Topic: Expect the Orginals game to get even bigger - actual games - page 3. (Read 874 times)

Has it crossed your mind that hosting jpegs on the world's most secure blockchain is the one and only selling point of these blockheads?


I might have skipped a season, but hasn't it always been possible to host copyrighted material on the blockchain?  The only change this time is that people are actively doing it.  They could have done this long time ago.  And I am pretty sure some did.

Fair enough, I hadn't been considering the ignorant enlisted-- e.g. people spamming out BRC-20 tokens because intentional attackers will buy them-- as attackers.  They don't intend to attack, they intend to "use" bitcoin to make money fast it just so happens that the actual attackers have managed to arrange things so that the "usage" is disruptive.

There are plenty of people who are irritated by the high fees created by this traffic who respond with suggestions to eliminate the resource limits, which are the only things holding back the attack and making it expensive-- and that's more where my warning applies.

And right you are that neither the attackers nor many of the people just trying to make a quick buck on the traffic give a damn if bitcoin is worth anything 5 years from now. But for the same reason, their concerns shouldn't weigh highly in everyone else's evaluation.

No, I think non-aware attackers, that are regular users from Bitcointalk, who are pro-Ordinals, don't run any full node, so they can happily support Ordinals, without having to deal with the consequences.

I thought about those attackers. They support Ordinals, they tell, that "it is good for fees", but most likely, they are not miners, to benefit from those fees, and they are also not full node owners, to be affected by any of that. They are traders, or exchange-based users, so they have no reason to shout "save us!", because they will happily jump from Bitcoin to any altcoin or stablecoin, just to cash out, if there would be any troubles with Bitcoin.

I can't decode the misunderstanding required to produce that answer. Do you think the attackers would accomplish something by getting themselves shut down for copyright infringement?

The attackers goal in that attack is make every node operator a copyright infringer and then they or someone else can shut any one of them down with an email and the rights holder has standing to drag anyone to court and bankrupt them with legal fees before they ever get to the novel leal question.  The attacker never needs to run a full node, it's better for the attack that they don't.

It would be true, if the attackers would run some full nodes. But I doubt it. I doubt that a significant percentage of pro-Ordinals users from Bitcointalk actually run a full node. It is more likely that they use just some SPV nodes, and they only use external sites to show their Ordinals.

Related developers implemented this on BSV a couple years ago, in "CryptoFights". It serves no purpose except as a cover to add garbage to the blockchain, no code was ever even written to read the data back out that they wrote in... and why would anyone do that? Writing game state to a immutable public ledger serves absolutely no purpose itself, but for the damage you can do to other people's ability to validate the ledger.


.Because . Its . An . Attack.

Stuffing the blockchain full of unlawfully copied material is an attack, it's probably no accident that they picked the notoriously litigious nintendo as an initial target.

Doubling the UTXO set size with meaningless 'tokens' that have absolutely no purpose is an attack. (people talk about ordinals a lot but by far most of the congestion when I've looked is actually BRC-20)

If the usage were genuine they could save hundreds of millions of dollars in fees just doing it on their own blockchain, or almost any one of a thousand pre-existing ones.

The very same people doing this stuff are BSVers funded by Calvin Ayre.  This isn't speculation or a conspiracy theory, you can simply look them up. They carried out the same attacks on BSV, adding 165 GB to the utxo set in just five days (not the chain! the utxo set!), pushing off every other known non-calvin-controlled/funded node off the network.  At least in Bitcoin it mostly just drives fees up rather than forever destroying the network in days, because robustness to these kind of attacks was considered.  Many people are mistaking the protection *working* (fees go up making the attack astronomically expensive for the attacker) for the problem itself.

Most of you are absolutely fucking idiots. You deserve what you get.

Eventually you will figure it out as one by one your nodes are turned off by DMCA complaints, you get fucking bankrupted by vexatious copyright litigation and other bullshit resulting from attacks on the network that you were happy to pretend were actually good when you thought they could pump the price and you will look up and shout "save us!" and I'll whisper "No."

If there will be more abuse, then expect solutions (like those mentioned above) to be deployed. Nothing is changed yet, because:

1. There are worse things than Ordinals.
2. Not enough developers are against Ordinals.
3. Some changes are not yet ready (for example assumeutxo). But sooner or later, they will be.

If you want to show, that you don't support Ordinals, then just enable pruning. If enough people will do so, then those Ordinals owners will need to start running their own full nodes (and taste their own medicine) to see their data.

For Nintendo games.

Not for Nintendo games though, right? That would be way too slow on Bitcoin (or almost any other blockchain), when a game sometimes requires pixel-perfect inputs.

I didn't know about that roadmap though; pushing not only binaries but also game state to the blockchain is a whole different beast. I still don't understand why they can't use RGB or Taro. These would suit the use case so much better.

That is exactly what they are doing, I looked into their roadmap and they talk about things like saving the game status on the blockchain, next would likely be saving how many zombies you killed (or whatever the Ninja hero does in the game) on the blockchain, those transactions would be tiny in size, combined with other similiar transactions it would be pretty damn cheap, a single on-chain transaction would be enough for a dozen players data.

@stompy, lol, it may look like something that would never work, but given that probably over a hundrred billion dollars are spent on video games every year, i won't be too confident that we won't see many games make it to the blockchain.

Inscribing the code and binary of an emulator is not the same as 'turning Bitcoin to a distributed and decentralized play station'.

The former means that you can 'download' a piece of software from the blockchain and run it locally, meanwhile the latter describes running code on the blockchain, i.e. every interaction with it would need an individual transaction to be mined; that's the way people used to play chess on Ethereum, for instance.

My stance on this (as a home miner) is that the drama is not about the miners making a lot of money, it's about the blockchain becoming less usable; if we extrapolate to a worst-case scenario, where a potential majority of users might stop using it and selling their BTC due to lowered usability, everyone else (i.e. the people who love inscribing data on the blockchain) suffers, too.

Therefore, I think it's in the best interest of everybody to keep Bitcoin usable and appealing.

Nintendo is even more hawkish at copyrights than federal governments themselves, they got countless ROMsites shut down for copyright infringement, so the last thing Bitcoin needs is for this sort of thing to take off and then suddenly there is legitimate (ie. not from Craig Wrong) legal action taken against it.

I've heared this idear many times before... IIRC, previous times the mempool was completely full and a fee bidding "war" was plaguing the community, fingers were also pointed towards the miners... I guess they might try to do this, but it also comes at a risk (and a cost) to them...

What if a big miner decides to drop 1 Gb of transaction data (excluding witness data) into the mempool... They want to start a bidding war and profit big time, so they add 50 sat/byte tx data to these unconfirmed transactions... That's 1.073.741.824 bytes * 50 sat/byte =~ 537 bitcoin (at a current preev rate of $45k/btc, that's little over $24 million).

Offcourse, we (the users) have to outbid the transactions in the mempool, and we have to use a fee of >50 sat/byte to get our transaction into a block... Great profit for the miners... However, if on average we (the community) create less than 1 Mb of transaction data (excluding witness data) per 10 minutes over a prolonged amount of time, OTHER miners will start to add the transactions broadcasted by the miner that dropped the 1 Gb of transactions on the mempool... OTHER miners will start to confirm those transactions and claim the fee. In the end, the miner dropping the 1 Gb of unconfirmed spam transactions will be out of a big chunk of his $24.000.000. He'll only be able to recuperate the fees of the transactions he himself puts into a block which he succesfully solves.

Bottom line is that it would be a big risk for him (at least, that's my point of view). IF the community keeps on broadcasting more than 1 Mb of transaction data (excluding witness data) per 10 minutes for a very long time, he'll be able to push all our fees upwards and he might be able to make a nice profit... If we broadcast less that 1 Mb of tx data per 10 minutes, he might be at a (big) loss.

Miners earn tons of money, thanks to that exploit. People make millions of dollars by selling simple trash, so, who wants to get rid of that exploit? Governments will hugely benefit if illegal stuff will be pushed to Bitcoin Blockchain because it will give them a fair reason to centralize it even more. No one is going to ban Bitcoin, they are taking it over.

Think about it:

• Centralized Exchanges
• Bitcoin ETF
• Centralized miners
• Centralized mining pools
• Blockchain Analysis firms
• Soon there will be censored blockchain, i.e. unwanted transactions won't get confirmed.

Why should you ban it when you can take it over?

---

By the way, what's the plan or solution if we stop ordinals but miners create many dust transactions to artificially increase transaction fees? How will we be able to stop them?

In the last year, I have noticed the following situation repeatedly in the Bitcoin community:

- Ordinal users broadcast their transactions.
- Suddenly, users panic and deem Bitcoin as non-usable (which is partly true).
- Users propose solutions, most of which include the censorship of Ordinals.
- Nobody does a thing in response.
- A new wave of Ordinals is broadcasted.

Somehow, people believe that complaining on Internet boards about this will magically fix it. If you cannot propose a viable solution, or implement it, then chances are, it won't fix itself. Censoring Ordinals, at least at this point, is not a solution. Maybe you disagree with me, but I don't find it appropriate for a censorship resistant network to censor transactions that don't pass the "monetary transaction" check of some.

Here you go. That is absolutely acceptable. The thing is: will it find support? Financially and in terms of development. Because as far as history is concerned, Bitcoin forks don't go well.

A better suggestion would be to opt out to a reputable altcoin, like Monero. At least for small amount of transactions. It already has support and a dynamical block size limit.

This mess is getting bigger and bigger with each passing day without any action being taken to prevent it. The natural consequence is that for the quick profit of a few, the masses are moved away from the adoption of bitcoin considering how expensive the fees have been for some months.
Back to OP topic : is the transaction mentioned in this tweetrelated to Nintendo thing or is it just another nuisance goin on there ?

Who says there are 4 billion people that want to play games and 100 that want to buy coffee? As it stands now, it's possible there are 100 that want to play games and outbid 4 billion people that want to buy coffee, making the blockchain an ideal playground for those 100 whilst driving 4 billion people away causing long term damage to the ecosystem... What i'm saying is that IF a change was proposed, at least you'd know what the people want... Maybe a proposition would gain majority support, maybe it wouldn't... Maybe it would be dropped, maybe a fork would occur... Maybe 2 forks would live next to eachother, maybe one of the forks would dissapear. As it stands right now, nobody knows the ratio, we only know the "game players" have more money than the "coffee drinkers".

As for the miners: you do have a point... Nobody did care when they went out of business but when they're making a lot of money suddenly there's drama... Truth be told, i don't care either way (i don't care if they get rich or if they are forced to close their business), i just want to be able to be part of the ecosystem, and that includes not having to spend $30 to make a $100 purchase. I would be fine with paying more than i used to pay in the past in order to keep a reasonable amount of miners "in the green" so the blockchain remains safe, i would also think it would be ok if some miners decided to leave the ecosystem because they could not add 3000 transactions with an average fee of $30 to their blocks aswell.

The thing is that i've used bitcoin mostly as a form of payment, and not a store of value (i'm not saying i don't hold a little bit and hope the price rises). At the moment, it is completely impossible for me (and with me a lot of users) to use the main chain as a payment method for anything under the value of ~$250, since the fiat value of the average fee has been between $10 and $30 the last couple of weeks.

When you talk about a free market, i personally think this market would also need an alternative... Even if this means a fork... If you agree with the fact ordinals are abusing a vulnerabilty, use the "bitcoin" fork, mine on the bitcoin fork, have bitcoin fork wallet,... If you want to keep on pushing ordinal crap and nintendo games, by all means, switch to the bitcoin-ordinal fork, mine on said fork, have a bitcoin-ordinal wallet... I'm pretty sure the fork with the majority of the community behind it would be the fork that would make it big. It's all about freedom and choice.

I really want to see how is this majority defined and who gets to vote.


Yeah, I'm stating to get some kulaks purge vibes here 
Nobody cared when miners went out of business, nobody cared when sky high tariffs change made them losing money, but when some feel like they are getting too much profits, chop their heads, ungrateful bastards how dare they invest and risk their money in a business and not do what we tell them to!
It's pretty easy to get rid of those miners, the community just have to buy a few millions 5KW Asics, set them up and mine over at Luke's Censorship Church..of wait,  Ocean Pool.


Bitcoin and the blockchain are tools, users define how they are used and what they are, that's the beauty of it!
If 4 billions want to play games on the blockchain and 100 want to use it to buy coffee, how do you define what the blockchain is about?

They should store it on Internet Archive, other archival service or Bitcoin sidechain. But at least it's less spammy compared with most data inserted to Bitcoin blockchain through Ordinal.


Nothing can stop people from doing that. But as long as software you use (e.g. wallet) doesn't execute binary or code by itself, in practice there's no security risk.

Well there ARE rules, there is a protocol... It has been there since the start and it has changed in the past due to vulnerability's... I'm not saying it would be easy to change the protocol, but, IMHO with what's happening now it would be ok if the developers proposed a protocol change and see if there's a majority that would agree on this.

It would be tough to convince miners to give up part of their short term profits for the long term goal of keeping bitcoin attractive to new users tough... There probably would be (a lot of) drama... Short term it wouldn't do us any good... But for me, it's clear the blockchain's usecase wasn't to host nintento sourcecode or keep those ordinal guys happy... It was designed as an immutable ledger to store transaction data.