Topic: Finally Bitcoin Devolpers planning to kill Ordinals and Inscription - page 9. (Read 1715 times)

Inscriptions, Ordinals, NFTs - they are all information that can be stored in the blockchain one way or another.  Even if you successfully convince every node of the network to censor them, it will not take much until they start looking more like regular monetary transactions.


Who decides what is unproductive?  And since when do transactions need to have "productive nuisance"?

This is not arbitrary. Satoshi created Bitcoin to be p2p electronic cash. De-facto it's used as a speculative investment or store of value. Most of users are not interested in Bitcoin also being a network for smart contracts, tokens and other unnecessary stuff.

Bitcoin is first of all a community of users who agree on the same rules. It's time to update the rules to remove the unproductive nuisance that is driving the fees up for all users.

I don't buy the slippery slope argument, because if someone thinks that the network rules should never change, they can just run the old version and form a network with like-minded users.

There are more people affected by Ordinals and Inscriptions, people who manage or participate in signature campaigns paid in BTC in Bitcointalk is only small part of Bitcoin users.

The more affected people are people who are spending money for those inscriptions and tokens of those BRC20 projects. They soon will lose money and we know in cryptocurrency market, losers are more than winners. They are joining this wave with FOMO and if they don't have cold mind to leave at the right time, they will stuck and lose money like what happened with GameFi, NFT, Metaverse tokens and their NFTs.

This comeback wave of Ordinals is really annoying and troubling for normal Bitcoin users and I wish the developer and community team will reach to a consensus to prevent it to happen. Recent months, miners are happy and they will feel disappointed a bit if any change happens that cause lower mining income for them.

Inscriptions, mempools and miners.

The title of the topic is a bit misleading.

What Luke said is that they will work to correct a vulnerability that allow inscriptions to bypass extra data limit configured in the Bitcoin Node software.

That means that if the inscription contains data that is bellow the limit configured in the nodes, they will be relayed and mined, if they pass the size limit, they will not be relayed by nodes and therefore will have lower chances to be mined.

The idiots that create Inscriptions have an option, though. They can negotiate with miners to increase their group limit size and relay between themselves until that miner/mining pool finds a block and mine their shitcoins/shittokens.

-------

What that implies is, if most of the nodes set an extra data limit very low, it will prevent Inscriptions from been relayed and mined, but that would be a choice of the majority node runners. And that is amazing, cause that is how it should work.

If the majority of node runners organize and configure their nodes to avoid Inscriptions, that's it, no discussion, the network came to consensus and decided.


Miners do have heavy weight in those kinds of decisions, node runners throughout the network also have. If node runners decide to lower their extra data size limit, but miners keep their limit high, it would still increase the difficulty to Inscriptions to be relayed and get to a miner.

-------

Bitcoin Blockchain space is scarce enough for serious Financial transactions and real world settlements, artificially increasing mining fees with these spams only make things more difficult and noisy. The solution proposed by Luke in his post is too soft, in my opinion a more radial proposal should be raised to avoid kids playing with Blockchain space, otherwise the purpose of Bitcoin is at risk.

There is no efficient second layer solution for micro-payments yet, the mining fees as they are now is prohibitive for people to loading their Lightning wallets without paying 10$ to get some money in there.

I think those idiots exploiting the blockchain and Taproot to create shitcoins and shit tokens and shit 80's looking images should be blocked as soon as possible and Bitcoin used for its main purpose which is to be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

I saw this news before reading this topic and one thing that came to my mind is, who is this user of X who said we fixed this issue in version Knots v25.1? How much of him makes equal to the word Developers as in plural form. He is a single due, isn't he? Just asking for a friend  Other than this, it a good news for those who don't like ordinals in the first place even many other people hate this upgrade because they were making hundreds of dollars by minting free ordinals and by trading in them.
I did not know about the ORDI dump fully but this must be the main reason behind it if there is any dump in ORDI, but why only in ORDI tokens, there are many other BRC 20 tokens in the market why they are not dumping or they are?

If things go well good then this spam will be gone and we will be back to normal rates but will it affect the price of BTC or not? Because most of the people are not selling their few Satoshie due to high fees which means more satoshies are on hold and not in the market but once the prices are lower for fee then those people prefer to sell those few satoshies in no time and supply might increase but the amount would be too low to impact the market overall.

This has been a major issue right from the beginning, and this issue is just for those who still don't want to realise that all this NFT, ordinal, and any form of token that could be generated as a result of this is just value based on the hype that the creator can be able to give to it; it's really not worth it, but yet people find it convincing to invest millions over a piece of work that really doesn't have a real value attached to it just because they are called NFT or just because they are under the bitcoin network does not make it valuable.
 
Very soon, many people who are rushing to buy and hold these ordinary tokens will soon be crying out loud, just like those who are already filing a lawsuit against CR7 for the NFT they bought due to its being promoted by him.

I see nothing much different in this censorship from centralization. If censorship is the only option that could be used to defeat this ordinal madness, then it's not an option at all, as it will make bitcoin not different from altcoins, which are centralised and holders funds can be frozen withheld or whatever word could be used, but it means users not having access to their funds as a result of it being censored.
 
We now have someone to decide if our coins are clean or not, and if they don't like it, they can just block it from passing through. That will really be the worst mess up for the bitcon network, more than what the ordinal is doing right now.

though Luke JR is a core dev. he was never considered the "blockstream crew" he always was treated as a sub contractor/sidelined when things he proposed didnt meet the "core roadmap"

so although luke JR has code in his own repo (knots) this does not mean it will be integrated into core.

many things luke proposed over the years got rejected by core devs. not due to bad code. but simply that it doesnt follow the roadmap path the blockstream core devs envision for bitcoin

so dont take this as a celebration. its just a side promotion that people may want to use a different brand of software.. but we all know everyone just uses core no matter what features another full node brand offers. and we know the main core dev team will use the lack of using knots simply because its not core.. as the weak excuse to then say they wont add the code to core because they will say people didnt use knots so no one wants the feature.. even though people dont use knots no matter the features, simply because its knots and not core

A week ago F2pool were censoring OFAC-sanctioned transactions, and the community was strongly against it because the BTC network should be censorship resistant and not pro-censorship like fiat and centralized coins. If we were against that, why should we be in support of censorship now, i think that is double standard. My stand on ordinals is that they are bullshit, but nobody in the network should be able to tell another person how they should use their coin and the network too, because the BTC network is permissionless.

discussions about ordinal elimination on the network have long been carried out in this forum. many members respond with their disapproval of the ordinal that spam network and make fees high. but there are also those who reject this action because they think that ordinal is a form of decentralization of the bitcoin network and prohibiting their transactions is unfair.

but it seems that bitcoin dev began to take serious action against ordinal activities in the network and things like this were highly appreciated by the community. the decision made by this developer can reduce congested on the network and reduce fees and it can affect the use of bitcoin going forward. hopefully this decision will be implemented as soon as possible.

Wow. Just wow. Look at the multiple people in this thread cheering for censorship.

Ordinals are stupid. Inscriptions are stupid. NFTs are stupid. I consider all these things a method to move money from lots of gullible newbies to a small handful of people who successfully convinced these gullible newbies that such nonsense is worth anything. However, we absolutely should not be censoring transactions.

Spam is subjective. What if a bitcoin dev turns round tomorrow and declares all your signature payments spam and wants to censor those? Will you all still be cheering for censorship then?

Allowing individuals to start arbitrarily passing rules to censor some transactions is absolutely not what bitcoin was designed to be. If you want your transactions to need approval from third parties, then go and use fiat.

you do realise bitcoin used to have a "priority formulae"
you do realise that legacy transactions are rated at a higher fee than segwit/taproot per real counted byte

you can actually code rules whereby instead of 'if legacy, then feerate* 4 "  you can "if opcode range x-xxx are used, then feerate * 200"
their by only penalising certain transaction formats..
mining pool managers would love it because then they will only add junk if junk pays 200x more

similar things have been done before(as hinted) and can be done again
thats the great thing about code.. code creates rules and fee policies.. its not voodoo magic of human expression

Some have paid more than $10 as transaction fee during the course of these ordinals challenge, but the fear now is that if the whole thing about these ordinals  not have a future implications on the security of the bitcoin network, we should see it this way if not that they have just concluded in achieving their aim of introducing a bug to the network to attack bitcoin nodes and later to then accept the complete removal of ordinals from the network after which they are done with their attack unknowingly to everyone, let's keep on with what's going to happen not until then.

I agree it would be beneficial for us if the unnecessary transactions that are congesting the blockchain were removed. It seems that some individuals are simply utilizing the blockchain to take advantage of the popularity of Bitcoin. Due to the high fees associated with Bitcoin transactions, some may be discouraged from using it. I wonder if people would still be interested in joining Ordinals or Inscription if they were on a different blockchain.

Ohh this is very much needed! Thank God it is finally happening! This ordinals are non-sense and just clogging the network with useless transactions. This madness has to stop.

But I am sure miners will oppose this proposal. Because of ordinals, miners are making more Bitcoins from each transactions. Not sure how they will be compensated. It's a bigger matter to solve.

Good, it’s a nonsense spam attack on the network. Go & fork off, do it on their own blockchain. We don’t need that nonsense in the serious commodity sector. People will say it’s censorship but ordinals are a waste of time & they negatively affect people who are trying to better their lives by using an alternative to traditional finance.

Nobody sets or fixes tx fees in the BTC network, the fee rate rises when the mempool is congested, so you have to outbid other users for a space in a block, and it falls when the mempool is free, so collectively the community sets the fee rate.
That is not how it works, you cannot make one set of people pay a higher fee than others. There is the fee rate in the mempool and i already said how it rises and falls, as for individual fees, any user can decide what tx fees to attach to their tx, but to get your desired priority, you must use a corresponding fee rate in the mempool.

The Lightening Network has really shown to be a successful Alternative, Since it enables users to establish channels between parties and carry out transactions off-chain without having to wait for confirmations on the Bitcoin network, . In this way, you avoid paying expensive transaction fees and also avoid having to wait a long time for your transactions to be confirmed on the network. It is undoubtedly a pretty great alternative for dealing with the issue of excessive TX fees.

Don't eliminate it but just raise the tx fees and make it much more expensive for idiots to perform BRC20 transactions.

I'm not a programmer so have no idea if that is technically possible to do but if it is then it will significantly reduce this kind of activity while also keeping the miners happy,
with the benefit of reducing the network congestion and lowering tx fees for everyone else doing normal NON-BRC20 bitcoin transactions.

I do not think that the miners would agree to this proposal as they have seen a good increase in their revenue.


Why would anyone try to reduce their earnings when they know they are making good money before halving? I agree that Ordinals and Inscription are spamming the network but if miners are happy nothing can be done about them. I feel it is the time when there should be another fork of the Bitcoin blockchain.

This is not new. Bitcoin developers know how to solve Ordinals and Inscriptions issue and we have discussed this before on this forum when BRC20 surfaced.

Miners are making money from transactions and to solve this, a proposal might be proposed. If proposed in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, did you think that miners will agree? Remember that miners have their own nodes. I do not think any mining pool will agree to this when they are making more money from transactions.

I will also say that bitcoin developers can look for alternatives means to solve this issue of transaction fee because Ordinals makes the use of bitcoin blockchain to widen. Some people that do not like the high fee are the ones that are now complaining.