Topic: Bitcoin Ordinals on the edge of getting canceled (Read 442 times)

I think it is good for BTC in general. Gives it more of a competitive edge against eth and other NFT coins. I beleive it can bog down the network however but it will lead to greater design and speed and implementations to the blockchain in general i feel so YES!

That's true. I'm all in favour of a more conservative approach and not rushing any big changes, but, at the same time, I'm not a fan of denying the reality and trying to spin obvious flaws as features.
If, for example, we have a constant bottleneck of transactions, then it's an obvious problem, as some transactions would never get confirmed, meaning Bitcoin won't be reliable for transacting and will only be good for trading on centralised exchanges.

And fixing the problem does not necessarily mean making changes to the layer-1, the solution could very well be to improve layer-2 functionality and either move ordinals/smaller transactions there.


I don't quite share your enthusiasm for democracy. I don't think that 100 random idiots should have more say than 10 highly skilled and experienced developers.

I know many blame Ordinals inscriptions (including myself), but the truth is this is more of a feature than a bug. Bitcoin's openess allows anyone to build anything on it as they wish. Restricting or blocking something you don't like, greatly goes against Bitcoin's true value proposition. This would be introducing censorship into the Blockchain. Isn't that what banks do? We should let the community decide the best path forward for the cryptocurrency. Not a small number of developers working on the project. If the majority votes to abolish Ordinals, democracy has spoken. Otherwise, it would be utter authoritarianism. We can't predict the future, so let's hope for the best. Just my opinion

code is great because.. guess what its code.
core actually can write code that looks for rules/formatting requirements of tx/blockdata,, as it should do.

EG if something is in a witness it can actually be set to actually need to meet a specification/format/structure, where the witness has to serve a purpose such as proving the spend of a utxo (its purpose)

its not about "just cut off a witnesses head" its actually to make sure the witness has a proper recognisable head rather than a dead weight corpse with a monkeys face stitched on.
speaking of cutting off witnesses heads. you were the one advocating for prunning data.. which in of itself is centralising the blockchain by having less nodes collating and keeping full bloackchain data to serve out to other peers.


just letting junk in is not helpful to the bitcoin network. and again code can be made to actually do things. stop pretending its impossible to use code in a digital network.

but i do have to laugh that you want people to continue to be able to spend 1sat plus a monkey meme to not be examined for formatting standards, nor rejected..  and just allowed to proceed into a block..
..yet you dont want actual bitcoins wanting to spend less than 100000sat($27) on a pizza or 10000sat($2.70) on a coffee to use bitcoin, you want those people to be rejected and not seen in the blockchain..

but here is the funny part.. you pretend its about byte bloat of too many people transacting $27 or $2.70 values
but guess what

someone spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 10000sat
                                    outchange 99990000sat
vs spending
input 100000000sat ->   outpayment 99990000sat
                                    outchange 10000sat

is the same number of bytes
yep each value is the same number of bytespace no matter how much value is in those bytes

so when you are the one trying to censor someones "small payment" pretending its about "conserving" blockspace. you have no clue about the bytes used per output value

you also seemto go against your own pervceived conservatism by not caring if a 1in 2 out tx with the "small value spend" then attached 3.96mb of bloated meme. so that debunks your whole byte conservativism game.. when you then flip your narrative your your dumb and illinformed version of "censorship resistance"


so here is a game for you to play..

look at any transaction whether its as far back as satoshis spend to hal(10btc). or more recently someone buying a pizza..
look at a Vout payment and take the "value" amount and look at it in byte form

all values are the same length of bytes used no matter how much sats/fiat value it is in human readable display format
yep the bytes of units in a tx is the same..
so stop with your mantra of wanting to censor pizza/coffee spends and yet be anti-censor about 3.95mb junk memes. because it makes you look dumb

then realise code actually can check and validate tx data meets specifications/format where witness space is to be used for proving a spend of a utxo.
stop pretending bitcoin does not need code to run. and realise bitcoin should use code to run. to keep it clean and efficient

..
i know you want to argue that it will make future features not be able to just trojan in .. but that too is a good thing. we need to get back to having nodes ready to validate new features BEFORE new features activate so that the network stays secure with node readiness to validate the data.. as that is how the network stays secure. by having nodes fully ready to validate active rules
not some hodge podge network where that are a dozen different tx formats hardly any nodes understand but just let through as "is valid" without any format/specification/validity checks, or even not knowing if they have proved they have spent the value they were meant to(being treated as anyone can spend)

We have to be careful when someone proposes "fixing" what isn't necessarily broken.  Sometimes inaction is a valid action.  

People were talking about ordinals in the same way someone might suggest that a fool-proof cure for brain tumours is to amputate everything from the neck up.  It gets rid of the tumour, but it's not exactly ideal for the patient.    

---

//EDIT:  in response to franky1 below:

Where's your code, hypocrite?  And why do you think people shouldn't be permitted to run pruned nodes if they want to?  Nazi piece of shit.  It's as though you only exist to take away the freedoms of others.

I do understand where you're coming from, but Bitcoin is meant to be "anti-fragile". If we have to wonder if certain types of transactions are done in a good or bad faith, that's a sign something doesn't work as it should.

I never understood bitcoiners attacking users for spamming, stress-testing or now for using ordinals. If they expose Bitcoin's vulnerability - that's a good thing. Any issues need to get fixed and we can't rely on everyone's playing nice.

Ordinals may've been created in bad faith to destroy Bitcoin in the long run. Do you think if this was done in good faith, the creator would've already chosen a sidechain or the LN for Ordinals inscriptions? BTC was already struggling with high network load a few years ago, so why add more fuel to the fire?

I really hope TX fees decline to a point where using BTC as a currency becomes feasible again. Developers proposed to "cancel" Ordinals inscriptions, so let's see what the community thinks about it. I know miners won't be happy with such a decision, but we should be looking for the user's best interests. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has plenty of block space available, so why not move everything there instead? Just my opinion

I don't mind creative projects built on Blockchain, but there are plenty of chains to do it on. I don't understand why it has to be Bitcoin, the most trusted and perhaps most used as a currency crypto. Bitcoin isn't meant to be used for this purpose, and Ordinals are the likeliest cause of the recent fee spike. It's good that it's largely over, and it's not like a spike couldn't happen without them, but that's still undesirable. If ordinals get cancelled, I'll be happy. If this doesn't happen, I'll hope they die naturally due to the death of hype around them.

Of course they do. We've been over this many times yet you keep spreading misinformation about how it works. The transfer happens when the satoshi to which an inscription has been assigned moves from one address to another, which is easily verifiable. You're conflating the media file and the ordinal as being one in the same -- they're not, they don't have to be for the system to work.

The different thing about Ordinal NFTs compared to most other NFTs is they use the Bitcoin blockchain to store the media file rather than an external server. The association between media file and ordinal is established by the protocol, the same way it is for every single other NFT in existence.

And I already know how you're gonna respond: "But Casey could change the protocol at any time."

That's like saying "Vitalik could change the ERC721 token standard at any time."

It's not gonna happen and among the most mindless of weapons in the Ordinals FUD arsenal.

You: "But you're secretly invested in it and that's why you're arguing against me."

No, I'm arguing against you because you're wrong on a technical level, per usual.

There, saved us two steps in how this conversation would inevitably play out.


Perhaps you're right but the prestige is having the inscription on L1 Bitcoin, immortalized forever in the world's oldest & strongest blockchain.

We all want cheap fees and faster confirmation times on the BTC blockchain. But rejecting Ordinals would be no different than introducing censorship on the network. Isn't this what banks do? They freeze your transactions if they deem it suspicious or for other unknown reasons. Bitcoin is all about openess, decentralization, and equality, so we should let the community decide what's best for the cryptocurrency in the long run. Not a small number of developers working on the project.

If this turns out to be controversial, I'm afraid we'll be seeing a hard fork soon. Miners are earning lots of money with Ordinals inscriptions, so they will fork the chain if developers decide to block them. Let's see how everything will turn out to be in the following months. Just my opinion

I think these types of applications should not run on the Bitcoin Blockchain, but rather on some side-chain. The developers can rather spend their time to develop something that can run on a side-chain, with minimal impact on the Bitcoin Blockchain.

At this moment things like this are putting too much unnecessary strain on the Blockchain and killing the utility capabilities of many other more useful applications of Bitcoin. 

the ordinal memes and json junk does not move. it sits appended to the end of tx data outside the signature proof of spending a utxo. thus its not tethered to any output of said tx.

in short ordinal memes and json junk never had the "proof of transfer" in the first place and anyone thinking their received something willl learn the hard way they never did. so no loss if ordinals is stopped. just an awakening that those that got scammed, got scammed before they realised they got scammed.

but hey the ordinal creator was hoping his scam would get stopped by bitcoin devs spo he can pretend it was bitcoin devs that lost his victims value. when the truth is the victims lost their value when they got scammed into buying wha they thought was a transfer of the dead weight data

I hope that they succeed....$5-$10 to send Bitcoin is not viable for anyone using it on a day to day basis to pay for day to day items. It is not even viable for $100-$200 transactions (PayPal is better than 2.5-10% at this stage). Ordinals in the way that they are being used now (essentially junk and spam) is not something worth keeping it. It's obviously for miner profit, and fueled by miners and brainless influencers. I hope that it's fixed (my opinion is that it's a good move if they're removed, or improved drastically).

One question that comes to mind is if the value of Ordinals from before their removal will rise exponentially and can still be transacted after it's removed?


No. The advantage is less fee (not having to forward yourself to an exchange) the disadvantage is that you do not know where the sender origin is coming from, which opens up some liability issues. Generally, it's not good practice. Using an exchange in general rather than P2P and decentralized platforms is bad practice.

The problem with paying with bitcoin lies in the high cost. It is not suitable for small head houses. Gas costs are many times higher than other altcoins, you also slow down your assets when gas fees are too high

And I gave them my opinion + already known facts. idgaf if you think they sound too much like "community opinion".


The one-man army was a fabrication created by other news articles and disgruntled Tweeters that wanted to vilify Luke dashjr for his single-email opine about the issue. So naturally that accusation had to be rubbished by someone.


I did not receive any commission for commenting.

they asked for YOUR opinion, yet your response was acting as if you speak for the entire devs and community.

and if you read not just twitter. but look at many many discussion platforms(non social drama types) you will see its not a one man army wanting to kill ordinals.

by the way. that super_testnet scam pretending to kill ordinal with the mis-count. is just another scam of requesting 10ksat be spent to spam the network.. so dont include that as a viable ordinal killer. its actually adding to the ordinal spam and fee mania

but hey your reverting to the old scripts of thinking "one man army", defend the devs, kiss ass, promote other networks

but how about look at the many topics of thousands of people peed off by the shit
the many discussions of many people wanting devs to get off their ass
and as for LN
many people have moved off LN.. many more already see the flaws without using it.
in the last 3 month the liquidity of LN has not increased
yet other subnetwork bridges of locked btc value have more liquidity than LN. so stop trying to sell a broken system by saying no one wants to fix bitcoin

you are pretty much saying there is an exploit no one wants to fix.. and the only salvation is another system (thats also broke)..
im guessing within the next week you will be saying core devs had no influence, consequence, causation of this exploit and you will want to point blame at asic owners.. becasue that seems to be the next script your forum brotheren of the same mantra have got to so far

not good advice you are offering, but it does sound more like a paid saleman

Look, keep your well-documented grudges about Lightning Network out of this issue as they're not going to help anyone.


Oh my involvement in Core is more than filing PRs and anyone with half a brain can see that there is no message in the email list saying that "Core developers will do this or that", so it's natural to say nothing has been agreed.

Bitcoin is decentralized and your post is trying to imply that there's some sort of closed cartel that works on Bitcoin which is false. You're acting just like those ETH idiots on Twitter I keep having to debunk who claim a one-man army is about to kill Ordinals, so stop doing that.

They asked me for my opinion, not the other way around. Is that a problem to you?

I am really thinking the advantage of having Bitcoin Ordinals in the network.   I think it is much better to work on the scalability of the network.  This Bitcoin ordinals attack is just an example how not ready the Bitcoin network is to handle a sudden spike in transactions thus in case of massive adoption, we might experience the same thing.

I do agree that this NFT craze will eventually calm down and this tx fee spike and network congestion will come back to normal soon.  I think the developer should take the current situation a challenge to upgrade the scalability of Bitcoin network so that this kind of attack will be useless in the future.

I believe that it's something that can fix itself on its own, without anybody coming in and trying to block ordinals. They're useless and it's only a matter of time before those who pull the strings of all these useless tokens cash out, the way Vitalik is cashing out on ETH and the Ripple Foundation is cashing out on XRP, and so on. The main difference is that the mentioned coins can actually be used to transact, pepe the frog and his friends have no purpose. They exist because they can and people are buying them because they think they can outsmart the devs and other greedy investors and run away with some money.

A year from now you'll open a chart in front of you and all these attacks will be small red candles on the big long time line of bitcoin, nothing more, just like Silk Road, hash wars, Covid19, and all the rest of them.

I say leave ordinals as is and watch the crowd go crazy, the way they were going crazy after pictures of apes and penguins. Remember that some of these people, who are now paying $100 to send a few satoshi, were buying coins like Bitcoin God for $50 just because it included the b word and Luna for $100 because some Korean guy said it's going to be backed by bitcoin. These people were also paying millions of dollars for pictures that a child could make in MS Paint.

in short you want to abandon fixing bitcoin bugs and waste time fixing LN flaws and hope everyone moves over to LN... shameful
oh im pigeon holing you back in the idiot camp along with doomad and his troops again

you do realise that LN has a liquidity issue right. its not something devs will ever solve to make LN function like bitcoin does. LN will always be a system for the penny pincher small value stuff. no design change will make LN handle bitcoin traffic

but you will learn the hard way.. in i expect another 10 years of delay to scaling while everyone waits for the promises of devs.. see you then

also funny how your commits to bitcoin core are very very limited (adding a print statement to a log script) yet you want to tell media an opinion as if your the dev spokesperson.. sounds to me you are trying to push a narrative that nothing should be done to bitcoin and everyones only hope is another sub-par broken network that cant handle bitcoin value amounts.. seems you have gone full anti-bitcoin pro altnet