Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 22. (Read 9235 times)

I just want to be clear that POS is broken, selling broken security assumptions. Their core developers threw the best part of their network, the Proof Of Work.


OK, it's "distorted" caused by many unsustainable ponzi schemes that operate in the Bitcoin network that's making fees surge temporarily? It's that the point you're making? What's the difference between that and the varying demand for onchain, censorship-resistant transactions? During months of high demand, should that also be considered "distorted" too?

the twitter user super_testnet thing is about making a transaction with no satoshi input and no satoshi output. thus the inscriptions are not linked to any satoshi's at all. putting the inscription count off compared to how many are inscribed to satoshis(caseys ordinals policy(failed idea) is to be attached to satoshis)

but as shown in many examples in this topic. there are many inscriptions that dont link to intended satoshis anyway
its more of a show that caseys projects are broke and dont fit his own rules. firstly by not linking to expected/promoted satoshis(the fail thats been around all along).. but now also not linked to any satoshis at all

casey could fix it as its more of a explorer count error by counting inscriptions to non sats. (fix: his explorer can ignore non sat tx), but he would be fixing a scam thats broke by other fails. so if its broke beyond repair from the beginning via many problems of math/logic/economics, any fix is just trying to make turds shiny by only counting certain turds

..
another thing to think about is that we are now seeing transactions not even transacting satoshis. and just dumb memes/json/data/text in dead weight area of witnesses

so now super_testnet's transactions would become spam by injecting alot of transactions with no sat transfer at all

also super_testnet is trying to get people to set it up by making three transactions to set up a 'off by one' spam
first one its to fund a utxo with 10ksat. second is to create the zero sat output which makes the fee of second transaction 10ksat. (~90sat/byte) third transaction is to spend the zero sat utxo to another zero sat output with a inscription inside it

the thing is that the second setup transaction of 10ksat fee then pushes the average tx fee up if lots of idiots spam this scheme
you may have noticed this week the average fee's went from <$3 to >$9

what do you think now franky? https://twitter.com/super_testnet/status/1654212346171064328
looks like casey's software had a little bug in it that allowed someone to inscribe a satoshi that didn't even belong to them or something...
i'm sure he's hard at work coming up with a fix so people can trust that their monkeys will have static inscription numbers. after all, that's important right?

Well, you're of course right that Bitcoin and Ethereum are the safest blockchains, and in Ethereum the cost/security equation is worse, but I actually pointed to some Bitcoin-based alternatives which would be more accepted by even the "maxi" community (OP_RETURN based tokens, Taro ...).

But I believe the cause of the distortion is related neither with "security" nor "cost". The distorsion comes from the high prices the Ordinals fans mean to be able to reach with their speculative action. Even if only a tiny minority of early adopters will actually really earn money with these BRC-20 memecoins, a lot more think they could make it, and thus pay these enormous fees (Seriously, who wants to own a coin called "DICK", a 10-year-old kid? Is that really a "public" they should direct their marketing efforts to, so much money to make with kids?). Thus the high expected prices weaken the disuasive power high fees otherweise have.

Eventually the BRC-20 users will conclude that it's not worth anymore to transact that much with Ordinals derivatives, at least at this level. But they will have congested the network for weeks (maybe months) and that's not exactly good for other BTC use cases, it even may drive some businesses out of BTC.

This could happen again every year or so with another fad or hype, be it memecoins, NFTs, new kinds of DeFi, derivatives etc.. And Bitcoin with decentralized sidechains and a highly liquid LN would be better prepared to deal with that.

I so love to see the tweet happen.  Ordinals bring so many problems on ordinary users.  They said they are a good project because they add more rewards to the miners but the problem is Bitcoin community isn't just miners.  I agree miners keep the network secure and flowing but users are the ones keeping the economy alive.  Without them miners can't sell their mined Bitcoins.  It should be balanced out and kill any application that gives more harm than good to the Bitcoin network.

blackhatcoiner. you are just echoing your forum wife.. for once please try to have an opinion of your own

EG realise the very odd/rare opreturn tx over the first decade did not affect the network, it rarely happened it didnt cause fee attacks fee wars, nor clog up the blockchain to any large extent..

but this ordinals crap of v1 v2 v3 DO affect other users. do affect fees do affect the network
can you learn the difference between the scenarios

also opreturn ascii art was not trying to be a NFT
also opreturn junk data wasnt trying to be a ICO coin


its like the occasional random email about some promotion is ignorable. but when you receive many junk emails about the some SCAMMY promotion it becomes.... SPAM

get it yet

---

ethereum is pretending to be a popular network offering more functionality. but when you check the market prices of ethereum. they do not have their own market discovery (random prices of spot market) instead 99.98% of the time the ethereum market is just shadow tracing bitcoin. because ethereum ha not wider community of independant price discovery
ethereum tx fee are high becasue people are not just moving eth. they are creating ICO's and $50 is cheap for the scammers trying to create a ICO which they want to value at billions

trying to suggest bitcoin fees should rise because stupid other network has high fee's is not a good idea/reason
think about all the countries around the world where $2 a tx is more then a whole days wage

thing about your own silly scripts your forum mother passes you. she loves telling you that its ok for monkey pics to take up the space of 2000 payments. but not pay the fee of 2000 payments
yet then say that people that want to use bitcoin for actual bitcoin usage. your forum-mom wants to tell you everyone else has to pay more to let the monkey pics remain

and now the game is to not stop the json junk but everyone else has to pay more. due to 50% of blocks filled with their crap

what you are not realising is your forum mom wants people to use other networks, he is not a bitcoiner. she is a sell out to whomever will sponsor her. she for years has not liked people using bitcoin, she has even said years ago how she didnt want to see "coffee" value purchases seen in bitcoin.(days wage for the unbanked)

raising fee's and delaying transactions by allowing junk makes people become peed off with bitcoin and move to other networks. EG africa and asia will end up using other networks and avoiding bitcoin.. your forum mom wants this to happen. she doesnt want people, especially the unbanked using bitcoin for bitcoin use.

if you keep following your forum mom/dads scripts you are just as bad as them. you start becoming an altnetter advocating and advertising other networks

I believe not. Nothing has been "distorted" because the users who want to pay more to use Bitcoin, are paying more because of the security assurances. But I heard that using Ethereum is more expensive and sometimes has fees that surge to $50.00 - $80.00 per transaction, and it has less security/settlement assurances. That's not "cheap", and a $50.00 transaction fee in Bitcoin is cheaper than a $50.00 fee in Ethereum.

Somebody on Twitter just broke Ordinals:


If this is to be believed, then that should make the dispute obsolete. Now anyway, I believe everybody here is unanimous about BRC20 tokens being a pile of hot garbage.

Are colored coins spam, in that case? Such transactions don't just transfer bitcoin solely. Is OP_RETURN spam since it creates another purpose for the transaction? What about transactions that create an output to the same destination as the input? In practice they don't move bitcoins at all, but the protocol understands this as transaction. Unless we count mining fees as part of the transaction, which in that case would make every Ordinal transaction a "real" one.

For the millionth time, every transaction byte should be seen as equal with any other given that it follows the protocol rules.

No, that's the thing. These are not tokens, this is all fakery which means they insert some data into the chain and call that a token. That's all. The rest are normal transactions that don't even have the spam data! They just transfer bitcoin just like any other transaction.

The line is already drawn. It is not about the content, it is all about the purpose.

Any transaction that is not made with the sole purpose of transferring bitcoin (and nothing else) is spam and should be prevented. But we all tolerate other transactions as long as they are done through the defined and accepted methods like using OP_RETURN. This is because these transactions don't harm the system but when anything comes along that is exploiting/abusing the system that's a different story.

After all Bitcoin is not a decentralized cloud storage...

Because of the ordinal that developed NFT in Bitcoin, many micin tokens entered into the Bitcoin blockchain, one of which was the hype, the meme pepe token made into the BRC-20 ecosystem, although basically it was still in the experimental stage but this would be bad and contradictory. with bitcoin that is meant by Satoshi.
What I am afraid of is in the BRC-20 network or in the blockchain Bitcoin becomes a pile of pictures and garbage tokens.

Sumber

I can agree with that. I have said this once before in this thread or another Ordinals thread, as to why Bitcoin did not follow a similar strategy to what Ethereum did. Being, the media and content being uploaded to an external mechanism (in Ethereum's case, IPFS) instead of writing the data directly on-chain.

My only argument against Ordinals being an exploit is that even though there are those who are paying to inject arbitrary data into the chain, it can be further proof that Bitcoin is resistant to attacks. Of course I agree with you that introducing Ordinals was opening that door by the core team themselves rather than the door being opened by an attacker.

My theory is that the change was pushed with the interest of miners...who are receiving a massive amount of profit from the fees being spent on creating Ordinals. I do wonder about how Ordinals will effect Bitcoin in the future and hope that there is a brighter side to this feature that we are currently not seeing.

If we are being honest, I reckon not much people in this forum have used it or know how this really works to have the right to teach anyone what to think about it or judge it.

In any case, for the people who do not know anything about Ordinals, there are resources on the internet that might be helpful to learn more about this first and argue about it later hehehe.

https://docs.ordinals.com/

https://domo-2.gitbook.io/brc-20-experiment/

https://brc-20.io/

The problem I see here is: The whole Ordinals hype distorts the incentive structures.

Normally, for meme tokens you should go for the cheapest option (i.e. the one which uses the smallest amount of blockchain space). I think currently (if you really, really insist to use the BTC blockchain for that) that should be something Lightning-enabled like RGB or Taro. But BRC-20 is probably even less efficient with space than the oldest coloured coin protocols, like EPOBC.

But people don't care ... as Ordinals started the hype, everybody and their grandpa is now trying to create the ultimative meme tokens with the silliest of all token protocols (but it's Ordinals! that's cool now!) and get rich quick.

The problem is thus not "that the godly right to transact cheaply" is broken. The problem is that the whole incentive structure is vulnerable to disruptions due to purely speculative fads which do not provide even something better technically (i.e. incentives for a better token protocol).

Fads come and go, but there should be mechanisms to limit their impact. As I wrote in other related threads, I'd not go for censorship of certain kinds of transactions, but for things like sidechains (I proposed a decentralized Stacks fork) allowing to reduce fees in those circumstances and to let speculators and "normal users" happily coexist. If any fad disrupts fees, then you could simply move the coins you need in the short- to mid time to the sidechain, and then the Ordinals hypebois can do what they want, you'll transact cheaply anyway - and when they're finally broke as the fad waned, then you can move them back. (Lightning of course works, too, but it requires much more technical expertise if you don't use a provider.)

unless you include monkeys in the definition of "hyperbitcoinisation" then no they are probably not.


well i think people that use bitcoin as a way to transact by sending money for products/services or just sending money to a friend. that's what bitcoin was originally designed for. people like that have a right to complain if fees are unreaonable. people that want to inscribe monkeys to the worlds most secure database really don't have that same right to be complaining. are they? that would be ironic because people like them are the ones that caused it to happen in the first place right? 

I think these images weren't posted yet.
I saw a triumphal tweet lately:



While I am happy for this, correlation is not causation, and probably all these transaction are not the effect of hyperbitcoinisation:



Of course this is causing a terrible raise in fees, and a lot of complaints by those who think it is a godly right to write cheaply on the world’s most secure database.

when people say an actor is on TV they do not emphasize that the actor is actually sitting ontop of a 60inch LED tv
they mean he is displayed within the tv screen

transactions when said are on the blockchain. does not mean they are above or a new replacement next gen thing to the blockchain. they mean its in the blockchain.

however idiots try to emphasize certain things as being the upgrade, the 2.0, the next gen, the evolution. the above thing, the replacement when they mention certain crappy schemes as being "ontop"

services/apps of a operating system are not ontop as in the next gen operating system
domains are not ontop of a TLD
not all technical things or buzzwords use ontop. however idiots love to over use the ontop when it suits them to hype up scammy things

ordinals is not a protocol or a useful/true value feature of a protocol.. because the promise/description does not match the parameters. they dont follow logic of math/economics/transfer proofs to be something of a useful protocol or system or program
at most they are a broken pretend feature.

I think about the "utility" narrative and more "growth" to the Bitcoin network, this might be a valid point and why a spike in Bitcoin transactions might be important this is indicative of increasing demand for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, potentially causing a rise in their value. This demand can be driven by a variety of factors, including increased institutional adoption, geopolitical tensions or market speculation.

Also, the growth of the Bitcoin network could lead to increased adoption of related technologies, such as smart contract platforms like Stacks you said. As more people use Bitcoin and related technologies, it can help build a more robust and decentralized financial system.

This is not investment advice, but for traders, it might be a Golden Opportunity to participate in a little shitcoinery. Bitcoin transactions are surging, and probably are currently surging more than during the last bull market. This could be made into a narrative that Ordinals brought "utility" and more "growth" to the Bitcoin network, making Bitcoin-related Smart Contract Layer builders like Stacks' tokens also surge because "there's demand".

doomad yet again you are looking like an idiot. your latest script to promote continuation of spam due to santa 2014 is another fail on your part
people were not spamming every block with ascii art. satoshi didnt not spam every coinbase with political statements

it was not a big deal because their occurances were rare and devs thought it was not at a intolerable level of spam to be worthy of dealing with.

realise that what is happening now is spam because they are doing it in every block its becoming a problem that is affecting other users.
yep its a spam attack. rather than a random act rarely

no one cared when it was a couple tx a year.
it becomes a problem when its in every block taking up space that could have been used to fit in several other peoples actual payments of real bitcoin utility

i do laugh though how you want the scamming and bloat to continue because you think no one complained of the rare events of a decade ago.

there is no comparison to those rare events and whats been happening in 2023
go learn whats actually happening and stop trying lame excuses to find ways to think of to make it seem like the spam attack should continue and not be fixed

yes people put junk on the blockchain rarely. but not to the extent of 4mb of junk so no one cared.
yes people put junk on the blockchain. but not to the extent of every block so no one cared.

its now a problem. thats gone beyond acceptance

..
i know you are trying your hardest to pretend to be american and wanting the american dream so lets word it like this

guns are not a good thing. they cause damage
but when 99.99999% of people dont abuse guns affecting their community every 10 minutes. guns are tolerated
but if everyone started shooting every day. killing off normal daily activity in their neighbourhood. then guns need to be dealt with


that christmas art in 2014 did not cause a fee war of fee rises it didnt cause any controversy.
compared to whats happening in 2023

and one last thing.
i know your not smart enough to actually do research to find the ascii art example. your not that kind of person to spend time looking for things.
so whomever it is handing you examples of things for you to then use as part of your scripts. tell them to get a better job. and then get a better job yourself

---

now here is some reasons why the spam needs to be handled
unlike santa art in 2014, ordinals:
takes up more space per block for non bitcoin purpose
the content causes negative effects on all bitcoiners
the content is a demonstration of a scam.

and here is the main point
much like the fears of putting illegal porn on the network, having a scammy pretend ICO within bitcoin makes bitcoin fall into the jurisdiction of the SEC wanting to stop scams, boiler room investments, etc... meaning they are more likely now to want to stop bitcoin functionality.
luckily so far ordinals are just a couple idiots spamming. and not a wide community of duped victims actually buying the scam. but if it became a thing of mass idiots getting scammed buying this crap. it would lead to alot more pressure on the SEC to limit bitcoin utility. (blacklisting more coins. getting exchanges to stop accepting bitcoin at the extreme)

these ordinals are an entire different scenario compared to santa 2014 ascii art