor enough and can not afford to pay such crazy fee.

Quote
so you have 60 000$ per 10 min = 9 mln $ per day. No matter if its bitcoin attacker that wanted the price to collapse, or pepe kids excited about new use case, sooner or later they will run out of cash. And there will be only one winner. bitcoin miners = bitcoin security = bitcoin network
I don't like what are happening with Bitcoin blockchain and its transaction fee but this attack gives us a signal that Bitcoin miners will be fine in future. Even in 2140 when no new bitcoins from block reward, they will still earn enough money from transaction fees.

Correct.

I mean, there's nothing wrong to give miners profit from time to time since they also deserve it. We just have to make every transaction worth the transaction fee so we can save money as much as possible. It's not worth it to transfer bitcoin to another wallet in which transaction fee is much bigger than the amount of bitcoin that's going to be transfer.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
Agree with all said here, the Ordinals guys will run out of money or move onto the next stupid craze. It’s disruptive & makes fees much higher but I think they will move onto something else soon. It’s like the ICO craze of 2017, the NFT craze of 2020/21. Those crazes dried up & people got bored, they will also get bored of stupid images stored on the blockchain too.

There's no utility in Ordinals inscriptions. Most of them are driven by hype more than anything else (pure speculation). Everybody wants to get rich, right? It will be all over faster than you could imagine. In the meantime, I'd suggest you hold onto your BTC unless it's really something important.

Moving out of BTC into an altcoin can be challenging, especially if on-chain fees stay high for long periods of time. Getting paid directly in an altcoin of your choice (or even the LN) may be your best bet of avoiding high fees altogether. Many users are angry of Bitcoin's current situation, so it should only be a matter of time before the dust settles. As long as decentralization is preserved, there should be nothing to worry about. Smiley


The situation is VERY annoying, but as what has been said before, Bitcoin is still doing its job, and doing its job well. It has been chugging along, producing block after block, while also incentivizing the providers of network security. But is it currently giving its users the best UX? NO, and although I agree that something should be done, I believe it shouldn't be taken by the community as a sort of drama/social/philosophical issue. I believe many developers would contend that it's a technical issue.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1351
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
Agree with all said here, the Ordinals guys will run out of money or move onto the next stupid craze. It’s disruptive & makes fees much higher but I think they will move onto something else soon. It’s like the ICO craze of 2017, the NFT craze of 2020/21. Those crazes dried up & people got bored, they will also get bored of stupid images stored on the blockchain too.

There's no utility in Ordinals inscriptions. Most of them are driven by hype more than anything else (pure speculation). Everybody wants to get rich, right? It will be all over faster than you could imagine. In the meantime, I'd suggest you hold onto your BTC unless it's really something important.

Moving out of BTC into an altcoin can be challenging, especially if on-chain fees stay high for long periods of time. Getting paid directly in an altcoin of your choice (or even the LN) may be your best bet of avoiding high fees altogether. Many users are angry of Bitcoin's current situation, so it should only be a matter of time before the dust settles. As long as decentralization is preserved, there should be nothing to worry about. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1593
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
This entire fiasco is a short-term issue which I doubt will ever repeat again at any point in the future since whoever is responsible for it doesn't have unlimited money to burn. The silver lining here is that the miners made bank.

BTC has proven again and again that it can withstand any kind of attack which is the best answer to all of its haters.

Agree with all said here, the Ordinals guys will run out of money or move onto the next stupid craze. It’s disruptive & makes fees much higher but I think they will move onto something else soon. It’s like the ICO craze of 2017, the NFT craze of 2020/21. Those crazes dried up & people got bored, they will also get bored of stupid images stored on the blockchain too.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
There's no easy way to undo ordinals at this point. You are going to need to gather enough capital and mining power involved to basically push for what would be a BTC hardfork without ordinals, and this would need to be done in a way that guarantees no future ordinals are possible, but then again, how do you this without causing another hardfork civil war, and how do you do it without getting rid of taproot? because if taproot is possible, I believe there could be ways around any restrictions put into ordinals to come up with alternatives.

It's all because of SegWit + Taproot. Without those upgrades, Bitcoin would've stayed a pure money system by now. Forks like BCH and BSV didn't need Taproot because they took a different approach for scaling (increasing the block size). They are safe from Ordinals. Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions. I know miners won't like this, but it's the majority that counts (users, node operators, businesses, etc). If a super majority approves a reduction on network fees, miners would have no choice but to "go with the flow".


Ordinals happened because of Segwit + Taproot? Can a developer correct me on what I'm about to post, but no ser. Ordinals would have still happened without Segwit + Taproot, and if the network didn't have Segwit, Ordinals would be embedding arbitrary data within the blocks itself, not in the structure where the witness data resides - which is prunable.

Plus merely increasing the block size at the cost of centralizing the network is not scaling.


Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions.


bitcoin has always censored transactions.. thats what validation rules are for!!!
its why we dont see LTC BCH BCV XRP, DOGE transactions in the bitcoin blockchain
its why we dont see double spends, dust and a whole array of other cases of transactions that didnt fit the ruleset


 Roll Eyes

frankandbeans, stop gaslighting Abiky. The full nodes enforcing the network's consensus rules is NOT censorship.
legendary
Activity: 4186
Merit: 4385
Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions.

bitcoin has always censored transactions.. thats what validation rules are for!!!
its why we dont see LTC BCH BCV XRP, DOGE transactions in the bitcoin blockchain
its why we dont see double spends, dust and a whole array of other cases of transactions that didnt fit the ruleset


I know miners won't like this, but it's the majority that counts (users, node operators, businesses, etc). If a super majority approves a reduction on network fees, miners would have no choice but to "go with the flow".
doing a true consensus activation to reduce fee's is not a solution. what needs to happen is actual code REINTRODUCED to actually understand the opcodes used, disable the opcodes with no conditions and only treat unconditioned opcodes as block acceptable if the block version is noted as activated to a higher ruleset
that way people cant just abuse unconditioned opcodes and blocks wont put junk into a block out of fear of having blocks rejected for having junk that the network does not understand/validate

the other option is adding a fee priority formulae again that just penalises users that use certain opcodes.
legendary
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1351
www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games
There's no easy way to undo ordinals at this point. You are going to need to gather enough capital and mining power involved to basically push for what would be a BTC hardfork without ordinals, and this would need to be done in a way that guarantees no future ordinals are possible, but then again, how do you this without causing another hardfork civil war, and how do you do it without getting rid of taproot? because if taproot is possible, I believe there could be ways around any restrictions put into ordinals to come up with alternatives.

It's all because of SegWit + Taproot. Without those upgrades, Bitcoin would've stayed a pure money system by now. Forks like BCH and BSV didn't need Taproot because they took a different approach for scaling (increasing the block size). They are safe from Ordinals. Now BTC developers would need to find a way to lower the fees without censoring Ordinals inscriptions. I know miners won't like this, but it's the majority that counts (users, node operators, businesses, etc). If a super majority approves a reduction on network fees, miners would have no choice but to "go with the flow".

I hope this issue gets solved ASAP, for Bitcoin to reach the masses. Especially people in developing countries. At its current state, Bitcoin can only be used by whales and the elite. This creates an unequal system where the rich get richer and the poor, poorer. The future is widely unpredictable, so we can only hope for the best. Grin
donator
Activity: 4718
Merit: 4218
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Sometimes these things do appear as an attack on Bitcoin.  You can't deny that Bitcoin's mempool being full had an effect on coins like Solana, that suddenly doubled or more in value.  It would make sense if this sort of thing were coordinated as a way to help pump their bags.  However, even if this is just an "attack" on Bitcoin, someday the real usage of the blockchain will result in this sort of backlog and higher fees.  It would be wise to start thinking about ways to prevent this from bringing Bitcoin activity to a hat anytime someone wants to try and pump their altcoin bags.
sr. member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 323
That's just it.  Nothing I've seen so far even remotely resembles a fix.  Just clumsy hacks that won't prevent someone determined to embed data and could have long-term unintended consequences.  I don't think farcical games of 'whack-a-mole' are the way forward and that's all I've seen proposed so far. 

Or this just a response to threats because the pola is basically the same and continues to develop, but at a glance if you look at capacity, perhaps not all organizations have sufficient resources to adopt the latest security technology and recognizing that together is important and considered a positive step. There is a real need for Security Technology Evolution at this time to protect/embed data even though we know this pool is very vulnerable to attacks.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
a discussion about ways to protect Bitcoin

While I don't doubt your intentions are good, the way in which most people seem to be going about this, the proposed "solution" sounds to me like a bigger threat then the underlying problem.  You don't cure the disease by killing the patient.  All I see is an angry, ignorant lynch-mob with their pitchforks and torches threatening to burn down the whole village to "fix" things.  If people burn this thing to the ground, there will be nothing left worth having.


I believe everyone should zoom out and get a view of the situation as if they were outside, not inside. There are some people who are becoming too emotional and they try to make it as a sort of drama/social problem, instead of what it really should be - a technical problem. Because if the knee-jerk reaction is to prevent propagation of Ordinals, then they will send those transactions directly to a miner for validation, OR, they might start looking for other ways to embed data within the part of the block that's not prunable, like Bitcoin Stamps.
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
a discussion about ways to protect Bitcoin

While I don't doubt your intentions are good, the way in which most people seem to be going about this, the proposed "solution" sounds to me like a bigger threat then the underlying problem.  You don't cure the disease by killing the patient.  All I see is an angry, ignorant lynch-mob with their pitchforks and torches threatening to burn down the whole village to "fix" things.  If people burn this thing to the ground, there will be nothing left worth having.


and fix the exploits

That's just it.  Nothing I've seen so far even remotely resembles a fix.  Just clumsy hacks that won't prevent someone determined to embed data and could have long-term unintended consequences.  I don't think farcical games of 'whack-a-mole' are the way forward and that's all I've seen proposed so far. 
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 10504
Beg to differ.  A truly mature community would be calmer and less reactionary.  All this endless whining is, quite frankly, unproductive and a little pathetic.  If you aren't working on a solution yourself, just accept the fact that your input isn't assisting with the situation.

The sense of entitlement some people exude is palpable.
The community needs to know the nature of this attack so it has to be explained as many times as required. Specially when the scammers run a much bigger operation on the internet advertising their scam as a legitimate thing calling arbitrary data "token" and attacking any attempt at fixing the exploit by calling it "censorship".

It is very strange to see certain users so bothered each time there is a discussion about ways to protect Bitcoin and fix the exploits that malicious projects are abusing 🤔
full member
Activity: 1064
Merit: 158
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
Well, I say... let them burn their money, if they are doing this to sabotage Bitcoin. Let the miners do their thing and let the developers analyze this threat and implement their counter measures.

We should never forget that Bitcoin is still experimental ... we still need to figure out if the tx fees will be enough to reward the miners.. once the Block reward falls away.

It is just part of the evolution of this technology and ALL other tokens would have collapsed under an attack like this.... Bitcoin is still standing.  Wink

Actually let’s just let them waste their efforts. Bitcoin is like facing challenges head-on and evolving to stay ahead. It's a team effort with miners, developers and the community joining forces, showing that flexibility is the name of the game in this ever-changing crypto landscape. Thats how bitcoin is always adapting and flexing its decentralized muscles.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1429
It appears the writer of this news article does not read between the lines hehehee. Luke Dashjr did not capitulate on his criticism on Ordinals. What Ocean Mining is only doing is it will recommend 3 block templates for their miners and let them decide what they want to use. I speculate that this is only the beginning. Luke Dashjr might have a roadmap already created to minimize Ordinals' effect on fees.


Sarcastic Luke

Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr fought the rise of Ordinals, which he called "spam," but now his mining pool is allowing them.

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

With the update, Ocean says, miners can choose from three block template policy options: Ocean Recommended, focusing on what the company calls “real” financial transactions with minimal spam; Bitcoin Core with the “Ordisrespector” spam filter; and the unmodified Bitcoin Core, mirroring other pools with fewer financial transactions but more “spam”—meaning Ordinals and BRC-20 token transactions.


Source https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions
Quote
Bitcoin mining company Ocean has announced a change in its stance on Ordinals inscriptions, allowing miners to decide whether to process Bitcoin blocks containing non-financial transactions. Previously, the company prohibited such actions. This move comes as a surprise to many, given the company’s and Luke Dashjr’s hardline stance against Ordinals in the past.

dude he caved!  now even lass hashing power is filtering Ordinals...

there will be Ordinals in every block forever  Shocked

I very much disagree. Does this person look something similar to someone who has caved? He is not transforming himself to become Sam Bankman Fried only to cave. I am quite certain that Open Ocean's change in stance should make everyone begin to wonder what is Luke's plan.

legendary
Activity: 2562
Merit: 1854
🙏🏼Padayon...🙏
I remember there were a number of Bitcoin supporters, even developers if I'm not mistaken, who brushed this Ordinals issue off when it was launched months ago saying it's not a big deal, that it will just die sooner rather than later, that they be allowed since they're paying fees for their transactions anyway, and so forth. Now, this issue has already escalated a lot and we seem to be taken back to step 1. Whether this now is a deliberate attack or not, bold steps should be taken. After all, it has already shaken the very core of Bitcoin. And I guess this transaction fee problem has not yet even reached its climax.

People who supported Ordinal at the beginning did not see that the emergence of this shitcoin could have a bad impact on the network. It's true that they pay fees for the transactions they make and the Bitcoin network is decentralized and can be used by everyone, but when one community annoys many people on the network with their shitcoins and empty dreams, shouldn't bitcoin devs take action against it? but as far as I can see no concrete steps have been taken, only empty talk to tell members to wait patiently for the network to return to normal.

You're responding to a post I've made many months ago, in the first half of the year. Indeed, this whole inscription thing hasn't died sooner rather than later. Apparently, it has become a big deal. I hope we are in the climax part, although I doubt it.

To be fair, however, despite the rising fees and unconfirmed transactions piling up, Bitcoin is continuously sailing. The price has even increased significantly. Back in May of this year, when I made that post, Bitcoin was only $27,000. Today, it's $44,000. So, whatever damage Ordinals have caused, it hasn't really discouraged people from Bitcoin.

Concrete steps are taken. Ordinary users like us will have to wait. But I believe that even if all these things are left unattended, things will get better at some point. This whole thing is built on sand.
legendary
Activity: 4186
Merit: 4385
To clarify, there absolutely are ordinals developers and they have a GitHub where they're discussing this exact issue:  https://github.com/ordinals/ord/discussions/2879

Another discussion, spun off from luke-jr's failed pull request, is taking place on a personal GitHub here:  https://github.com/conduition/conduition.io/pull/5

People are working on stuff, but users here on the forums aren't even bothering to look.  So impatient users just make assumptions based on nothing and we end up with loads of worthless threads about it here on the forum.

"conduition" only got involved 4 days ago
this debate has been going on nearly a year

so your screams of relax and be patient.. when talking to people that have been discussing it FOR A YEAR
yet you want to congratulate someone that only got involved 4 days ago..

seems you have things backwards
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
Many Bitcoiners including me have been calling Ordinals an attack for nearly a year now and I have to say the fact that part of the Bitcoin community needed the fees to go up first before they could see Ordinals as it really is shows the community has still not reached complete maturity and I dare say some of them have not yet understood what bitcoin is.

A mature community would have been this concerned a year ago when the attack began by exploiting the protocol and when the attackers abused bitcoin blockchain by turning it into a cloud storage; not when fees went up and it started affecting them individually.

Beg to differ.  A truly mature community would be calmer and less reactionary.  All this endless whining is, quite frankly, unproductive and a little pathetic.  If you aren't working on a solution yourself, just accept the fact that your input isn't assisting with the situation.

The sense of entitlement some people exude is palpable. 





I don't know but the Bitcoin developer or the ordinal developer should figure this out or the fee will be this high for a long time.

There is no "Ordinals developer". There's only a bunch of people throwing programming shit at the wall to see what sticks.

As for bitcoin developers, well the default tendency is to do nothing, except for a small minority of them.

To clarify, there absolutely are ordinals developers and they have a GitHub where they're discussing this exact issue:  https://github.com/ordinals/ord/discussions/2879

Another discussion, spun off from luke-jr's failed pull request, is taking place on a personal GitHub here:  https://github.com/conduition/conduition.io/pull/5

People are working on stuff, but users here on the forums aren't even bothering to look.  So impatient users just make assumptions based on nothing and we end up with loads of worthless threads about it here on the forum.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1818
It appears the writer of this news article does not read between the lines hehehee. Luke Dashjr did not capitulate on his criticism on Ordinals. What Ocean Mining is only doing is it will recommend 3 block templates for their miners and let them decide what they want to use. I speculate that this is only the beginning. Luke Dashjr might have a roadmap already created to minimize Ordinals' effect on fees.


Sarcastic Luke

Bitcoin developer Luke Dashjr fought the rise of Ordinals, which he called "spam," but now his mining pool is allowing them.

A prominent Bitcoin Core developer and Ordinals critic, Luke Dashjr, may have had a change of heart about the NFT-like assets. Or at the very least, his company is moving beyond his own hardline stance around Ordinals.

With the update, Ocean says, miners can choose from three block template policy options: Ocean Recommended, focusing on what the company calls “real” financial transactions with minimal spam; Bitcoin Core with the “Ordisrespector” spam filter; and the unmodified Bitcoin Core, mirroring other pools with fewer financial transactions but more “spam”—meaning Ordinals and BRC-20 token transactions.


Source https://decrypt.co/210662/bitcoin-ordinals-critic-caves-jack-dorsey-backed-ocean-mining-pool-flips-inscriptions
Quote
Bitcoin mining company Ocean has announced a change in its stance on Ordinals inscriptions, allowing miners to decide whether to process Bitcoin blocks containing non-financial transactions. Previously, the company prohibited such actions. This move comes as a surprise to many, given the company’s and Luke Dashjr’s hardline stance against Ordinals in the past.

dude he caved!  now even lass hashing power is filtering Ordinals...

there will be Ordinals in every block forever  Shocked


I feel bad for the "developers" and the investors of those BRC-20 tokens. They will learn, the hard way, that they were merely pretending/deceiving themselves that those tokens have utility.

It's good to invest into now while there's money coming in, but what would happen when everyone learns, the hard way, that "BRC-20" is an inefficient, impractical way to issue and trade tokens?
Pages:
Jump to: