Topic: Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription - page 6. (Read 1715 times)

Can't have it both ways. If you declare other peoples' use cases as spam and decide to ban them, then you are absolutely dictating what they can and cannot do.

The protocol is for peer to peer electronic cash. Centralized exchanges are not peer to peer, ergo they are a misuse of the protocol as well and should be banned.

I'm obviously being facetious here to make a point, but the point is that anyone can argue that anyone else's use case is spam. What makes your claim that ordinals are spam objective truth which must be acted upon, while anyone else's claim that something else is spam subjective opinion which must be ignored?

miners were fine at $17k/btc.. the network was working and fee's were low
[market doubles]
[meme junk escalated]
miners were fine at $34k/btc.. the network was working and fee's were low
[market x1.3x]
[json junk escalated]
turmoil!! disaster!! PANIC!! "we must save the miners" (the naive crowd shouts)
turmoil!! disaster!! PANIC!! "let the spam junk continue.. miners need the money" (the naive crowd shouts)
franky1 (facepalm) (facepalm)
..
every halving(one year prior), we have naive crowds thinking that fee's need to pay for the missing other reward half..
then a year after halving, when the ATH spot market reaction does more then 2x multiple, everyone calms down realising the spot market takes care of things

and yes in 2015-17 there were many debates about fee's being too high(when fee's were just $0.15) and naive crowds screaming that miners need it "coz halving!!!!"
jan 2016 spot was <$300
jan 2017 spot was <$800  ... the market took care of itself even without the 2017 ATH

and yes in 2011-12 there were many debates about first halving and naive crowds screaming that miners need it "coz halving!!!!"
jan 2012 spot was <$4
jan 2013 spot was <$14  ... the market took care of itself even without the 2013 ATH

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools



Never heard of riot owns a pool . Any link ?
According to my knowledge , big mining farms were in trouble during the low fee and low price period . Probably now they're on the positives . Of course , if btc doesn't double in price or double in fees , in the next halving problems for miners group will start to emerge .

miners are not happy
they do not earn 6.25+0.5
miners are not the pool manager, miners are the "workers" where by if there are 100,000 workers(asic owners)
earn 0.00006750 which they wont withdraw instantly, freely because the fee eats into their earnings

dont be so sure
RIOT a group that done alot if inhouse-mining on its pool. is in deep financial trouble

Good news. It was pretty ridiculous to pay $10-20 to send $100 bucks. Bitcoin is supposed to be better and cheaper than the banks. Paying $5-10 to send $50 ain’t cheap. If this shit continues bitcoin will probably lose all the main network usability. One might offer LN as a solution and I am kind of OK with that too but LN mostly operates on custodial wallets. Most people will never run their own LN channels. It is so easy to own a bitcoin address on electrum on the other hand and you have the full control over your funds. Just for this reason alone main network beats off-chain.

Not everyone is penalised . There were always two groups in bitcoin , miners and users . In the way btc chose there will always be one group pleased and as the time goes those group will be either extremely happy or extremely pissed . Currently miners are the ones cheering with the unexpected increase in earnings and users are crying . In upcoming halvings if the users will be happy that will mean miners will be crying . The fee market is a lost case but maxis still insist on it . In fact , what they want is to make people move on their L2's ( which even their devs saying that can't work in a massive scale ) and make them use their "wrapped" btc . Or even more , if i want to get into conspiracy theories , that bitcoin is a failed experiment .  
As i said in the past , pools are the most happy than all . They get insane profits , especially those that don't share fees , and they don't have to spend a single penny . A rapspi will do the job . That's what equality and left ideology does . Bitcoin was never about equality .

the way the fee system works.. everyone is penalised equally when some idiot wants to take up too much space
ordinals affects everyone..

this can be fixed where only the bloaters or young confirm spammers can be penalised to pay the most. thus making THEM transact less so that everyone else can transact more

it's only a problem to you if you're being affected by it. but it's not necessarily a problem for everyone. make the distinction.
that's all quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of the entire bitcoin ecosystem though. as you very well know...


it won't be able to. so i guess in that sense, ordinals is a good little test case for if bitcoin got really popular and alot of people started using it. what have we learned? people will complain!  

probably there would be people wanting those things to happen. as for me, if the fees just got to be too much well, i'll have to use some other way to "send money". that's all. i have a utilitarian view of bitcoin in the sense that what can it help me do, not what can it help me make. can it help me send money fast and cheap? if so then i might like it...

that's crazy. most people don't even have any idea what BRC-20 is or anything...all I know is people are using it like a token to pump and dump like an Eth token. scam stuff. but here and there maybe some of them pump and some people win and some people lose.

It hasn't been about monkey pics for months. 99% of ordinals transactions are for BRC-20 tokens, soon to be 99.9%.


Its 100% related. Luke's Bitcoin Knots lowered its limit on OP_RETURN in order to ignore transactions he considers "spam", which is what you think ordinals transactions are, so what's the difference?

Not that his efforts will matter much in the long run. For starters, its economically inefficient to ignore transactions with high fees. It will zap the incentive out of the majority of miners, so his pool will never get very big. But lets say for whatever reason his mining pool becomes bigger and mines 1 out of every 10 blocks. That means Ordinals, Counterparty, Omni, etc. user will have to wait 1 minute extra on average for their transactions to be confirmed.

Not really a big deal.

I guess it’s due time, had high hopes for Ordinals too since they were really onto something with the bitcoin but NFT narrative. Although I must say, the problem they posed against the regular bitcoin investor’s a little too much to bear even with how much “revolutionary” the bitcoin ordinal system has been. In any case, this is for the better at least in the grand scheme of things since NFTs are pretty much dead now anyway and ordinals have been a little bit of a problem to the industry now.

Just hoping a similarly revolutionary thing’s to come up to bitcoin soon enough, I know bitcoin’s too big to fail now but having a new feature here and there’s not gonna hurt right?

If we agree on the basic assumption that Bitcoin is a protocol for sending money and agree that we shouldn't dictate what people do with their money, then it's logical rather than subjective to say that exchanges are not spam, even if you think that they are unnecessary or inefficient. But ordinals are "spam" or rather a misuse of the protocol, and the existing mechanism of preventing wasteful use (fee market) fails because ordinals are profitable.


If the cost of solving the problem is larger than the benefits then the solution should be postponed.

and yet when luke came up with a way to fasttrack segwit activation which opened up the exploit ordinals now uses.. everyone including doomad was super happy to see the rush-job get mandated in within a few months

maybe doomad has learned a lesson.. but i doubt it..
however now when people want exploits closed, bugs fixed or even just penalise those using the exploit . the guys that supported fasttrack activations are now playing the long-con game of saying "leave it alone"

Seems like Knots reduced the limit from 83 to 42 ages ago, but it never made any difference to anything since no miners were using Knots and any transactions the few Knots nodes ignored simply routed around those nodes between Core nodes.

Who says this isn't deliberate? Dashjr holds a lot of outright crazy views and has previously used his mining pool (Eligius) to censor transactions he personally doesn't agree with. He's called all forms of mixing money laundering in the past, so I'm sure he has no problems at all censoring coinjoin transactions. Just another step towards governmental control of bitcoin.

Bitcoiners seem to have this argument where they’re against using the blockchain for purposes that they don’t seem worthy while ignoring all other opinions. If Ordinals are banned from the blockchain, I think Lightning should get the same treatment. I never signed up for giving block space to some other layer of privately patented transactions. The fact one company pushing their patents is making these decisions is the single worst thing that has ever happened to Bitcoin.

That's what it comes down to, whether you can keep your campaign and get that $50 a week so you can order a pizza or DCA into the next bull run, so that, hopefully, you turn it into a $100 and can take your girlfriend out. Ban all the ordinals, censor the network, because if it continues my manager could reduce the participants in the campaign and I'll get kicked out. Censor the network because I have to pay $5 more each time I send bitcoin!

That's what you get for being impatient and overpaying. My recent transaction was 120 s/b and came down to around $11.

They do. Be honest, you're not using LN at all, am I right?

I really hope that the guys who are fighting against the Ordinals will succeed. Because this is a real problem! As you correctly wrote - many managers pay an additional commission to send out weekly rewards, some campaigns are closed - and all this is because of the stupid Ordinals.
I, like many crypto enthusiasts, love to trade Bitcoin and in order to transfer Bitcoin from my wallet to the exchange I had to pay 60 dollars! And there are no ways to get around this because swaps inside wallets do not work, and lightning and transaction accelerators cannot solve the problem. In general, as soon as the Ordinals are finished, it will be a big celebration.

Huh...  I stand corrected.  Apologies.

So the timing of this is just a super bizarre coincidence?  I'm really confused now. 

Still, it highlights the importance of how careful we have to be.  If clients are disregarding certain transactions when devs aren't even trying to crackdown on ordinals, imagine the potential for mistakes when they are trying and start making deliberate changes.

Particularly when it comes to coinjoins.  In this current climate, when we're attempting to shift attention away from centralised mixers, we have to do everything possible to nurture and encourage coinjoins.  We absolutely do not need the drama of such transactions being blocked right now.  The timing of this really is unfortunate.

I still urge the angry mob to put down their pitchforks and torches and pause to consider the ramifications here.

So satoshi referenced 2 out of 8 whitepapers related to digital timestamping , one specifically for documents , photos , videos , coded a part of script to be used exactly for that use , used it in the genesis block , and i should stand with your view of how things might have been . Nope . Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

many valid 'standard' transactions use opcodes(subclass: sigops) that have actual validation conditions of requiring signatures in witness of a certain format that meets most updated policy
ordinals junk use opcodes that dont look for specific conditions and just treats as valid without checking content
code can be used to recognise someone using the unconditional opcodes and set expectations of extreme fees if people use opcodes without the conditions of actual signing proof validations

but you do raise a genuine hurdle about the multisig usage of spare keyspace eg the 3rd key as a dataspace of a 2-of-3 multisig

i ages ago mentioned to ordinals crowd to put hashID of a junk meme into multisig as a way to show proof of transfer within an output instead of appended witness metadata.. but i didnt think of the implications of them actually doing it nor did i think about counter techniques/fixes to identify junk in the spare keyspace, where they then use hundreds of multisigs to have small snippets of junk that patch/join together to form a complete junk meme.
i suppose limit the amount of outputs per tx or charge multiples of base fee for those that use more outputs(penalise th bloaters)

even something like if tx more then 500byte 2x. if tx over 2kb 20x

I've made my opinions completely clear - ordinals are spam, but we shouldn't be censoring them. Censoring transactions based on some people's opinions is what happens in fiat, not in bitcoin.

Yes absolutely, but censorship is not the solution. If the bitcoin network cannot handle a small handful of users sending ordinals, how is it ever supposed to scale to a global currency? What will we do when fees are 1,000 sats/vbyte because 100 million people are using bitcoin? Censor entire countries? Or maybe censor everyone involved with political causes we don't like?

The solution is not to censor - it's to figure out how to scale better.

I don't see how you can call it anything else. There are transactions that we don't like, and we are discussing how to ban those transactions from happening.

The natural state of the bitcoin network is to have a competitive fee market with consistently full blocks. This is the only way the network will stay secure once the block subsidy is near zero. Whether those blocks are filled with regular transactions or ordinals is irrelevant to the rate of growth of the blockchain. And a quick Amazon search shows an 8TB hard drive for less than $100, which will take decades to fill.

The variable in question is placing a limit on OP_RETURN data. Ordinals do not use OP_RETURN data; they put their data within the witness.