Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 21. (Read 9119 times)

This news is always irrelevant. Binance should just offer their clients withdrawals based on the current estimated cost and time, like they usually do. They are just trying to "protect" their customers from paying high fees, which in reality isn't protection at all. It's usually just a CZ-based attempt to encourage users to withdraw via Binance chain imo. Nothing more than a selfless plug.

---

As for the current topic, have read a bit more into the whole "ordeal". I still see nothing wrong and only high demand. I get that it can be frustrating for average users wanting to make transactions to either have to wait or pay high gas fees, but if you're going to use Bitcoin, you should be aware that this can be the case. As I said before, otherwise use Lightning network. Ideally this will help drive further adoption.

Also on a selfish note the last month or so has been pretty boring for Bitcoin imo. This actually makes it more interesting in my opinion. Miners must be having a blast with transaction fees per block that have higher than the 6.25 block reward. I did used to think that it was possible that block rewards going so low could reduce hash rate growth over-time, so looks like this situation has removed that theory.

I shake my head in skepticism on this. Are they making it appear that there is something broken in bitcoin? What is their motivation for this? Despite the high transaction fees, there is nothing broken. I reckon Binance wants their users to bridge their BTC to WBTC in the Binance smartchain. I would not be shocked if this is the reason hehehehe.

Funny when the militant zealot who spams the forum with nonsense doesn’t see the irony when he bitches about the militant zealot who spams the blockchain.  I guess it's only a problem when it's not his little crusade.     

im saying brc is a dumb thing. and a broke thing and yes idiots do buy junk ICO/scams and such and will always hope their things they are financially tied to will continue even when people tell them its broke

im also saying separately super_testnet is proving ordinals is broke. but doing it with his own spammy way and doing it using high 10ksat fee's
read the twitter instructions where he says in the github that anyone wanting to join his army of brc number count breakers should do so by paying fee's of 10ksat..
there is no reason to need to pay 10ksat.. thus super_testnet is trying to prove a wrong by causing more tx fee drama

So you're saying these blokes are dumb enough to continue using a broken protocol?

How are they even trading this. All exchanges that are offering BRC20 should be boycotted.

he isnt breaking brc

brc is already broke he is just proving its broke by spamming the network with useless transactions to show a miscount in ordinals
his game is also a spam attack

he was making tx pay fees of 10ksat for a 1in one out tx.. averaging about 90sat/byte. which has helped push up the fee rates thus also being part of the problem

So at this point if super_testnet can find a way to break BRC20 then I'm sure he'd become an instant cult hero in the Bitcoin world for that. He liked the tweet I made asking him to do that so I have some hope this ad hoc measures will work...

I also sent an email to bitcoin-dev list asking them to (politely) get off their ass and do something about the mess they accidentally helped to create.


Don't care, I expect Binance to go down within 4 years anyway.

To add insult to injury:

Binance suspends bitcoin withdrawals due to network congestion...

I explicitly mentioned that anything that falls within the accepted methods of performing things can be considered not-spam. Colored coins and anything using OP_RETURN (regardless of my personal feelings) is not a spam.
You can't really compare that with the Ordinals Attack which is based on an exploit of the protocol though!

That would be true for an actual protocol that is also decentralized. When it comes to a centralized platform that is using an exploit to attack bitcoin, "breaking" is not even defined for it.

You can't use second layer if the primary layer isn't functioning well. In other words this will have the exact opposite effect since the cost of moving in and out of LN channel is also high.

Clearly some people want to see Bitcoin destroyed. Bitcoin is not a spam database...

Bitcoin's network is collaborative in nature.  Individually, no one has any control over anything aside from what's theirs.  You decide what you do with your funds and how you choose to transact, but you aren't able to interfere in how others do the same with their funds.  That's what makes it so powerful.  Many people have views on what Bitcoin "ought to be", but no one can dispute that primary tenet. 

Have a look at this post I made back in 2017, at a time when loads of people were screaming about a perceived crisis, but it was just a short-term drama and there was actually no real issue (much like how I see things with the current situation).  Everything worked out fine.  Those who didn't like the path we were on left and did their own thing.  Some then later came back when they realised their new path was dumb and we had it right all along.  Bitcoin carried on regardless.

Short version, unless a majority of those securing the chain come together and decide to change things, status quo remains.  Path of least resistance, etc.

If you only want to see financial banking transactions on the blockchain, why not use your favorite bank? There is censorship, a stable commission size and no anarchy - everything you like.

bitcoin ordinals are not really even visible on opensea. then you have this site called gamma.io but their volume is dismal: https://gamma.io/ordinals/collections
wherever the real selling is happening it's probably not on these two sites. and maybe it's not anywhere. which kind of makes sense. people can only be so dumb to buy monkeys and lose money and keep coming back and doing it all over again...

edit: here's more evidence of dismal sales volume but on magic eden  https://magiceden.io/ordinals

My bad, I should have clarified what I mean with "normal incentive structure", before talking about the "distorted" structure.

For me the ideal basic incentive structure, regarding transaction fees and transaction size, is:

1) The fees should incentive the users to save blockchain space.
2) As a derivative of 1, the following incentive rule would be ideal: users should transact on-chain only for amounts greater than X per kB. X measures value or purchasing power. This means in simple terms: The bigger a transaction is (in kB), the more value it should carry.
3) X is variable over time and depends mainly on the number of transactions others are sending. (This answers your last question: high demand for transactions in BTC is not a distortion)
4) Ideally, X is a low amount in dollars, taking into account that you can send about 5 tx per kB, its ideal value would be 20$ to 50$, but it should not be higher than ~500$ (100 $/ small transaction) because this would already harm some use cases.
5) For X it's irrelevant if the amount transferred is in BTC or in some other kind of "valuable thing". So I'm generally _not_ agains NFTs or tokens being sent on the Bitcoin blockchain. If it's really valuable, then it also can occupy space.

Taking into account part 5 of this little "incentive ruleset", what's the problem with Ordinals now and why do I consider it a "distortion"?

The problem is that X is temporarily different for "fad/hype tokens" like Ordinals and BRC-20 because the expected value of these tokens in hype phases is much higher than the "real (long-term) value", and makes think people that X is lower for BRC-20/Ordinals transactions. *

So they think they're incentived to transact on-chain because even if they pay high fees compared to the low (or zero) value of the tokens they're moving (or creating), they could generate profit with it.

If we could know the future and that Ordinals will be popular forever, then again everything would be fine: then Bitcoin contains incentives to be primarily a multi-token blockchain platform. Then the current value of Ordinals transactions would be their "real value", and X would not be distorted.

But I think this isn't the case. I think many of us suspect that the Ordinals pics and also BRC-tokens will have only a short lifespan (maybe a couple of months) and the peak of the hype may have been already passed. Once this becomes clear to the Ordinals community, the hype will collapse, nobody would like to transact anymore with these boring NFTs - and much less if the fees are high. (And something I forgot: Actually there's not really a point to waste fees on the Bitcoin platform if you could use cheaper blockchains which are also safe, other than the "hype value". Something like BRC-20 could be perfectly used on LTC.)

In contrast, BTC has a very long-term value proposition: to be a strong global currency on the world's most secure blockchain. So there is a permanent conflict between the relatively stable X value of Bitcoin and the drastically variable X value of "fad tokens".


*To look at the same thing in a different way: If people look back from 2030, for example, they will see a period in 2023 when people transacted on average a much lower value per kB (or per block) than at other times, because Ordinals will be dead a long time already and nobody would understand why they wasted so many fees for such low-value transactions. The same than if we look back to Ethereum in 2017 and the amount of space scam ICO tokens occupied.

i'm not so sure that's a good point of view.

some types of spam need to be controlled though. which is why they were never allowed in the first place.


have a little compassion. he wants to use bitcoin to send money. and not be price gouged over fees. isn't that what bitcoin was meant for? i guess not, if we go by your point of view.

i think it's fair to expect only financial banking transactions to be on the bitcoin blockchain. censorship or not. if you don't have censorship to some degree then guess what you have? anarchy.

i've heard so many complaints about LN that i stopped trying to look into what it is or what exactly it does. so please lets not discuss LN as a solution to high fees. 

Looks good to me. Hopefully will encourage more adoption of Lightning network or other layer 2 solutions with increasing cost of mainnet transactions.


Reality is that Bitcoin is a free market. As long as someone is willing to pay the satoshis for a transaction, they are as entitled as everyone else to it. Spam or not.


Actually the opposite is true. Doing nothing is in line with the consensus created over a decade ago, whether you like it or not.


You mean like censor transactions? That sounds like a centralised solution to me.

This is looking plain horrible:



See the blue disappear? Next it will be green, next yellow... You can check in that legend what is the price of those transactions...


Who is blocking who from doing normal bitcoin transactions? Are the devs still going to do nothing and allow this hostile takeover like nothing is going on?

Yes Bitcoin is for bitcoin, not spam. Doing nothing concedes the project to altcoiners and their centralized interests. Make it hard for spam, find the way, i know you can, but don't let this exploit grow more and more until its too late to do anything and the normal people (not spammers) are forced to emigrate to some shady altcoin, precisely their goal...

For a user who sends a dick pics or fart sound hoping to make a profit, this is also a financial transaction. And he paid the current actual price for its inclusion in the blockchain. This use case of the bitcoin network seems unusual to you, but this does not make it wrong. Don't worry, bitcoin has already proven itself anti-fragile enough not to break at the sound of a fart.

But that's the "problem" with Ordinals, some of those being built, and communities formed, might be incentived to keep "spamming" the blockchain because some users found out that dick pics/fart sounds are valuable, and they could make profit from them. It's not a real problem by itself, but it's definitely an inconvenience for users who want to use Bitcoin for financial transactions.

I don't understand what the problem is here either. If the transaction is confirmed and included in the blockchain, then it is correct, and if it was rejected, then it is not correct, that's all. Attempts to impose any other criteria for the correct use of bitcoin are laughable.