Topic: Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription - page 5. (Read 1622 times)

The point is to make money by ripping people off!

You see what they call inscriptions and the advertisers of this scam method like to call it "token" or NFT is neither one of those in reality. It is arbitrary data, a junk that is injected into the chain by exploiting the Bitcoin protocol.
The only reason why these scammers insist on using bitcoin blockchain for it is to be able to hype up a dead concept (ICO) by associating it with the name Bitcoin and get some newbie victims who don't know any better to buy that fake garbage in a fake market so that they can make money!

As we know these scammers have been desperately changing the name of their scam every now and then to renew their victim pool:

Otherwise if they truly wanted to create tokens there are countless ways of doing it from using bitcoin side chains such as RootStock to actual token creation platforms such as Ethereum.

I don't get the point of doing inscriptions in bitcoin so I agree that it's not something that we should tolerate, maybe it was a fun time when they inscribed the whitepaper but now, I feel like it's being overused and the people that are doing transactions daily are the ones that are shouldering the burden. I hope that the developers and the miners will find some way to meet halfway and at the same time, make bitcoin have a legitimate reason why the tx fees are so expensive.

nutildah isnt actually as smart as you want to think he is. he is a follower of promoted stuff but misses many factual concepts that can be proven by data and code

also its one thing for the creator first adding the junk for posterity.. but the events after of suckering victims into handing them money for the false claim of pretend passing of ownership, is not legit profit. its scam tricks

ordinals is not just a blight on bitcoin due to excess waste of bytes causing everyone else to pay a premium in some bidding war.... its also selling scam junk that the victims have no real controllable claim over

if certain people want the crap to continue.. then let those wanting to do the crap pay the price. instead of everyone else penalised just to keep the crap going

I just believe they are looking for a way to feign relevance in the space.  Just like twitter, everyone want to get % million impressions to be eligible for Elon's payout, same goes to Ordinals.

Unconsciously, they have made Bitcoin even more famous than it was. Whatever their complaint, its not news to the space and so far the tech has also solved all its challenges as there are no ecosystem without its challenges.

if ordinals had been baked into the protocol by satoshi himself and always had been a part of bitcoin then your argument would be pretty strong. but the fact that ordinals is kind of just a side affect of a change that was made to the protocol which not necessarily everyone agreed with or knew could happen well that's where the argument has a bit of weakness.

ordinals hasn't always been there. big difference. you can argue that anyone who decides to use bitcoin has to agree with all the historical changes that have been done and the affect those have had but people that got into bitcoin before those changes, i don't know if we can put that burden on them. just my opinion.

satoshi didn't come down off the mountain with ordinals carved in stone.  

so there is some objectivity to the thing. it's based on time. when a person became involved with bitcoin was it before or after ordinals came on to the scene. i think that's what makes it non-subjective.


come on franky. nutildah is a pretty smart person and knows alot about the ordinals and bitcoin ecosystems. but doesn't mean he buys and sells them. so i think you might be making a leap of logic there. but even if he did buy and sell them for profit, that's what they exist for is to make profit. that's why people are involved with them i would imagine. and maybe a few people just like having a picture of a monkey stored on the blockchain so they can tell their friends. 

I don't think that Ordinals are problem. Ordinals are basically shit but people are willing to pay lots of money in this shit. If someone wants to buy a shit for thousands of dollars, who am I to judge? Let them buy it. I think that number of Ordinals users will decline because those NFTs actually carry no value, absolutely no value and over time people will analyze that shit shouldn't be valued over good. But blockchain size is still a problem because as number of bitcoin users rise, number of transactions will rise too and it should be cost-effective for people to use frequently.

It's not a censorship, they exploit bitcoin protocol, they find a loophole and what's wrong with feeling loopholes? Nothing. It will be censorship if bitcoin miners agree to block transactions provided by blockchain analysis companies.

To be frank, this idea is amazing

That is really a subjective but so is everything, absolutely everything is subjective because everything has positive and negative sides, absolutely everything! But there are things that we agree are bad, right? It's bad to kill, it's bad to steal, it's bad to abuse bitcoin protocol for ordinals and so on.

How will you use bitcoin mempool gets massively flooded? What do you think, doesn't current situation push people to move on altcoins? Bitcoin was created for P2P transactions, to get rid of 3rd parties but Ordinals are not real financial transactions. So, it's not a censorship.

I agree with you here and I have also said above some of these quotes that Ordinals are not the only problem. I don't know whether you agree with me or not but this problem will happen without ordinals. Simply, bitcoin blocksize limits the number of transactions and if we want to frequently use it, we have no choice but to increase block size. It's not 2008 anymore and there aren't only a few bitcoin users.

its not a collectors item. it fails the real proof oftransfer because the junk sits as metadata in witness, it does not within transaction assign itself to an output
the GUI of ordinal recognising wallets can EASILY change policy of output path.
if the proof of destination is not locked into the blockchain. its not a proof of transfer system

as for the math method of counting sats, even their path of deciding where the first sat goes is wrong.

you pretend to not be involved and instead just an outsider of ordinals,, but you seem too involved in promoting and admiring ordinals and ignoring the logic and economics to be an outsider.. you are definitely someone that either created or scam sold some to someone.. or at worse you paid someone for what you think is a claim of a junk meme but dont want to admit to being a victim, so ignorantly ignoring the code, logic and math that show you got victimised

You're missing the point here. We were talking about the rationale as to why Luke is rejecting txs with OP_RETURNs beyond 42 bytes. Its because he thinks such transactions are spam. Obviously he didn't agree with the current byte limit which is why he implemented his own.

Regardless, its hard to take you seriously when you continue to mischaracterize Ordinals as an "attack". Its like you don't understand what the word "attack" means and it doesn't help your argument. Ordinals users are not trying to damage Bitcoin, they are simply trying to profit off it. And saying "only scammers like it" is just ignorant. A more appropriate term would be "degens".

In the future, the first inscriptions will be considered legitimate collector's items, like it or not. It could even be the first 10,000 - 100,000 or so.


You can't "remove ordinals from bitcoin". Its just a numeration system for satoshis, so in a way they've always been there since the first mined block. As for the rest of your post, holy moly, that's all I have to say.

they want to rush/force-merge/mandate when it suits their core roadmap sponsored plan..
they delay, make excuses and pretend not to be devs but only janitors when community make suggestions that dont fit their plan..
and you love how they do their own thing that is sponsor paid and ignore things that are community desired.


the network was running fine at $17k yet people are screaming miner poverty at $43k

if its not profitable to mine because you live on a pacific island/high electric cost region. then obvious option is to buy bitcoin while its below your mining cost
thats how the market dynamics works. if market is too cheap to mine. buy on the market, its cheap. help support the market which then helps the miners..
demanding less transactions but higher fee premiums is not the economic dynamics of keeping the network useful and fruitful

i hope you were buying coin at $17k instead of crying that you cant mine and wanting ~3000tx a block to "pay more fee"

Removing ordinals from Bitcoin is a necessary step. Ordinals are a useless feature that only clogs the network with unnecessary transactions. They increase transaction fees and decrease network efficiency.

However, removing ordinals will also mean a significant loss of income for miners. Currently, miners receive an additional fee for each transaction with an ordinal. Removing ordinals will reduce transaction fees, meaning miners will make less Bitcoin per transaction. I believe that removing ordinals is necessary to improve the scalability and efficiency of Bitcoin. Miners will need to find other ways to make money, such as through higher transaction fees for high-priority transactions or through other services like staking or mining pools.

To me it will be a battle between "Miners Greed" vs "Censorship of tx's"  .. because the changes needs the full nodes to accept it..and they do not really care for the Blockchain spamming, because it increases the tx fees. 

The problem with this is the exploitation of the loopholes for other spam attacks or projects like this that are spamming the network with useless transactions. 

I don't understand why everyone is surprised about this?
Luke developed Knots, he randomly put 42 in there ages ago based only on his way of thinking how the world should function, why is such a big surprise his new work is based on his previous one and keeps the same limits and numbers?


Were you mining at those prices?
What was the income per kwh spent?
What was the ROI for $100 invested?
What were the operational loses the biggest companies had last year?

It sucks when creativity has a downwind. Maybe it's different if the dev was intending on this, but if not it's a sad situation.
But if your projects so disruptive that core devs are having to pencil you out you probably knew better.
I don't see many supporters of it here witch leads me to wonder what the hell made it take off?
I've kinda been under a rock this year and not fully with the program.

The exploit Ordinals Attackers are using is not related to OP_RETURN and if it did we would have never had this problem to begin with because:
- OP_RETURN is part of the protocol that everyone has agreed with. Ordinals is not part of the protocol and only scammers like it.
- using OP_RETURN is not an "exploit" while what they call Ordinals is using an exploit in the protocol, an oversight by the developers introducing SegWit
- most importantly OP_RETURN has a limit on how much arbitrary data you can push to the chain while the exploit Ordinals attack is using has virtually no limit
- even more importantly OP_RETURN does not create UTXO bloat since said outputs are provably unspendeable while Ordinals attack will create dust outputs that can not be spent nor be pruned.

Outside of limiting taproot script length (which could have its own follies we as non-devs haven't considered), anyone who believes the "spam" can be stopped by fine tuning or placing certain limitations within Core is sorely mistaken. The exact same argument was happening around the launch of Counterparty in early 2014, and the Counterparty devs told the Bitcoin devs, fine, do what you want, we will find ways around it. There's a number of different ways to add arbitrary data to transactions, and there always will be.


Some things never change...

So I took franky1 off ignore for a few seconds to see what hilariously irrational drivel he was spouting and I certainly wasn't disappointed.  He now wants to maintain the stance that Core devs are simultaneously holding Bitcoin back, but at the same time rushing changes through too quickly.   

Classic.

Back on ignore you go, you spectacular fucking kook.

---

And that's fine.  But if people are going to advocate for continually moving the goalposts on what those limits are, purely because they want to prevent a certain type of transaction, that's still a road to disaster in my view.

When everyone knows what the limits are, people are free to transact.  And yes, some people will inevitably find methods of exploiting or abusing those limits.  But if those limits keep getting tighter, to try and catch out the ones exploiting it, you'll also catch innocent parties who are suddenly outside of a limit they were previously within.

Good point. Since BRC-20 become popular, UTXO growth at far faster pace.


I get your point, but in practice there are already several limitation how people use Bitcoin whether on protocol or node level. For example, minimum relay fee, minimum output amount and 80 bytes limit on OP_RETURN.

If Ordinals are a misuse, then storing arbitrary data in general should be prohibited while that is pretty much possible since v0.1.  I would argue it is not a misuse, it is just considered spam based on your criteria. 


Sure, but this brings us back to the point.  You cannot dictate how people use Bitcoin.  You would never prohibit someone from using Legacy, so why prohibiting someone from doing that?

Using OP_RETURN also doesn't bloat the UTXO set, which I'd argue is more important than limiting the growth of the size of the blockchain.

Yes, that's true when we're talking about using public key. Although it's not true if they choose OP_RETURN, which is more efficient than using public key/script hash on address.