Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 10. (Read 7771 times)

Your premise appears to be that any kind of data storage, unrelated to transactional data, isn't a valid use of Bitcoin.  But I'm not convinced developers see things in such black and white terms.  I've certainly seen some developer discussion relating to the standardisation of data storage, but I don't see any particular push to restrict it completely.  Perhaps the patches you're referring to weren't the correct format in which devs were looking to support data storage. 

Is it possible you might be working under the assumption that devs want to prevent data storage because they made those particular changes?  If so, I think you might be misinterpreting what they were looking to achieve.

Being part of the consensus rule doesn't mean something is not a bug or exploitable. Read my two examples again, they were also part of the consensus rules and yet they were bugs in the protocol that could have been exploited.

You can call it an "exploit", or a "bug", or something else, but from the network's viewpoint those transactions followed the consensus rules, paid the fees, and miners are also incentivized to include them in their blocks because of that. You can have your opinion about what it is, but that's merely what it is. An Opinion. But if removing the "exploit/bug" gets community consensus through a soft/hard fork, then OK. Fork accepted.

I disagree because we're talking about an exploit not "use case" and we've been doing this for always and this is literally the first time the Bitcoin community is showing resistance against fixing an exploit in the protocol! Nobody ever called any of them "censorship" nor where they ever worried about it starting "a dangerous path"!

For example before SegWit soft-fork in 2017 you could exploit the protocol by abusing the dummy stack item in OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) ops to inject an arbitrary data to the chain. After the fork, this exploit was patched and such transactions are invalid now. Same with the conditional ops bool that is popped from the stack.
There are also countless examples of how we prevented a lot of different exploits through standard rules that we've already covered a thousand times such as the limits on OP_RETURN outputs.

Don't take it offensively, but let me stop you there. Because of its permissionless nature, the Bitcoin network is not merely a "payment system". "Our" use case doesn't have to be "their" use case. Satoshi may have wanted to design a censorship-resistant "payment network", but it doesn't look like it's its only use case.


OK, then let's agree to disagree.

It's worth to remind you already can create NFT/token on LN using either Taproot Assets or RGB protocols. But using sidechain should be better option since you could avoid creating any transaction on Bitcoin blockchain.


IMO it's mostly not technical issue. If they still prefer using Bitcoin to create NFT even though it has slower confirmation time and far higher TX fee, there aren't many other option.

Also note that for example chapter seven from the whitepaper, called "Reclaiming Disk Space" is still not applied on the Initial Blockchain Download stage, which means, that Satoshi's conclusions, expressed as "storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory" are not fulfilled, because you still have to download more data, than "just block headers". And also note, that we can get there gradually, for example by applying "just synchronize signatures-only" first, and see how that approach would be received by the community, before going further.

Also, the current model, where you have to download everything, is one of the reasons, why you cannot increase the size of the block by too much. Because then, you can get beyond verification time, which means, that blocks would be produced faster, than you could verify them. However, if anyone thinks that having bigger blocks is a good idea, then improving Initial Blockchain Download is the first step to get it done (and also other simplifications are needed, to not allow people for uploading videos, which could remove all advantages of higher on-chain transactions per second ratio).

I don't doubt those many ways of shutting this "attack" - according to your opinion - down. I'm asking actually HOW? Those are valid transactions that paid the fees/followed the consensus rules. It's a very dangerous path for the community if shutting it down gets consensus. Because that would start a cycle, in that, another group of people could also complain about some other use case and demand that it should be "shutdown".


That's the "what", not the "how". How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?

...but just above, in the previous post, I described you exactly, how.

You know, what is "SPV proof", right? If you have for example a block header, then it takes only 80 bytes, no matter how big is the block behind it. And the same is true for Ordinals: they are hidden behind a single P2TR address, no matter how big they are, when you spend them, and reveal them on-chain. Which means, that you need to point at some 256-bit value on-chain, to prove, that it is connected with your data.

But: that's not all. By doing OP_RETURN, and adding some 32-byte data push, you would reveal, that some kind of commitment is there, and your transaction is not "only a payment". However, if you tweak R-value of your signature instead, then you don't need any additional bytes, for example inside OP_RETURN. Then, you just make a regular signature, using any address type, and just replace one signature with another, which can be used to also prove, that some data is attached into it.

And when it comes to technical details, then they were mentioned by Anthony Towns on the old mailing list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-November/022176.html

And then, if you just replace one signature with another, you can put the whole SPV proof on your own chain. Then, if one on-chain signature will commit to the whole chain of your choice, it will be sufficient to get it covered by Bitcoin's Proof of Work.

Also note, that if you need to put your commitment inside your output, instead of your input (for example if you want to put that in the coinbase transaction), then you can use exactly the same trick, because it works everywhere, where you can encounter any valid public key.

Edit: Also, if you want to understand it better, or preserve some kind of backward-compatibility, then in practice, you need only a small modification: just spend your Ordinals by key, not by TapScript. Or rather: spend them by key on Bitcoin, and spend them by TapScript on the separate chain, made just for Ordinals.

There are different ways of shutting this attack down, one of which is through the Bitcoin protocol. One way would be for those backing this attack to stop supporting it and the centralized market where the Ordinal scams are taking place to be shut down. After all those attacking bitcoin are accepting the high fees because they can have a chance of making some profit from those scams.
With the incentive gone, the attack would stop abruptly.

i agree! but there's only so much people with their obscure software on ordinals would be able to do if say the ordinals.com website stopped being maintained. and not many exchanges supported ordinals nfts anymore. but is that the type of position someone would want to be in who paid alot of money for a monkey to have to download the ordinals software from github and run a full bitcoin node just so they can see their ordinal? at that point, i think some people would give up.

sure! burn them to a usb stick or save it on google drive for easy retrieval.



This is Inscription 68649697
https://ordinals.com/inscription/bb4735a5dba97c95de4a50c25e28c1938651b3b76d0a910c869572212f035575i0

That's the latest ordinal as of this time. So there's more than 68 million ordinals now. And they're still minting stupid images like they were in the very beginning. nothing has really changed from that perspective. it would seem.

10 years is a long time to have an account here. congrats. counterparty, unlike ordinals, looks like a very well designed thing based on that thread link you provided. casey could take notes. 

They truly could, but because they're currently doing it in Bitcoin, and it can't be stopped - unless there's community consensus to hard fork and upgrade the network - then it's better if they're given the ability to use off-chain transactions, no? It might give the Lightning Network a new sort of utility. Dick pic and fart sound collectors don't want to pay for high fees too.


How?

Exactly. Imagine how better the situation would be, if a new chain, made completely from scratch, would contain only Ordinals data, and just some SPV proofs, that a given data is connected with a given Bitcoin output. And then, that chain could actually execute all kinds of contracts, without asking Bitcoin developers about it, and could allow for example new token creation, without bloating the Bitcoin UTXO set.

Edit: Even better: instead of timestamping each and every Ordinal separately, one transaction per block could be used to timestamp the whole chain for Ordinals! And if you look at some proposed sidechain designs, then they are exactly like that: one commitment in the coinbase transaction per block is all that is needed (and I think it could be done even less frequently than once per block).

Or better yet, if they actually want to develop anything and not just scam people they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want and stop exploiting the Bitcoin protocol

But no one actually said BRC-20 = Bitcoin. BRC-20 is merely meme shitcoinery ser. BUT because "Runes" are stored in UTXOs, it will give these etched "Runes" a feature to make it liftable to the Lightning Network. It might have solved its own problem if the fees are high. Runes developers will build a solution to the high-fee-problem and utilize the Lightning Network. If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!

Oh but I guessed he already knew this after all but  still yet continued probably because he knows that he will milk out some ignorant folks who probably will invest in anything related to bitcoin because there are so many options like Ethereum, Solana and the likes that may allow this project or better creating its own blockchain for this.
anyway many have goals which are birthed from their own lusts or greed

Like being said earlier people go  crazy for anything relating to Bitcoin but sadly they will come to know these BRC-20 is far from bitcoin itself

Binance probably believes that their resources should be invested somewhere else because OKX has a dominant position in Ordinals, and soon, the Runes market. I did some due diligence, and I believe that during its surge, the BRC-20 token ORDI had the most volume than all of the combined volume of Solana's NFT market. That was only from one asset.


Give it the benefit of the doubt and read it. Haha. Runes is not merely an upgrade to Ordinals, it's a new protocol for shitcoinery on top of Bitcoin.

"Balances are stored in UTXOs, which could be locked in HTCL", https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1774613900119699701

The Lightning Network may have found a new sort of "utility".

That would require a hard-fork and fundamental changes in Bitcoin and its principles so that it is changed from a currency and a payment system into a token creation platform! Something that will never happen.
It is like going to a bank and trying to convince them that they should also serve food and become a restaurant on the side!

Oh, I didn't see this question the first time around. In 10 days, it will mark the 10th anniversary of my account on the forum, and in about 10 weeks it will mark the first time I made a non-standard Bitcoin transaction, which was the creation of a Counterparty token (actually I had probably made trades on the Counterparty DEX even before that, but anyway).

Counterparty uses mainly OP_RETURN to store its data which is readable only by an external protocol (akin to Ordinals, except much more developed, secure, and blockchain space-friendly in every way imaginable). Some larger Counterparty transactions use multisig outputs, which are actually spendable.

I shared my short thought on this post,


Besides, i expect there won't be many people would take risk following trend of Rune when Ordinal popularity doesn't last that long.