Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 13. (Read 7771 times)

Hey honestly it seems like a great way to solve the problem when you read it but its not that simple. There will be some sort of bug fix on this, eventually, in probably a couple of years time or something as the demand for ordinals increases etc. I am honeslty so pissed that I didn't get set up sooner and get in on that ordinals rune airdrop. Those flipping ordinals are starting at a floor price of like 4k, its just stupid. I feel stupid for having talked about doing it for so long and still yet again not following my better judgment and following through with it. Ugh. Need to get in on it. If anyone wants to drop me some runes send it to your boy tread93 lmao here is my ordinals addy     that I literally just made because I put it off for so long: bc1pz89d7xccj2klp4fw8777g9yhfg56cv8sgqn5jl0gcwhuzfepgjds09y3cs   

Why exchange Bitcoin to a shitcoin? Merely they're followers sold their Bitcoins for a forked-shitcoin that's forked from a forked-shitcoin. It proved how naive people can be. Plus by HODLing BSV, they are losing units in Bitcoin.


Or merely stop using Ordinals, which is merely a system made up in Rodarmor's head, and use a more efficient system with better architecture, no? Because if users truly wanted to store and secure their dick pics in the blockchain, it's better to use Bitcoin Stamps.

There is something like this in the works - I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread - and it could explain the reduction in Ordinals-related activity. The inscription part will still have to take place on-chain but in theory the ordinals themselves can be moved around in some kind of off-chain, second-layer mechanism, akin to Lightning. But the main reason they are doing this isn't to help anyone out, its so they can pay less fees when making ordinals transactions. Win/win situation nevertheless.

For some strange reason it keeps going on for months and months since last year...

Maybe because some of these guys behind Ordinals/BRC-20 are actually OG Bitcoiners who jumped to the big block camp (BCH/BSV) and keep burning incessant amounts of BTC?

Not everyone exchanged their BTC stash for BCH/BSV... some people kept both after the forks happened.

I'm assuming from the viewpoint that capital is limited, and Bitcoin = Capital. They either run out of capital first by doing expensive on-chain transactions, or they are going to start to do it more efficiently and cheaply off-chain.

Plus I believe we could also assume that that many of "those" users want cheaper transactions as well, and that they would accept the trade-off of having lesser security to have cheaper transactions.


There "could" be some entities that "could" use Ordinals as an attack vector to spam the blockchain, and make it congested. Good luck to those entities, and let them burn though their capital. The miners + a small group of people will make money, 90% will not. It's simply not sustainable plus it proves that the system works.

That's assuming that's what they want. 'They' being the creators of Bitcoin blockchain bloat and spam. I don't think they are interested in moving their activities off-chain. I am ready to be proven wrong, though. I think making the Bitcoin blockchain congested is one of the goals, aside from tricking a big enough crowd that the inscriptions have a value. They are trying to prove a point by saying, you didn't want a bigger block size, so enjoy our Ordinals on your low-throughput network.   

An off-chain layer for NFTs, with Bitcoin as the settlement layer, will be actually be the most ideal conclusion for the "Ordinals Drama". It's going to be more efficient, cheaper for users, and developers could actually build "trading" apps using them because transaction throughput will be higher. Plus from a technological/development standpoint, building off-chain layers might be a learning experience for the developers, the actual users, and the general community.

Hear me out: Ordinals on Lightning.



No of course they're different. One is a L2 solution for moving around BTC and the other is a L1 solution for moving around satoshis of artificial importance.

why? what is your reasoning behind this statement

They're the same that they were developed and built on top of Bitcoin without permission, BUT they are not the same thing because they technically function differently. The Lightning Network was built to give users another way of sending/receiving Bitcoin, and doing it cheaper than on-chain transactions. Although it has many critics, it's trying to solve a problem.

Ordinals? It isn't for the science/development of new technology, it's an inefficient way to use the network, it isn't trying to solve anything. What it's good for is shitcoinery/"trading" assets denomonated in Bitcoin to "maybe" make some profit in Bitcoin.

I'd say 10KB, following limit of script size which used before Taproot exist. Although it won't impact BRC-20 while Ordinal already have protocol which split arbitrary data into multiple TX.

Aside from what @ pooya87 said, Ordinals encourage people to store all data on-chain, while LN generally only store initial and final state of the channel on-chain.

Oh my mental wellness, I'm so worried now

That is not entirely correct.
For starters Ordinals is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. So it is not doing anything to those statoshis despite what the advertisement says.
Secondly because blockchain is an ordered database (it is a chain) with a timestamp, those satoshis already had a unique identifier attached to them with that timestamp and the block height of the block they're included in.

That is why I categorize Ordinals as an attack; it is exploiting the protocol. By the way OP_RETURN was never limited at the protocol level, you can have a perfectly valid transaction with an output that is as big as it can be (to fill an entire block). It was and still is the standard rules that is preventing OP_RETURN from being "exploited" to include arbitrary size data in the blockchain. Something that was lacking in the SegWit change and got exploited by this attack.

There is a flaw in this logic. Bitcoin should not and is not supposed to do everything and solve every problem. Read what the creator of Bitcoin says about this. If you want to create a token, use a token creation platform. They are designed to do exactly that in the right way not in a weak off the main chain thing that can work however the owners and controllers of it want.

They are not even close.

In LN with all its shortcomings, you are sending actual bitcoins to your channel on-chain and then use that exact bitcoin in another layer to make any number of transactions you want with others who have done the same and at some point if you wished to, you can settle the final balance on chain again. It all depends 100% on what is happening inside Bitcoin and every single script in that process is part of the Bitcoin protocol, validated and enforced by the decentralized network of nodes and the security of this second layer is ensured by security of Bitcoin.
LN is also an actual network where you can run a node (as a peer) and enforce the rules of this network. In other words you know what the protocol is and you are enforcing its rules which can not change arbitrarily by some centralized entity.

That's not even close to what happens in the Ordinals Attack. In Ordinals you are just injecting an arbitrary data into the chain, and that is arbitrary data, not a script, not a token. Then there is a centralized database somewhere else where you can trade something they associate with this arbitrary data in a protocol they've defined, control and can change if they wanted to.
Ordinals is not a network, there is no node for you to run. You are not a peer in this system, you are just a user of this centralized database. It is not even linked to Bitcoin the way it may look like. In other words if Bitcoin ceased to exist right now, LN would cease to exist too but Ordinals may not!

If you want to compare Ordinals with anything, you can compare it with Tether.
You inject an arbitrary data into bitcoin blockchain using OP_RETURN. There is this other centralized protocol that is only enforced and controlled by the company (iFinex?) and can change if they wished, your Tethers can also be seized by that company at any time because it is centralized. There is also no node for you to run as a peer, you are just a user in that network.

Ordinals and the Lightning Network should be viewed as the same thing.  Supporting one and not the other is hypocritical.  I'm not saying they aren't both garbage, I'm just saying it has a fundamental importance that they be treated the same.

+1. More about it: https://wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/#high-fees-will-solve-spam.

Gotcha! In effect then, this offchain protocol is really the one which will check a utxo back to it's coinbase tx. For in doing so, it can determine the ordinal range of the utxo(which is the part considered static)

The data is actually stored in the witness data, but when the utxo is move, like crafting a normal raw tx, there is no need for the data... so in effect the size of the tx becomes standard in regards to the inputs/outputs as normal( rather than the hijacked data in the original)

👍


I'm actually quite surprised he didn't make SchiffCoin, that way he could have complete control over the project from the ground up. Maybe its because its sounds a bit too much like "Shitcoin".