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

Bullshit, it's not going to destroy anything.
There's a number of scared people who are now spreading FUD about how bitcoin network is proven to be weak and damaged and ordinals are a proof of it. These people are playing into the hands of CSW who was saying that for years and trying to shove SV down our throats. Are you a part of his team?

Devs enabled taproot and are now backtracking, thinking if it maybe was a bad idea and should be censored. So what is it? Do they know what the changes they apply to bitcoin actually do or not?

Move it via a soft fork as someone suggested on the multiple discussions about this since it's inception.
Something such as a pepe or a dogechain.
Saylor on a podcast earlier today didn't help much in keeping the blockchain ordinal-free either.

I agree, I mean if people want to keep investing on NFTs that is not my problem and they can do so if they want, however bitcoin should be a robust project which does a small number of things but that does them extremely well, let other coins to become the center of the universe for those which want to trade and create those tokens, bitcoin does not need them and without them the fees can once again become reasonable, and transactions can become something you can do whenever you need them and not something you need to plan weeks in advance.

That would be cool, but unfortunately the Luke guy is not a core dev. Let's just hope the devs will listen to him and finally do something about this ordinals plague.

What a question! I believe you to knows what to do in this case. You do not need anybody to tell you what to do immediately. Do you know what has happened within this few days this brc20 bot  launched on bitcoin chain network?
These kind of situations sometimes do not even need public opinion on to voting or not. What is required is just immediate actions to stop whatever that has been unleashed to cause that  backlogs.


Canceling the ordinals protocol or whatever they call themselves is not a bad idea. It is what I called doing the needful to save the whole. If they decide to do take that decision so be it as it is for the benefit of all.
Please do well to reference or cite your source since you said you read from a news.

I do not really think there is any disadvantage attached though. It's only the network fee to pay if you can. Exchange are open to receiving payment but some you can not make withdrawal at the moment.  It is only just the backlog of payments onchain currently. My friend informed me that he received a payment that was  made since four days ago as a result of the backlog and transaction fees. The delay is damned obvious.

OP, you have to lock this topic, because it's factually incorrect and it's going to give people false hope about the mempool situation being resolved quickly.

I just did an interview with DL News they asked me for, so it will be beneficial to get the facts out here for all to see.


What I can say is on the edge of happening is that I have to step up my Lightning game. And probably a lot of other devs as well.

Ordinals should stop. It was a big mistake and now the devs should do whatever necessary. We already have a platform for this kind of stuff and it is called ETH/BNB. BTC should do what it does best and that is being a currency and a store of value. I understand that the devs are working hard to improve bitcoin but this clearly didn't work. There is nothing to be ashamed of. We all make mistakes. Now it is time to fix this.

This BRC-20 madness needs to stop asap. This is making bitcoin almost unusable and thousands of transactions are affected. The current fees is way too high to handle and it makes no sense to make bitcoin transactions now. I honestly wanted to buy an e-commerce gift card through Bitrefil because I have some upcoming shopping list. I had to pay through ETH just because the bitcoin fees was too high.

I will be more than happy to vote if this will stop such nonsense with immediate effect.

the ordinal should be stopped immediately, there is no reason to support its development, it will only destroy the bitcoin ecosystem, inserting files every sats is the idea of people who fail to find buyers in their trash NFT.

    The Bitcoin developers should really act or else if they don't do something, many bitcoin holders might suddenly full out their holdings. Then the Brc20 or ordinals are actually not applicable for Bitcoin.

    they appear to be confusing to the concept of bitcoin, Bitcoin is not designed for that kind of thing, in my opinion even what was done by brc20 or ORC20 they are more applicable in ERC20. Then, that's why the bitcoin developers actually put a stop to that. That's good they'll do that in my opinion.

My personal opinion:
I don't think receiving payment straight to your exchange is a wise decision. Exchanges are a place to exchange bitcoin, not a place to store bitcoin, whether it's a centralized or decentralized exchange. When you receive payment with fiat currency, it goes straight to your bank account, it should be that way with BTC.
See your wallet as your own personal account that you own and control, it's also your responsibility to keep it safe, so all payments should go to your wallet first, then if you want to trade/exchange you can move them to the exchange you use.

He has been a bitcoin dev for ages... Just not one of the main ones.

And yeah, lets kick the spam out.

I did not know Luke Dash Jr. wanted to reduce the capacity of Bitcoin block and its network to handle transactions and meet bigger demand from community.

I only knew about Luke months ago when he announced that he lost his bitcoins by his carelessness. Weird that his Twitter account was suspended
https://twitter.com/lukedashjr/status/1609613748364509184

Before that, I did not know about Luke. After that accident, he was removed as a forum staff.

Developers were already having serious deliberations on this to either remove it or provide a solution to it, but what seems to be the majority choice is the total elimination becsu they don't want bitcoin to be associated with anything that has to do with NFT first, secondly they are also playing smart to avoid any chances that could prevent the bitcoin network attacked through this, so if we are going by the vote or individual support on this, almost everyone will kick against ordinals.


Why should you make use of an exchange when you can own a private wallet of your own like electrum multisig bitcoin wallet or get a hardware wallet, exchanges are best for converting your money a d not for holding them in it.

luke already had some fixes coded months ago but core didnt even want it listed as a bip on bitcoin core github so he had to implement it in his own 'knots' full node. it just goes to show that the main core team of merge/maintainer capability dont want to fix it.
the main team(sponsored devs) of bitcoin core (with maintainer keys) were paid to change bitcoin to allow these opcodes that are now being abused

Not devs! Luke!
Luke is the one that wants to censor everything he doesn't like, and there is actually more, he's the one advocating for years that we should reduce the block size:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/luke-jrs-300kb-blocks-5109169

Dude, you should need to create a poll before you post this thread, now how we can vote it?

Well I think most of users in this forum will vote Yes, but not really sure if this thread is moved to altcoins section, it might change the result because there are a lot bounty hunters there and looking to make a huge amount profit through shitcoins

It's possible, someone had open a thread about it yesterday, the name is ORC-20 Annoyed by Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens? Here come the Orcs!!!

I know it's getting fashionable to assume that is going to happen right now but please read this topic and also understand that dashjr can't just say whatever he wants and it gets implemented. In fact, nothing has been decided upon yet (I was part of the discussion but the news doesn't credit me for starting it and in fact it even clipped out my message).

BRC is not a real proof of transfer system with proper security to lock value. its a json junk of text
even cypherpunks that spent decades trying to create currency would not design or think basic json data passes the simple monetary policies tests

also the market cap is false measure too. someone creating 21m numbers and scammed 1 person to buy it for a small single unit amount creates a large cap

anyone can make a better altcoin of a blockchain premined 21m real tokens and sell 0.0001 unit for $100 and cause a market cap of $210billion
they can then sell back to the seller and the seller sell back to the buyer(becasue both are same person with 2 accounts) 1000 in a day to make a volume of $10k volume. and then make other accounts to move other units of the same token with no real fiat cost to increase the volume

This will be the best thing that will happen presently to bitcoin block chain to stop ordinals and I hope that bitcoin developers are serious with this issue of taking this token out of bitcoin block chain. I vote for it.

As for using exchange to get paid,it is a good idea because when you think of the high fee that you will pay to transfer your coins from your private wallet to an exchange and the time taken. On the other hand,you should also know that these exchanges are centralized and can't be trust with your funds because we have seen so many crashes of some exchanges and even banks,so how are you sure that your bitcoin will be safe with them. Can you still remember that Binance is also passing through this ordinals attack and Binance wants to embrace Lightening Network for them to overcome this congestion in the mempool. It is only a better idea,if you want to withdraw all your weekly pay in your local currency. If you are the type that only accumulates your weekly pay,then it is a very bad idea.

I vote that we should stop the ordinals. Id even vote to move their rotten, useless transactions onto a side chain if that was possible, but I don't see how that could be done.

I doubt it would be easy but Id definitely vote for it if ever but could they really make a consensus on a number 1 decentralized platform? Id love the ordinals to slow down a bit but its probably impossible now its getting a lot of eyes on different field.

Seeing Binance posted about it will make it more wide to more users.

https://twitter.com/TheBinanceNFT/status/1655866866814820355?t=zS8-du5it-dnee-3vM1OFA&s=19

That would be a great step taken by developers if they agree to cancel the ordinals because there isn't a need for such protocol in Bitcoin blockchain and it's just an extra burden on the blockchain. The useless tokens and NFT's have no place in the Bitcoin blockchain and developers should definitely take some actions to prevent those useless protocols.

I believe that it's a great move if accomplished because it will reduce the burden on blockchain and the transaction fees will be fixed with the implementation. The ordinals are just a way to spam the blockchain with useless transactions and there is no need for such things in Bitcoin blockchain.

Well, that depends on the preference of a users if someone is willing to receive Bitcoin payments straight to his/her exchange account then there isn't anything wrong in that approach. The disadvantage that I can currently think of is the withdrawals that the exchanges can put on. Without their permission the user can not withdraw the bitcoins and that's a huge drawback. Other than that I don't think that anything is wrong when someone takes payments directly into the exchange accounts.

Even in some cases it is the preferable choice for the payments as it's very easy to exchange the bitcoins into stable coins through the exchanges. And, with p2p trading one can easily withdraw that money into their bank account without any worries. But, if someone is strongly against exchanges and don't want to be controlled by anyone then it's better to withdraw the funds in his/her personal wallet.

This ordinal has saturated the Bitcoin network and it should be regulated or even if it needs to be stopped because it is detrimental for people who want to transact Bitcoin but are subject to unreasonable fees. Even from the sources I read, Domo himself actually created this just for experimentation and people don't need to take this seriously. However, this seems to have stimulated many people to develop it, especially from a miner's point of view, with the existence of this ordinal, it has made them quite profitable as transactions and fees have skyrocketed. Some even claim that this ordinal effect has caused a "civil war" between BTC Core developers, miners, and ordinal holders.


Actually it doesn't matter, but are you willing to exchange platform holding your money? are you sure that it will be safe on the exchange? are you ready to accept the risk that at any time the exchange will go bankrupt and your bitcoin assets will be lost? Of course there are many reasons why accepting payments directly on exchanges is not wise, although according to some people it is more efficient because they can directly exchange their bitcoins without sending them, but I personally prefer to hold them myself in my personal wallet.

If this can be voted for and immediately implemented, then it's a very welcome development. This is just to fix the bug; it will not affect the BRC-20 token holders since they already have nearly a billion dollars in market capitalization, according to the last statistics I saw online. But it's for the best; let the network be free, and stop this who whose transaction is to be recorded first on the block competition.

About the direct payment into an exchange wallet, not everyone likes paying to an exchange wallet; a lot of people are highly against centralized exchanges and, as such, don't want to engage in anything that will promote them in any way.

Another thing is that once payment is received, not everyone will want to exchange their payment immediately, so sending them all to an exchange account is unwise. I might want to spend and reserve part of my payment on my private wallet, but sending it directly to an exchange account will kill that motive.

If we are asked by the Bitcoin devs to vote and choose between allowing ordinals to keep doing their thing on Bitcoin or they should cancel ordinals what will you be voting for?  

Today I read a news on Twitter and it looks like the Bitcoin devs want to cancel ordinals



I am not sure if this have been confirmed yet or they are still trying to make a choice but I will like to hear your thoughts, a good move or a bad one?

Also is it advisable to start receiving Bitcoin payment straight to your exchange? What disadvantages comes with doing so?