I didn't realize it at the time, but Monero's tx_extra field is nearly unlimited in size [1].
This has recently been taken advantage of to implement ordinals on Monero [2].
Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 19. (Read 9515 times)
I didn't realize it at the time, but Monero's tx_extra field is nearly unlimited in size [1].
This has recently been taken advantage of to implement ordinals on Monero [2].
I don't think BTC will ever adopt MimbleWimble (it would require a hard fork), but I guess you can have a look at BEAM.
The only drawback of MimbleWimble is that you have to be online to receive money.
The only drawback of MimbleWimble is that you have to be online to receive money.
@tromp: Very interesting, thanks! So Monero was "hacked", too ... d'oh. I'll try to investigate further how MimbleWimble coins achieve this spam resistance, and if there's really no way for a tx sender to "leak" information about previous transactions, for example.
(Ah, and to those who still think Taproot is the culprit ... Doge has some weeks ago implemented "Doginals", completely with "legacy" methods - they have not even Segwit afaik. So no, Taproot wasn't necessary at all for this to work.)
(Ah, and to those who still think Taproot is the culprit ... Doge has some weeks ago implemented "Doginals", completely with "legacy" methods - they have not even Segwit afaik. So no, Taproot wasn't necessary at all for this to work.)
Is that so? https://monerodocs.org/ Only monetary transactions are possible. Technically possible.
Monero allows embedding of arbitrary data (aka spam), though only a small fraction of transaction size.
Besides the 32-byte tx_extra field you can also put arbitrary data into each output stealth address (making it unspendable as a side effect).
Since each output must be accompanied by a rangeproof of 416 bytes for Bulletproof++, this amounts to about 7% of spam, but this percentage would increase by a lot if you aggregate all the rangeproofs of many outputs into one that's only logarithmically bigger.
The most spam resistant chain is probably Grin, allowing only a few bytes of spam [1].
[1] https://forum.grin.mw/t/ordinals-on-grin/10336/2
I didn't realize it at the time, but Monero's tx_extra field is nearly unlimited in size [1].
This has recently been taken advantage of to implement ordinals on Monero [2].
Meanwhile, on some Grin clone, attempts to store data on-chain have failed miserably [3].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/11xvi03/comment/jd76w83/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
[2] https://mordinals.gitbook.io/handbook/how-does-it-work
[3] https://forum.grin.mw/t/public-transaction-data-is-a-huge-risk-vector/10426/14
Plus there will be developers who could debate that a feature was discovered.
well i doubt that would be a believable argument. they would have to do better than that. and explain why they hid it in the first place.
...
Technically if there's no vulnerability, then it's not an exploit, and if it's not an exploit, then it's not an attack. At the very least again, it's debatable. Plus there will be developers who could debate that a feature was discovered.
NFTs dramatically reduce the number of transactions confirmed per block.Technically if there's no vulnerability, then it's not an exploit, and if it's not an exploit, then it's not an attack. At the very least again, it's debatable. Plus there will be developers who could debate that a feature was discovered.
They increase the number of unconfirmed transactions, which has been high for quite a while.
Quote
2023-03-25T20:27:37.244548Z CreateNewBlock(): block weight: 3984936 txs: 485 of 49756 fees: 0.09462871 sigops 2187
Not sure why anyone wouldn't call that an attack and an exploit.
Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground.
History proves this to be fallacy. For example ICOs are widely known to be scams, yet they are not dead yet and people are still being scammed under the same name or alternative names (ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT).Every individual has the right not to learn from other individuals' mistakes and to lose money of their own. This alone doesn't make infeasability of certain ventures a fallacy.
They could prove useful to democratize Bitcoin, e.g. by letting people boycott sats from miners that employ policies they don't like.
That is called censorship, besides it has nothing to do with Ordinals Attack. You should try to first learn what this attack is and how it works.I don't care about the "attack". I'm just looking at the technical concept.
By the way, it's more accurately called "free market". People not wanting to buy products they don't like has nothing to do with censorship. The line might be thinner if we were talking about government authorities deciding about what to boycott and what not. But that's not what I'm talking about.
But using that concept to push for more content being put on-chain seems counterintuitive in presence of all the progress made to reduce the burden on the chain.
Bottom line is no matter how a small group of people swing this, Ordinals is an exploit since it is using it in a way that is should not be used, ergo it is categorized as an attack on bitcoin.Bitcoin's voyage away from central authorities and towards decentralization won't succeed if we arbitrarily judge transactions to be "attack" or "non-attack", respectively. The on-chain transaction protocol left plenty of open ends on purpose, so that future innovation is possible. This means that the blockchain will always also contain transactions that some users will find more useful than others.
But it is ok with those same people if the bitcoin fee is high for some other reason like mass adoption?
I don't know who these people are but they are just as wrong. In fact all the efforts in the past 7-8 years put into developing SegWit, second layer and even Taproot (introduction of Schnorr signature algorithm) has been to improve bitcoin scaling and its capability to handle a lot more transactions as the adoption increases. One of the results of these efforts is keeping fees low. The problem is not with the fee amount, the problem is with the reason for the high amount. Just like 2017, it doesn't sit well with users to pay a high fee just because someone is maliciously spamming the chain.
But it is ok with those same people if the bitcoin fee is high for some other reason like mass adoption? Isn't the end result the same? So why be happy and fine with it in one case and not the other? I get what you're saying but for bitcoin to be usable the fees need to be reasonable. Dare I say even small.
at least bitcoin is not like ethereum where the EVM will steal your transaction fee even if it runs out of gas and has to return your sending amount back to your wallet...
That's merely an opinion,
And that's your opinion because what I said is a fact.
Actually, no, and at the very least, it's debatable. But let's just agree to disagree.
Quote
Quote
but technically it's wrong because an "exploit" in computing is an actual attack that takes advantage of a vulnerability in a computing system. Ordinals is neither an attack, nor Taproot has a vulnerability. Newbies are reading our posts, let's not spread misinformation.
There is no vulnerability in Taproot, there is an exploit in implementation of Taproot that is in bitcoin core. The core devs either didn't foresee this attack vector or they saw it and didn't care enough to prevent it just like they'd prevented similar attack vectors in the past through standard rules.
Technically if there's no vulnerability, then it's not an exploit, and if it's not an exploit, then it's not an attack. At the very least again, it's debatable. Plus there will be developers who could debate that a feature was discovered.
That's merely an opinion,
And that's your opinion because what I said is a fact.today I tried to transfer around $70-80 and had to pay for it around $1.30 in fees
You should always report transaction fees in terms of "amount per size" instead of raw values and definitely never in dollar terms for it to be a clear and understandable value. For example right now the fee rate is between 17 to 20 sat/vbyte.if you compare that price for non-blockchain money transfer services like western union then i'm sure $1.30 is not outrageous for sending $70.
The problem is not with the fee amount, the problem is with the reason for the high amount. Just like 2017, it doesn't sit well with users to pay a high fee just because someone is maliciously spamming the chain. Just a little observation: this ordinals madness is still going on and it's going strong, today I tried to transfer around $70-80 and had to pay for it around $1.30 in fees which is a lot I think. It's around x10 from I'm used to pay for such transactions before ordinals. The worst part is that I feel I'm paying not the miners, not the Bitcoin devs but some random teen creating billions of monkey pics hoping to get rich quickly (and I can do nothing about it). That's a pretty shitty feeling if you ask me. 
if you compare that price for non-blockchain money transfer services like western union then i'm sure $1.30 is not outrageous for sending $70. we all want free but if you were using a non-blockchain service to send money what would you be willing to pay? when bitcoin gets past that then you know there's a problem. but i'd say $5 for sending $300 is not ideal but if it's an emergency then i guess it's ok for every now and then. but not all the time...
you're comparing things now to how they USED to be. those days are long gone if ordinals keeps up its pace. maybe it will but maybe it might slow down after a while but for sure it hits 10 million monkeys at some point and probably 100 million unless something is done to block the protocol.
Just a little observation: this ordinals madness is still going on and it's going strong, today I tried to transfer around $70-80 and had to pay for it around $1.30 in fees which is a lot I think. It's around x10 from I'm used to pay for such transactions before ordinals. The worst part is that I feel I'm paying not the miners, not the Bitcoin devs but some random teen creating billions of monkey pics hoping to get rich quickly (and I can do nothing about it). That's a pretty shitty feeling if you ask me.
Bottom line is no matter how a small group of people swing this, Ordinals is an exploit since it is using it in a way that is should not be used, ergo it is categorized as an attack on bitcoin.
That's merely an opinion, and I respect it, but technically it's wrong because an "exploit" in computing is an actual attack that takes advantage of a vulnerability in a computing system. Ordinals is neither an attack, nor Taproot has a vulnerability. Newbies are reading our posts, let's not spread misinformation.
Do I like NFT onchain in the Bitcoin blockchain? No. Do I support Ordinals? No. Do I think Ordinals can be utilized to attack the network? Yes, but let's not gaslight the people.
Bottom line is no matter how a small group of people swing this, Ordinals is an exploit since it is using it in a way that is should not be used, ergo it is categorized as an attack on bitcoin.
you and franky seem to be one of the few people that has a backbone about this issue and standing up against it so good on you pooya 
Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground.
History proves this to be fallacy. For example ICOs are widely known to be scams, yet they are not dead yet and people are still being scammed under the same name or alternative names (ICO, IDO, IBO, IEO, ITO, STO, DeFi, NFT).They could prove useful to democratize Bitcoin, e.g. by letting people boycott sats from miners that employ policies they don't like.
That is called censorship, besides it has nothing to do with Ordinals Attack. You should try to first learn what this attack is and how it works.But using that concept to push for more content being put on-chain seems counterintuitive in presence of all the progress made to reduce the burden on the chain.
Bottom line is no matter how a small group of people swing this, Ordinals is an exploit since it is using it in a way that is should not be used, ergo it is categorized as an attack on bitcoin. Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground.
until gullible people stop being made, there will always be someone wanting to sell monkeys to them. on bitcoin or any other blockchain. so far it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. probably it will hit 1 million monkeys before the end of summer. probably alot sooner! you can actually count the number of monkeys on bitcoin. you can't really do that on any other blockchain so people love that. Considering the ongoing dispute about the usefulness of NFTs, it might be more reasonable to establish a robust layer 2 smart contract platform and let people decide themselves whether they want to use it for NFTs or something else.
and where would the pictures of the monkeys be stored on this new layer 2 platform? you know, it's going to be really hard to educate people that have already been uploading monkeys using ordinals and loving it to settle for anything less than what they've been getting which is their monkey's stored on chain. ordinals hit the ground running and i just dont think anything could replace it especially if the monkeys are not being stored on chain... Well, I guess these things are kind of self-regulating. People spam the chain with monkeys until it becomes unusable. Price drops. People move on. Or more likely it won't go that far because before that, transaction fees bring people back to the ground.
Not saying ordinals as a concept are useless. They could prove useful to democratize Bitcoin, e.g. by letting people boycott sats from miners that employ policies they don't like. But using that concept to push for more content being put on-chain seems counterintuitive in presence of all the progress made to reduce the burden on the chain.
But this way they actually encourage ordinals, by displaying the image in the first place when other blockchain explorers don't.
Anyhow, money keeps flowing, they kept getting minted and services like the blockchain above keep encouraging it.
have to dyor, caveat emptor before buying those nfts so you don't get duped...
Not really the votes you imagined, isn't it? 6/6 and 2? Seems like the "we" is on its way to a minority.
Btw, I didn't vote in that poll since you simply asked the wrong questions!
I'm against banning ordinals, but this doesn't change the fact that I do believe they are some stupid monkey jpeg farts.
Btw, I didn't vote in that poll since you simply asked the wrong questions!
I'm against banning ordinals, but this doesn't change the fact that I do believe they are some stupid monkey jpeg farts.
Not sure what you mean. I didn't imagine any results as you're saying, I just wanted to find out what the situation is like. I don't want some fake, biased results I even invited ordinals fans to participate in order for the poll to be more correct.
Unfortunately, too few people participated so it's unclear so far what the situation is like in real life.
As to the "wrong" questions, this is my poll and I'm asking questions and I'm not sure why you're judging me? Create your own with "right" questions, I'll be happy if we'll get a clearer image of what's going on from that.
Jump to: