Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 26. (Read 9515 times)

No, we should call on nodes to reject spam transactions that are abusing the system and never relay such transactions. This is in accordance with the principles of bitcoin, the peer-to-peer electronic cash system and is against the principles of bitcoin, the permit anything file storage system.

Because it is permissionless, you have your right to an opinion on what the network should be used for, but a "feature" was found so it can be used for something other than intended, what right do we truly have to say  "no" in a censorship-resistant, permissionless system?

Are you proposing that the community should call on the miners to censor those transactions? That would be against the philosophy Bitcoin was built on.

Wrong.
First of all not letting people abuse this payment system that is supposed to handle money transfers is not against censorship-resistance or permissionlessness of bitcoin. In fact it is enforcing them. You see these concepts doesn't mean you should allow people to do whatever they want. Rejecting such attack transactions is also not new, there are dozens of tx types that we are rejecting. In order to keep the integrity of the system we need to do that.

It also doesn't need malicious actors to spam the network, the spam would take place naturally and ruin bitcoin as a payment system. Don't forget that it wasn't malicious people who used cryptokitties or buy any other shittoken on shitplatforms like ethereum!

 it's like someone said that for their "lifetime" plan, as soon as you hand over your money to them, you become their liability. you and your data. 

Sure, right now it's a market that makes no sense.  I wouldn't buy an Ordinal for the art or the non-existent current use cases beyond look at these pretty sats...  However, as someone who has supported a community organization plagued with issues by 3rd parties disappearing or changing the rules when they get into positions of control, I think that Ordinals are a possible solution.  A way for organizations to operate as 'collections' and distribute to supporters via the tracking of sats.  I could envision access to websites being granted by signing a message with your wallet containing sats that can be identified as passes.  I could even see a messaging or voting system setup around this.  It could be awesome, but it would bloat the blockchain for sure.  This is why I have been pushing for merged mined sidechains to handle things like this for a long time.  I think the space will get there, as it's the logical solution that would meet everyone's needs.  For whatever reason people don't support merged mined chains yet though.  I blame the focus of core developers on the lightning network.  Maybe this will have people taking a second look at what could be possible to achieve without bloating the blockchain.  I always thought blockchains would be more useful as gears than layers and I still believe that's where we'll end up.

Well, I still prefer the case with "very large transaction volume". However, it doesn't mean that every single transaction has to be executed directly on-chain.

And with NFTs, there were even proposals to trace single satoshis, by just tracing on-chain blocks, but to assign the content with signatures, instead of putting everything on-chain. You can cover a lot of cases with signatures, then touching on-chain coins is not needed at all, just signing them, and broadcasting signature to all interested parties, or even to some separated network, if you are worried about storage.

But even if there is a need to track ownership on-chain, then still, commitments are sufficient to cover that. Then, you can have Proof of Work protection, that can determine, who mined which NFT first, but again, you don't have to put the content on-chain, because you won't enforce the right order in that way (those Taproot-based scripts are huge OP_NOPs, they cannot enforce anything, they are used only for storage).

Again, it depends which proposal it was. Because there were cases, where amounts in satoshis were directly connected with amounts of colored coins, and that approach was simply wrong, for many reasons. If you want to create colored coins, then it can be simply done by using zero satoshis on testnet3, and then executing any non-standard script you want. And again, all other proposals mentioned above, with separate network, signatures, and commitments, also can be used here.

I can justify this little emotional burden of yours who's been here since the early days, but objectively speaking, peer-to-peer unstoppable cash is no close to bloating a network of computers with unnecessary information. We already have censorship resistant file sharing; it's called BitTorrent. This Ordinal thing proposes all users store all users' information instead, which is plain stupid and can't work in practice due to enormous storage costs. It's pretty clear to me that it's just quick profit.

Everything was so much better back then.  People supported each other and helped build on each other's ideas.  Sending BTC was cheap, hell, it was free if you knew how to create the transaction.  The community was positive and friendly.  Scammers hadn't yet infiltrated the space (for the most part) and people were here because they liked the idea behind Bitcoin and wanted to change the world.  In 2013 that started to change and by 2017 the community was so full of trolls and scammers that it's basically impossible to create any community projects here without being fudded to death and being extorted or harassed into leaving.  Damn I miss the good old days... 

I think if it were 2011 today, people would be trying to build on the Ordinals project, not trash it and say it's killing Bitcoin (think colored coins).  Negativity came with the expectations of profits as Bitcoin's price rose and the community is worse off because of it.

glad i found bitcoin in 2011, before all the drama stared to pile on. back then you just used it was meant: unstoppable payments.

consider:

if i had heard of bitcoin during the 2016 block wars well maybe i still would have had go at it but i would of had no clue and prolly fell for fud and bet wrong and lost huge. at that point i would have become biggest the most vocal no coiner you could imagine. FAIL

if i had just heard of bitcoin today with the nft crap i would have spent all of 2 seconds to say NOPE what kinda crap is a payment network that embeds cartoons in the blockchain. FAIL

but here we are.

now, bitcoin has survived worse and im (reasonably) sure it will survive this. but i must say im disappointment in the devs not anticipating how this taproot(?) thing could be abused in such a way as to actually SLOW DOWN monetary transactions by sticking images in it that take up valuable  space for actual transactions.

disclaimer: i know next to nothing about programming so maybe im being too hard on the devs.

If that's truly what you believe is the solution, then make BIP, and open the debate for the community to decide why, or why not. The network congestion caused by Ordinals will be coming soon. Although it will be a fair fee market, Bitcoin will be annoying to use as a network for payments, causing many users to go to those "faster blockchains".

i wasn't talking to you about that anyway, i was responding to pooya. but i guess the real question is, bitcoin "nfts" not withstanding, why do we need witnesses in transactions to be so large? got any answers to that?

there's a few threads on reddit about pcloud...

so that's why you think it's worth mentioning and/or recommending to others? 

i'm saying that i have considered doing it. not that i am asking other people to do that. for me it might make sense to do that. but i would have to plan what exactly i wanted to store first so i could make the most of my money. hard drives fail and have to be replaced.


expensive in what way? for storing one small text file under a megabyte?

Exactly. We now have a user friendly way to upload stuff that Craig Wright doesn't like (for example) such as the whitepaper.

If someone tries to ban a book from publishing? Upload it to the blockchain.

Computer software? Well provided that it is small enough, compress it with zlib, split into parts, and store on the blockchain...

---

At this point it's like someone tying to use Tor for streaming and their client gets banned from using it by node operators. Then people would run away from Tor because they'd think that Tor Network censors people.

But what you do, in the end? You refuse to relay a transaction you consider valid. If you were to refuse that, why do you accept it in the first place? And if you accept one as valid, why would you not want to relay it to the rest?

But is it, if there's really need for non-standard transactions? Miners can take advantage of this, and regular users who run a full node will not notice those transactions until they're included in a block; as a result, they'll set inaccurate fees.

You have to consider it valid, when it is placed in a block. However, even if malleability on standard addresses is valid, we don't have problems with that, because standardness is our barrier. And here, when it comes to NFT, the only way that will not invalidate someone's coins is non-standardness. Because any kind of consensus invalidation could block those funds forever, while non-standardness is only making it harder to use, but still possible (as we can see that some pool even decided to include huge transaction over 100 kvB).

So, blocking it on relay level is all we can really do, going further will cause more harm than good.

I don't think there's anyone to blame, because as I've already said there's no bug in the first place. This extra space some of us consider trash and others "NFT" is what's censorship resistance all about.

I don't know that, source? A friend of mine uses it without problems.

I can't believe you're really arguing someone should send their files to thousands of strangers' hard drives instead of just buying a hard drive themselves. I hope you can acknowledge the latter being more expensive to do.

It is some kind of censorship, but not actual. Actual censoring is when you don't consider x transaction valid due to personal reasons. The nodes don't work likewise. Not relaying is like saying "hey, I accept this transaction, but I don't want to give it to others", which is kind of weird, isn't it? If you have a transaction which you checked it's valid, why not wanting to rebroadcast?

Not really, because the only reason why we have 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte is that this is the default setting, used by most nodes. Releasing a new version with updated default fee settings will do the trick. It is only a matter of creating additional entry in bitcoin.conf, like "witnessfee=0.00004000", for example picking 4000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte will effectively remove witness discount.

Also, other options are possible, for example this patch: https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831
Note that there are users, which started banning nodes with such patches, because they consider it to be some kind of censorship: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html

Solution:

Push a network upgrade that increases the weight of Tapscripts, when calculating the Weight Units of the transaction.

Although in this form it would require a hard fork, maybe there is a node policy that influences the few calculation that can be tweaked specifically for bitcoin Core (it seemed to work for mempoolfullrbf, at the price of disgruntled hackers stealing the coins of a strong supporter dev).

Because Bitcoin is permssionless and censorship-resistant, I believe not all who uses the Bitcoin blockchain as a "cloud-storage" is attacking the network, ALTHOUGH Ordinals could open attack vectors for bad actors to congest the network, drive fees higher, while also being incentivized to do it to continue doing it.

Not really. Specially because of the amount of discussion around this spam attack majority of people should already know of its true nature. But I agree that devs should have done something about it already, as I've said many times before. The full node devs should have at least made such transactions non-standard at the very least.

well you're blaming the wrong people. take your finger and point it at the devs instead. you don't think they are the problem here but people that are just using a new "feature" in bitcoin? that's what 99% of the nft crowd thinks that its just a new feature that the devs put in...and you really can't blame them for using it. maybe you can not be happy with someone that knows it was not an intentional thing the devs put it to allow nfts but you really should blame the devs first and foremost. so if bitcoin fails it will be their fault. 100%.


they close peoples' accounts without any warning or explanation as to why and in some cases those people lost all their data so i don't think so. plus they don't even give a refund. but that's probably the least of those unfortunate customers problems at that point. 

there's nothing wrong with that but most people just aren't going to do it correctly. they'll back things up to a single hdd and hope for the best. but if it crashes then they lost everything. to do it correctly you need at least 2 hdd and you need a hdd docking station. it also seems that some hdd docking stations have a bad habit of just turning the hard drive into raw data that you can no longer read.  so i guess you're going to recommend portable ssds but those are not ideal for longterm storage...