Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 24. (Read 9235 times)

That's the problem. Constant NFT inscriptions will eventually clog up the BTC blockchain to a point where TX fees will become highly-expensive. This will force us to use an off-chain scaling solution such as the LN for day-to-day payments. BTC was never meant to be used as a "multi-purpose" Blockchain. For that, we have smart contract platforms such as ETH, ADA, BNB, and so on. Leaving Bitcoin solely for finance is best to prevent network congestion or adding security risks to the same.

I guess Bitcoin Core developers are going to need to work on another upgrade to help alleviate high TX fees for a while. Either that, or nodes/miners stop accepting transactions related to Ordinals inscriptions for good. Let's see how everything will turn out to be in the long run, as Ordinals rises on popularity. Just my thoughts

Well it seems that the "dick pics and fart sounds" have their own protocol now, called BRC-20: https://unisat.io/brc20/meme

Thing is, I think people are abusing the ERC20 moniker - The original specification was for creating fungable tokens, while everyone else seems to be interested in creating what everyone commonly knows as non-fungible tokens or NFTs, including this "protocol" where I can't even see the memes and GIFs directly.

Define "spam". I agree that dick pics and fart sounds shouldn't be stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, but to other people in Bitcoin Land, they're valuable "assets", and there's a market that validates that they are "valuable".


n0nce also made the same debate. To push Ordinals out to an off-chain layer like RGB, and I agree.

https://www.rgbfaq.com/faq/what-is-rgb

But there are users who want their assets secured onchain = in a "bank vault", not in a less-secure off-chain layer = a "cheap museum".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As always, going off-topic.

There is. People have the freedom to set the appropriate fee rate for a transaction to be standard. By default it's 1000 sat/kb, but I frequently notice nodes I connect with that have set this lower-- even 0 sometimes.

I can agree to an extent about bad software suggesting incorrect fee rates, but blaming politics and "spam vectors" (according to your definition of "spam") is silly.

I would have to strongly disagree that music is junk in comparison to an image of a drawn ape. I agree with a lot of what you usually say but I would have to say that a lot of the world would disagree with the general comment that "music is junk". All I am saying is that if you want to actually see the potential use-case of Ordinals and what would be valuable in the future, good music and true art would be it. The junk will need to come first.

I do agree with you that this is a step away from Bitcoin's use-case and that it was not done well, and at first I thought it was stupid to inscribe data directly onto the Bitcoin blockchain because of the data issue. However, if Bitcoin can scale to handle as much data as it needs to in order to support Ordinals and the unlimited amount of junk that could come with it, then this only shows yet again that Bitcoin is extremely resistant, strong, and can gain yet another use-case in the future. It's not the worst thing in the event that it doesn't actually hurt Bitcoin.

Don't worry bros, it's all gonna be OK. Some day you'll realize that shedding all these tears was a waste of energy. You just need a big hug as a reminder that everything is fine. The Ordinals Terrorists can't hurt you because they aren't actually real.

music is also junk

bitcoin has a purpose. much like litecoin, monero, other alts have different purposes. bitcoins purpose is not a data dump of random data. its about a proof of work system to lock transaction data linked to the proof of ownership and transfer of units called satoshis

the trojan backdoor exploit that allowed ordinals v2 to occur should and needs to be fixed. whereby each opcode should have a requirement/standard and be activated when needed rather then let any crap through unrestricted.

its not suppose to store music or memes or other mediums of exchange(transactions within transactions)

there WERE rules to reject non bitcoin related stuff. but those rules got relaxed/softened. anyone that adores soft/lacking of rules does not understand what code is or does or why blockchains were invented to solve a certain purpose.

There is one valid use-case that I am sure will one day be embraced by Ordinals - music. For now it is probably way too costly to inscribe a high quality music file to the blockchain, however once all of the junk is out of the way and Bitcoin becomes more scalable, I believe that is when we will see one of the truly viable use-cases of Ordinals.

There is a very large market share out there for this. Look into record labels and how much they take from artists. The artist usually takes home less than 15% of the profits that they generate in a record deal. If they use a streaming service, they'd be very lucky to take home 50% of what they generate.

When Ordinals for music are possible and there are projects catering for this need, the artist should be able to inscribe at a reasonable network cost, then sell direct and cut out all of the middlemen. This would be revolutionary for the music industry.

Until then...yes, we are in the junk stage.

guy lets clarify something because i see alot of people over use "ordinals" and then say one thing when they mean another

so instead:
ordinals v1 = first-sat scam in of itself alone
ordinals v2 = meme junk scam spam
ordinals v3 = brc20 junk scam spam

that way idiots can tell each other which version of ordinals they love and idolise and are still inducted in the delusion of thinking they are useful/needed. thus helps us teach them why they are being duped more precisely, and why they are junk more precisely

i see some idiots think someone is talking about the first-sat scam when others are talking about the memes. and then some are talking about the new brc20 when some other are talking about one of the other versions

There are loads of examples where we've introduced consensus and standard rules that prevented abuses and spams or made it extremely difficult:
- Block size limit set on very early days to be 1 MB max
- Limits on the size of coinbase script size to prevent miners from spamming the chain.
- Preventing people from abusing the lack of outputs' scriptpub validation to inject massive size arbitrary data to the blockchain by introducing standard rules
- Introduction of OP_RETURN rules so that people can use that to inject their data into the blockchain but under controlled rules
- Limitations on data size that can be pushed to the stack in scripts
- Changes in fee and dust rules a couple of times over the year with the price changing
- Setting standard rules first and turning them into consensus rules regarding the dummy data in OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) operations that could be abused to spam the chain like Ordinals does
- Same exact thing done with conditional operations' true/false stack item that could have been abused to spam the chain with junk
- Existing limits on number of OP codes, SigOp codes, etc. that a block can contain to prevent other types of attacks
- Limits on witness count and size for version 0 witness program
- Enforcing "empty stack" requirements after script evaluation ends to prevent junk data spam into the chain by abusing that (one or more junk data pushed to the stack at the end that will never be popped).
...

These are cases of the top of my head and almost all of them are abuse cases that are very similar to the Ordinals Attack.

It appears much of the people who were waiting for their payments in bitcoin had to wait for 2 days before it arrived in their wallets? I was also waiting for a payment and it arrived after 48 hours of waiting. It was not an important transaction, however, there might be other people who need their payments more quickly and might be forced to pay a higher fee.

In any case, this news article mentions the cause of the high fees. If there is profit in these activities, I speculate this might begin the transformation of bitcoin into something similar to Ethereum.



Ordinals notched a new record on Saturday as the protocol used for inscribing digital assets on Bitcoin—producing assets comparable to Ethereum-based NFTs—had its busiest day yet.

In April alone, the daily record for inscriptions made was shattered four other times. That included roughly 72,000 inscriptions on April 2 and 193,000 inscriptions on April 23, according to the Dune dashboard.

Source https://decrypt.co/138438/bitcoin-transactions-soar-as-ordinals-barrell-past-2-5-million-notch-daily-record

those are not monkey tokens

months ago i said the idiots dont even know what to use the dead weight area for but some point someone would use it to inject a coin within bitcoins blockchain with transactions within transaction which can ruin the economics of bitcoin..

well they tried. but again failed.
they are "tokens" of caseys new scam. a (pretend) brc token PRETENDING to generate 10000 brc tokens units, which again does not move within its braces or offers a in out within its braces. he again has missed the entire point of things like proof or ownership and proof of transfer
these braced text things stay in the input of their creation. they are not attached to any output. thus wont move with any output

atleast now he is just wasting 56bytes instead of 4million bytes

bitcoin seems to be under some type of brc-20 token spam attack lately and i think monkeys are behind it. the entire purpose of the brc-20 thing is to make more monkeys in different types of places.  and do it cheap. like for less than $1.

https://ordinals.com/inscription/91be8aa1ea0035914fdc5d30707429238769a480f3e69b68e4314c0bd044c1c1i0

bitcoin always had sat precision. but the GUI only allowed transaction values of 0.01+ up until that point. there was no "rule" of fee amount until this point it was just GUI acceptance.
it was after this point where the GUI would display smaller amounts to resemble the underlying protocol. which meant they then decided to have a fee range stay at 0.01 for that era(political/human decision not protocol). and every few years as deflation occurred lower that by a decimal

and yes fees back then when 1btc was 30 cents, meant fees were $0.003 yep a third of a cent and from 2011-2016 they wanted to keep fee's below 20 cents by reducing the decimal fee range acceptable(up until about 2015 when the scaling debates started due to rising fees)

yep there was no "free market" fee structure from 2009-2015 so that goes against doomads other argument that bitcoin always relied on a "free market"of fees to control things. because the reality was that the fee market was controlled and adjusted to meet demands/requirements via dev politic decisions

much like even now underlying protocol measures fee in sats per kb meaning a 1sat per kb means most tx can be 1 sat. but its the user interface, politics and other spam attack vectors and silly meme bloating that pushes people to be spending $2 a fee instead of low cent amounts

Until version 0.3.21, client required to pay at least 0.01 BTC as fee (as standardness is concerned, of course), to avoid flooding the network with low-value transactions. In v0.7.0, transactions with zero-value outputs were considered non-standard. Somewhere later on dust was introduced. When OP_RETURN was limited to 80-bytes, it was also for the same purpose.

It was frequently updated to "kick out spam", but it let the user client decide what's spam. It was never enforced as consensus rule, probably because you can't and shouldn't enforce rules based on personal ethics.

"dust" - rejected
transactions of other altcoins broadcast on bitcoin network - rejected
double spends - rejected
complete random data not in a tx format - rejected
opcodes requiring valid signatures where random data was not a signature related to requirement -rejected
[etc] [etc]

but then they started adding in HUNDREDS of opcodes(op_successxxx) IN RECENT YEARS with no set requirement and activated by default rather than activating when requirements are set for a code and consensus is reached to show acceptance of using such.. meaning people due to the softening of consensus, can use those opcodes to add junk unrelated to witness proofs/signatures/scripts. because those new opcodes which ordinal meme spam is abusing is using opcodes that have no requirement of structure/utility/function that proves a payment

and if you want to now rebut about op_return acceptance
you need to realise that they actually dont like op_return abuse and dont want it sitting in utxo and chainstates
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/280a7777d3a368101d667a80ebc536e95abb2f8c/src/script/script.h#L539-L547

Name a Bitcoin version when the code was updated to "kick out spam".  I'm not convinced that's ever happened.  Why did we collectively not deem it necessary to change the code on any of the prior occasions people have spammed the chain out of greed or malice and yet suddenly it's imperative that we do so now?  Where are you drawing the distinction?



Tell that to satoshi when they embedded some text in the genesis block.  That wasn't a transaction.  Should we kick that out too?  It's not a black and white issue.  Again, there's a line to be drawn between 'fair use' and 'abuse'.

What has kicking the spam out of Bitcoin to do with your freedoms? You are free to fork and/or make another altcoin for that purpose. Leave Bitcoin for bitcoin.

Says the person who constantly breaks the forum's rules by derailing near enough every topic he's ever entered.   

And you still can't name the rule that has been broken.  Not just because you're an illiterate numpty who misinterprets every last thing he's ever read, but also because no rules have been broken.  Ordinals may not be within the spirit of the rules, but they are technically legal. 



I think about consequences to freedom, whereas you only care about control and taking away the freedom of others.  You certainly don't think about anyone other than yourself when you try to impose your Stalinist police-state political views upon Bitcoin and its userbase.  Bitcoin will continue to resist narcissistic, ego-maniacal dictators-in-waiting.  If enough users disagree with Ordinals, then something might change.  My suspicion is that a larger number of users would prioritise freedom over efficiency, but I could be wrong, so we'll see what happens.  But nothing is going to change as a direct result of crankyfranky crying like a baby again.  So please spare us the waterworks.

OK, I believe I understand your point of view. That in The Ordinals Theory, Casey Rodarmor merely invented a set of "imaginary" rules within Bitcoin to "govern" the numbering system of satoshis, which isn't truly enforced by anything except that Casey's "rules are the rules". Is that right?

It still doesn't change the fact that Ordinals transactions are still valid transactions that follow the consensus rules at the protocol level.