Fees reaching 2018 bubble times, mempool.space site is useful to see this in graphical form. To me this seems like it will be used by Blackrock et al to push another hard fork war that's supported by fiat gateways, this is quite predictable actually, it's the only reason they would allow an ETF to begin with, TPTB wouldn't allow it if it wasn't to control it or at least attempt at doing so.
As far as Ordinals, I don't even know what are those but from what I've read is "NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain", that was enough for me to not read any further.
Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 4. (Read 9163 times)
Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?
Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.
Quote
Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...
https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world
Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From what I heard and read in the article, it doesn't just front-run the brc-20 in the mempool, it changes also the mint amount to 1 which spoil the whole transaction. (Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong)
From the article: "The Sophon was activated on October 3, and text-based inscriptions plummeted 72% to 13,700 from 49,000 the day before..."
Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.
it says in the article that the bot lacked funds to operate around october 23rd which is when the inscriptions fees rose exponentially again.
So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...
It would be nice to see it be fired up as it would be a huge fee saver if it works. I suspect it does not work since the cost to run it was very small and why wouldn't someone cut a deal with its creator to run it.
Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?
Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.
Quote
Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...
https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world
Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From what I heard and read in the article, it doesn't just front-run the brc-20 in the mempool, it changes also the mint amount to 1 which spoil the whole transaction. (Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong)
From the article: "The Sophon was activated on October 3, and text-based inscriptions plummeted 72% to 13,700 from 49,000 the day before..."
Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.
it says in the article that the bot lacked funds to operate around october 23rd which is when the inscriptions fees rose exponentially again.
So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...
Anyone else heard of the Sophon bot that snipes brc-20 in the mempool and front-run them?
Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.
Quote
Looks like this was the reason why we had an inscriptions break last month...
https://decrypt.co/205377/a-bitcoin-devs-bot-bucked-brc-20s-now-he-might-share-the-sophon-with-the-world
Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Fricking Ordinals causing trx fee so high even at the weekend 
This is not "begin your own bank" looks like
I have been wait the whole week to transfer my btc, but if I do %20 of the amount will go to fee.
Stupid NFTers go FUS
This is not "begin your own bank" looks like
I have been wait the whole week to transfer my btc, but if I do %20 of the amount will go to fee.
Stupid NFTers go FUS
I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.
I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.
I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.
It is not miners. It users that insist on thinking that it is okay to move small amounts of btc.
1)Ban all btc sends under 0.0001 btc = foolish users not miners
2)ban all zero fee white listed trans actions = pool owners = very rich people that may or may not mine commerically
3)make 0.0001 the smallest fee possible
If you do the three above things would change, but scrypt's 12x blocks per hour edge will still exist so small fee small value sends will always work better with scrypt.
Quote
I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right?
You asked specifically about block explorers, so you got an answer related to that. But yes, you can run some full node, or SPV node, and not use any block explorer, and it will work fine.Quote
So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.
Congratulations, you just noticed, that Ordinals are not about ownership at all. They are all about cloud storage, and pushing data on-chain. No ownership is enforced. If you upload the Bitcoin whitepaper, it doesn't mean that you "own" it. And if you take some existing image, owned by someone else, and change one pixel, or even upload a copy, without changing anything, then you are still not "an owner" of this image.Quote
I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.
Yes, but note that if you are a miner, then you don't need to run a full node. Which means, that miners in centralized pools, just receive 80-byte headers, and they simply hash it, without thinking how big the real blocks are, and what is inside. Because guess what: in centralized pools, miners cannot change the blocks they mine, because they have to produce it in a way, enforced by pool operators.
I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.
I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.
I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.
Quote
How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?
https://ordiscan.com/Quote
How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?
https://ordiscan.com/
Did you forget about my other question? How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?
Because the host (BTC blockchain) offers immutability, that's why.
Good luck finding another host like that...
Alright, of course you can't find such a fat host to milk it for so long, that's the whole point of being a parasite. Now that we are talking about immutability, tell me can we see the addresses owning ordinals on blockchain explorers, worldwide? I mean how can I show off my special sats to my friends if they wanted to verify my claim?Good luck finding another host like that...
Sure, it's inconvenient to have high TX fees, but I consider ORDI a temporary fad. It will last a few weeks/months at most.
ps: I don't give a shit about Ordinal NFTs, just like I don't give a shit about Mona Lisa (physical NFT). I don't care about "art".
Other people do care though and they're willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. To each their own.
Because the host (BTC blockchain) offers immutability, that's why.
Good luck finding another host like that...
Alright, of course you can't find such a fat host to milk it for so long, that's the whole point of being a parasite. Now that we are talking about immutability, tell me can we see the addresses owning ordinals on blockchain explorers, worldwide? I mean how can I show off my special sats to my friends if they wanted to verify my claim? Good luck finding another host like that...
I would not be so quick to call ordinals the issue.
Ordinals are simply what is being used to make the fees higher this time.
Until you make btc as easy to scale as scrypt there will be an incentive to jack the fees on the btc chain.
and LN is not the best answer.
read how fees were jacked in 2017
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-miners-need-to-mine-on-a-pool-that-pays-them-the-tx-fees-2634505
and see the largest pool right now is foundry which does not allow you to join unless you are at 20ph.
I can see them prepping to jack fees without using ordinals.
they have a relationship with bitmain and with riot.
the combined size of the two main pools foundry and ant pool is over 40%.
they can simple repeat what I describe in my thread.
making sure big players are on foundry and moving the high fees to them.
make sure smaller players are on ant pool and using that pool to flood the memspace.
No need to have any ordinal to do it.
Basically attacking ordinals is trying to prevent murder by restricting guns. people will use other weapons to do it.
What's the best solution in this case? What do you think? If I remember it well, you have never answered a question of mine: Why is not increasing block size solution to bitcoin transaction fee problems? I simply can't understand what's wrong with this. It's simple math, block size limits number of transactions included in each block and on average, 1 block is mined every 10 minutes. So, when we create more transactions, fee is going up because there is a high demand but not enough supply. If we increase the block size up to 4MB for example, it will be a good deal. It's not 2009 anymore, as technology progresses, I think minimum requirements should progress too.Ordinals are simply what is being used to make the fees higher this time.
Until you make btc as easy to scale as scrypt there will be an incentive to jack the fees on the btc chain.
and LN is not the best answer.
read how fees were jacked in 2017
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-miners-need-to-mine-on-a-pool-that-pays-them-the-tx-fees-2634505
and see the largest pool right now is foundry which does not allow you to join unless you are at 20ph.
I can see them prepping to jack fees without using ordinals.
they have a relationship with bitmain and with riot.
the combined size of the two main pools foundry and ant pool is over 40%.
they can simple repeat what I describe in my thread.
making sure big players are on foundry and moving the high fees to them.
make sure smaller players are on ant pool and using that pool to flood the memspace.
No need to have any ordinal to do it.
Basically attacking ordinals is trying to prevent murder by restricting guns. people will use other weapons to do it.
By the way, why do people join pools that don't share tx fees with its customers? Why should I join Antpool if another pool offers me to share collected transaction fees with me? Why do people still join top mining pools? If these pools can flood mempool, then there is no simple solution and it's very bad for Bitcoin's future, this will make other altcoins more attractive.
Let's imagine there is a guy who wants to pay with bitcoins right now. Fees are stupidly high, so what will this person do? He/She will start looking for altcoins with low transaction fees or just will stick with fiat, you know. Bitcoin shouldn't kill itself! Maybe it looks different from your standpoint but that's what I think majority will do if we keep in mind the human psychology.
Quote
Why don't you ordinal spammers create your own blockchain and enjoy trillions of different types of data being added to your blockchain?
Because then, nobody would care. The goal of those spammers, is not to push Bitcoin development forward. The only thing they want is just P2P cloud storage.If you create your own network, then you have to run your own full nodes. But if you misuse existing Bitcoin network, then you are a free rider, who can reuse existing resources, to handle your traffic, and to process your cloud storage features, instead of processing regular payments.
Quote
Lets have it for core developers, for their outstanding protection of the host.
Well, there was quite long discussion between developers. On mailing lists, on GitHub, and in some other places. The conclusion was quite simple: they let Ordinals exist, because engaging in a regular war between P2P payment network, and P2P cloud storage, would only bring us some UTXO flood, and other, even worse things, which are not yet disclosed.I think developers will focus on standard payments first, and if they succeed, then Ordinals will die naturally. Because imagine that OP_CAT could allow a lot of things, including decentralized sidechains, and in general, it would be possible to sign any message with just OP_CHECKSIG. Which means, it could be possible to make commitments, and batch payments, while leaving on-chain Ordinals unbatched, and forcing them to switch into spend-by-key from spend-by-TapScript. I hope they will do that at some point in the future, if they will be forced to process their commitments off-chain, when pushing them on-chain will be too expensive for them to continue that practice.
I have been wondering lately, generally I do a lot of wondering.
Why don't you ordinal spammers create your own blockchain and enjoy trillions of different types of data being added to your blockchain?
I don't think parasites could understand or even be capable of finding a food source of their own, that's why they attach themselves to a host, and if the host doesn't fight back, they will destroy the host and move to the next one.
Lets have it for core developers, for their outstanding protection of the host. 👏👏👏 (sarcasm).
Why don't you ordinal spammers create your own blockchain and enjoy trillions of different types of data being added to your blockchain?
I don't think parasites could understand or even be capable of finding a food source of their own, that's why they attach themselves to a host, and if the host doesn't fight back, they will destroy the host and move to the next one.
Lets have it for core developers, for their outstanding protection of the host. 👏👏👏 (sarcasm).
Quote
HTLC used by LN
They should switch from HTLC to PTLC.Quote
and P2SH/P2WSH which reveal full script/all possible spend condition
They should switch to TapScript, and reveal only one branch, instead of all conditions. Also, in this case, if everyone agrees, then people can spend by key in most cases, and spend by TapScript only when there is some disagreement. But in general, the disagreement is expensive, and it is also a feature, not a bug, to encourage people to play by the rules, or pay for breaking them.Edit: Guess what: Ordinals always use spend by TapScript. Imagine, how better they could be, if users would always spend their coins by key, and reveal their Ordinals in a separate network. Imagine, how cheaper could it be. Imagine, how it would be possible to upload 1 GB, or even 1 TB, as a single Ordinal, without pushing it on-chain. But no, they spend by TapScript, so they use the most expensive way for no reason.
Quote
And i doubt it can merge transaction with custom spending condition.
This is a feature, not a bug. You want to compress transactions based on public keys and signatures, while leaving for example Ordinals uncompressed. In this way, regular users could have cheap transactions, while Ordinals users will still pay a lot of satoshis for pushing their data on-chain. Unless they will compress them in some way, but I doubt it. Compressing regular public keys in some aggregated signature is much easier than compressing some arbitrary data pushes.In general, Ordinals are incompatible with many protocols, for example CoinJoin or cut-through. But it is their problem, not mine. If users want to use protocols, that were not tested enough, it is their choice, and they should pay for their spam, while regular users should have a way to make their transactions cheaper.
Arbitrary data can't be compressed/merged that way, so i know it can't be helped. Although i also refer to other usage such as HTLC used by LN and P2SH/P2WSH which reveal full script/all possible spend condition.
Quote
In practice, there needs network upgrade with let such process happen non-interactively.
Yes, it requires soft-fork or no-fork upgrades. Some things can be deployed as a no-fork, for example if you have one-input-one-output transaction, then it should be signed with SIGHASH_SINGLE|SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY. And then, there should exist some SIGHASH_PREVOUT_SOMETHING, to allow chaining more than one transaction, without affecting txid. So yes, in the current state, it is half-baked, but I hope we will get there in the future. And I think if it will be done properly, then people will upgrade soon, because it will make their transactions cheaper.Quote
And i doubt it can merge transaction with custom spending condition.
This is a feature, not a bug. You want to compress transactions based on public keys and signatures, while leaving for example Ordinals uncompressed. In this way, regular users could have cheap transactions, while Ordinals users will still pay a lot of satoshis for pushing their data on-chain. Unless they will compress them in some way, but I doubt it. Compressing regular public keys in some aggregated signature is much easier than compressing some arbitrary data pushes.In general, Ordinals are incompatible with many protocols, for example CoinJoin or cut-through. But it is their problem, not mine. If users want to use protocols, that were not tested enough, it is their choice, and they should pay for their spam, while regular users should have a way to make their transactions cheaper.
Quote
Let's be real, 1GB blocks can't be compressed down to 1 MB and that's the problem.
You cannot do that in a general case, for all kinds of transactions. But for specific cases? There is no problem to do that in practice. Because of course, compressing 1 GB of Ordinals could be hard, if you want to preserve that data, and put everything on-chain. But compressing 1 GB of regular transactions, based on public keys alone? This is definitely possible. Why?1. Public keys can be combined. Schnorr signatures can show you, that you can have R=R1+R2. And in the general case, if you can express something as R-value, then you can use sum to combine it. And then, instead of having 100 different signatures, you can have a single signature, that will be equivalent to 100-of-100 multisig, on a given data.
2. Transactions in the middle could be batched, skipped, or otherwise summed up, without landing in a block. If you have Lightning Network, then you have one transaction to open a channel, one transaction to close it, and in-between, you can have 1 GB, or even 1 TB of transaction traffic, that will never be visible on-chain later, when the channel will be closed.
3. Transactions flying in mempools can be batched by using full-RBF. Which means, if you have Alice->Bob->Charlie->...->Zack transactions in mempools, and they all take 1 GB, then guess what: if you put Alice->Zack transaction in the final block, it could take 1 MB instead, as long as you properly pick the final transaction after batching, and protect users from double-spends. Which means, the whole state of the mempool could be confirmed in every block, even through commitments, long before it will be batched, and confirmed on-chain. That would protect transactions from double-spending, if nodes would handle that properly, and if miners would respect those rules.
But it's only on theory. In practice, there needs network upgrade with let such process happen non-interactively. And i doubt it can merge transaction with custom spending condition.
--snip--
Bootstraping would significantly reduce that time from days/weeks to hours . Do you mean using bootstrap.dat file? At least for Bitcoin Core software, it's slower than letting Bitcoin Core just sync normally.
Jump to: