Do Ordinals and Runes help Bitcoin to be a better system of electronic cash? - page 2.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: franky1 on March 28, 2024, 05:18:03 PM

before the junk data of appended data after signature
there was op_return
but this too was not used as a data exploit in 2009-2014
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#rebranding-to-bitcoin-core

back then core pretended to be against wanting bitcoin to be used as a junk data exploit, yet, stupidly opened the exploit to allow 40byte(later 80) and then others opcodes were added(pushdata) that allowed 520, then others allowing uto 4mb using a different opcode. and other(opsuccess) aded more recently to make it now have hundreds of opcodes that can be abused

it has never "always been possible"
it has only been possible since core jumped in and changed things

Before OP_RETURN exist, people exploit Bitcoin address to store arbitrary data which bloat UTXO.

Quote from: DooMAD on March 29, 2024, 04:57:33 AM

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures. This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done. The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures. There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

Less quantity of arbitrary data is better than nothing. And IMO not adding 10000 bytes limit on Taproot script is a mistake, when such limit exist on different kind of script.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: DooMAD on March 29, 2024, 04:57:33 AM

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures. This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done. The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures. There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

bitcoin is not self created AI...
bitcoin is code.. and that means developers wrote it.. so yes you look at who wrote it, why and what their reason and agenda was/is
then when you see which group created the initial flaw, which then got exploited. you find out who to blame

as for pointing fingers to other networks. those other networks just forked CORE code(+added minimal script kiddy tweaks). so again the other networks that allow junk allow it due to the flaw CORE created initially.

stop treating core devs as untouchable gods..
stop thinking " No one gets to unilaterally dictate how other people choose to use the protocol, unless they are core"
you care too much about core dominance, but care little about user utility, or bitcoin(unless it affects core dominance)

when core devs retire or get bored your religion will fall apart.. and you may(i doubt it) then realise you should have defended bitcoins code integrity by not wanting bitcoins code integrity softened to allow your dev gods omnipotent power.. but i still foresee you preferring users TRUST being governed by centralist group so you will continue with your cultish god admiration of core devs

shield132

hero member

Activity: 2198

Merit: 847

The only positive effect that I noticed from Ordinals is that they showed us how Bitcoin is not ready for massive adoption. People scream we want massive adoption but in reality Bitcoin is not ready for that, it couldn't handle large number of transactions that was caused by ordinals spam and if we get massive adoption, then the number of legit transactions will be much higher than the ones generated by ordinals spam. How will Bitcoin handle them?
Btw in overall, Ordinals don't help Bitcoin, it's a loophole in the code and NFT spammers take advantage of it for scamming people.

blckhawk

sr. member

Activity: 1456

Merit: 325

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

No. It doesn't help bitcoin in anyway that I can think of, probably the only benefit of inscriptions is that if you're a miner or a creator of those annoying electronic vandalisms, you get paid especially the miners that are cashing in bigger checks when the transactions are getting slower and congested thus creating a problem in which the price of a transaction is increasing. It doesn't even have anything to do with becoming a better system because it's like an NFT. Think of ordinals and the like as this, a 100$ bill is the bitcoin, the inscriptions are the defacings that the bill is being subjected to.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 05:32:44 PM

My motivation is to promote financial freedom and individual sovereignty by advocating for "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash". I hope that is what we are all doing here.

Advocate for anything you like. Just keep in mind that your preferred use-case may not correlate with the desired use-case of other people. No one gets to unilaterally dictate how other people choose to use the protocol. Even if you don't approve of what they are doing, doesn't mean you can prevent them from doing it. You do what you want, they do what they want.

All you can hope to achieve is educating them that silly pictures are a scam and have no value beyond what the greater fool is prepared to pay.

It's also not correct to blame developers, because other blockchains that do not follow the same code as Bitcoin are also plagued with silly pictures. This stuff would exist regardless of what developers have or haven't done. The only thing that would be different is the quantity of silly pictures. There's room for more of them in Bitcoin versus coins like DOGE, where they can't affordably spam as many of them.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: avikz on March 28, 2024, 11:32:02 PM

There was a discussion at the Bitcoin Dev team to ban these nuisances. But not sure how far it has reached.

its been a known flaw even before the flaw was added. and core devs did nothing to re-formulate the opcodes to limit the risk.. then for years have just been trying to ban, moderate and delete posts of anyone discussing proposals to stop/raise awareness of the issue even before ordinals abused the flaw

Quote from: franky1 on November 23, 2016, 09:54:38 PM

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..

we will definitely see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

Quote from: avikz on March 28, 2024, 11:32:02 PM

You can also try LN for the time being.

the solution is not to abandon bitcoin and use another network and just stay on another network for years being patient waiting for core to change.. as their game plan is to lock users into other networks, so why would they change if you fell into their trap

they have already had 8 years of knowledge of the flaw and have only shown ignorance and avoidance of wanting to fix it. as fixing it goes against their roadmap

Crypt0Gore

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 260

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

The last time I checked, the only good thing that ordinals and runes have done for Bitcoin is the increase in profits for BTC miners, even after the halving becomes a success and the reward gets lower, the existence of ordinals and runes will keep miners at work.

The high transaction fee will keep becoming a problem once in a while I hope that a solution will come for this issue, this is the only problem I have with ordinals and runes but money can still be made here, I am not just sure about the future of ordinals and runes, only time will tell.

avikz

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1500

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Addition to Bitcoin core! Hell no!

There's no justification at all. Some people are exploiting a loophole and everyone else is suffering from slower transaction time and expensive fees.

There was a discussion at the Bitcoin Dev team to ban these nuisances. But not sure how far it has reached. Until these are banned completely from the Bitcoin network, there's no other way but to suffer.

You can also try LN for the time being.

thecodebear

hero member

Activity: 2100

Merit: 813

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

These are not additions to "Bitcoin Core" by which I assume you just mean the Bitcoin protocol. These are optional things that people have made that use an unintended loophole in the protocol to allow data to be jammed into transactions and used as NFTs.

There is no justification. People figured out it can be done so they did it. I don't even know what you mean by justification.

They were created because people in the community recognized the flaw the update to the protocol would allow such things and so they took advantage of it to create these things. Yes they make the network less efficient. And no they don't have anything to do with Bitcoin being money so they don't help Bitcoin be a better monetary system, rather they hurt it being that. But the people who made it and use these things are more concerned about NFTs than they are about Bitcoin as money, so they did it. Nothing to stop it now unless the protocol devs do something to close that loophole that ordinals exploited.

we-btc

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 20

Personal financial freedom and sovereignty

Quote from: SamReomo on March 28, 2024, 06:56:03 PM

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They are being added because of the greedy investors or those lazy fellows who want to mint their memes. They are of no use to Bitcoin network but we can't yet remove them from the network and that's the main reason why they are still part of the network. In simple words, Ordinals are the shit things on the network which still can't be flushed out.

I couldn't agree more! Thanks SamReomo!

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 05:32:44 PM

I also realize that there is always a learning opportunity so if you feel I have misstated something, please feel free to correct me.

aww we-btc wants to be recruited into the doomad cult of stupidity..
seems we will have another echo chamber of nonsense repeating silly crap soon

SamReomo

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 672

Top Crypto Casino

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

They are being added because of the greedy investors or those lazy fellows who want to mint their memes. They are of no use to Bitcoin network but we can't yet remove them from the network and that's the main reason why they are still part of the network. In simple words, Ordinals are the shit things on the network which still can't be flushed out.

we-btc

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 20

Personal financial freedom and sovereignty

Quote from: DooMAD on March 28, 2024, 05:26:20 PM

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 05:10:50 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on March 28, 2024, 04:57:12 PM

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data. "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible. But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash. And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise. That's what needs fixing. People need to know that silly images are not assets. They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement. There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

No. We are not in agreement. You do not understand me at all. That isn't remotely what I said.

I'm now pretty sure you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

My motivation is to promote financial freedom and individual sovereignty by advocating for "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash". I hope that is what we are all doing here.

I also realize that there is always a learning opportunity so if you feel I have misstated something, please feel free to correct me.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 05:10:50 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on March 28, 2024, 04:57:12 PM

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data. "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible. But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash. And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise. That's what needs fixing. People need to know that silly images are not assets. They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement. There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

No. We are not in agreement. You do not understand me at all. That isn't remotely what I said.

I'm now pretty sure you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

dont use wording of transaction speeds
use words of transactions accepted per interval

like a train at a train station
the train passengers do not get to a destination faster due to a faster train. but instead where the train(at normal confirmed speeds) has more available seats to fit more passengers per same speed journey.. without obese people taking up most of the seats, whereby letting in obese people taking up the seats leaves other passengers at the station waiting for the next train, hoping there is a spare seat to sit in on the next train

we-btc

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 20

Personal financial freedom and sovereignty

Quote from: Cookdata on March 28, 2024, 05:13:12 PM

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Ordinals don't slow transaction in real sense, what the do is that they make mempool becomes spammy with their transaction and that makes ordinary transactions to fight for space in the next block. Because these ordinal guys has the bitcoin to pay for transaction, so these cause a distortion in the mempool and makes fee to increase drastically because everyone is fighting for the first place in the next block.

Different talks has been discussed about ordinals and all is left for the developers to patch that bug in the protocol. Some people believes the ordinal demands is just a phase and people will forget it and some think they are good to be around, at least to gives more incentives for miners. What I think is that they are not supposed to be welcome on the protocol but if miners are not complaining of mining and doing their computational work together, then I have nothing to say again.

The net result of ordinals is increased fees. For the same fee a transaction will be slower. A person can always pay more to get into the next block and we all know a block is created every 10 minutes regardless of the fees.

What about the additional storage on nodes? If you are going to allow 4MB of storage on the nodes per block the additional data could be used for additional transactions increasing the speed by 400% and decreasing the fees.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4214

Merit: 4458

before the junk data of appended data after signature
there was op_return
but this too was not used as a data exploit in 2009-2014
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#rebranding-to-bitcoin-core

back then core pretended to be against wanting bitcoin to be used as a junk data exploit, yet, stupidly opened the exploit to allow 40byte(later 80) and then others opcodes were added(pushdata) that allowed 520, then others allowing uto 4mb using a different opcode. and other(opsuccess) aded more recently to make it now have hundreds of opcodes that can be abused

it has never "always been possible"
it has only been possible since core jumped in and changed things

Cookdata

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 875

Not Your Keys, Not Your Bitcoin

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 03:03:33 PM

We all know that these additions to Bitcoin Core have slowed down transactions and made transactions more expensive.

What is the justification for them?

Why are they being added when they make the network less efficient?

Ordinals don't slow transaction in real sense, what the do is that they make mempool becomes spammy with their transaction and that makes ordinary transactions to fight for space in the next block. Because these ordinal guys has the bitcoin to pay for transaction, so these cause a distortion in the mempool and makes fee to increase drastically because everyone is fighting for the first place in the next block.

Different talks has been discussed about ordinals and all is left for the developers to patch that bug in the protocol. Some people believes the ordinal demands is just a phase and people will forget it and some think they are good to be around, at least to gives more incentives for miners. What I think is that they are not supposed to be welcome on the protocol but if miners are not complaining of mining and doing their computational work together, then I have nothing to say again.

we-btc

member

Activity: 105

Merit: 20

Personal financial freedom and sovereignty

Quote from: DooMAD on March 28, 2024, 04:57:12 PM

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 04:48:14 PM

If I understand your response, you are saying that it was always possible to store ordinals on-chain? You are telling me that this is an exploit that is increasing fees? Is it a bug in the original code that could be fixed?

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data. "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible. But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash. And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise. That's what needs fixing. People need to know that silly images are not assets. They are snake oil and trash.

I think we are in agreement. There is a bug that should be addressed and ordinals were added by Taproot to exploit that bug.

If I understand you correctly the core developers exploited a bug instead of fixing it in order to add functionality that is contrary to the stated purpose of Bitcoin.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: we-btc on March 28, 2024, 04:48:14 PM

If I understand your response, you are saying that it was always possible to store ordinals on-chain? You are telling me that this is an exploit that is increasing fees? Is it a bug in the original code that could be fixed?

I'm saying it was always possible to embed arbitrary data. "Ordinals" are a very specific method of embedding arbitrary data, so it would not be correct to say that ordinals were always possible. But without the code ordinals are exploiting, it's still possible to hog a load of space in blocks by embedding images and other trash. And it's still possible for people to claim silly images are an asset class in an attempt to get others to spam a blockchain that doesn't support the very specific methods ordinals utilise. That's what needs fixing. People need to know that silly images are not assets. They are snake oil and trash.

Topic: Do Ordinals and Runes help Bitcoin to be a better system of electronic cash? - page 2. (Read 470 times)