Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 17. (Read 7771 times)

I'm curious to read your opinion about this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63430508
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63430973

Freedom is nice and all, until it puts BTC into existential danger...

I did not say anything about destruction, but I do see signs of conspiracy. Bitcoin was not destroyed, and I can't with 100% certainty say that it's being attacked, but it's very probable that an attack is taking place. I could use your argumentation and ask you to show me evidence. Can you prove beyond doubt that there's no a attack?

The way I see it, something strange is happening because during the congestion people were willing to pay 10 times the fee needed for a first block confirmation and that wasn't 1 or 2 transactions where someone made a mistake. It was done on a hourly basis. Why would you pay $150 in transaction fees when $40 allowed for a first block transaction and $20 allowed you to get a confirmation in less than an hour? Since nothing happens without a reason and people usually don't like to throw money away, this was done to pump fees and congest the network. Who benefits from high network fees and news headlines telling people that bitcoin is stupid because it costs you $50 to pay while VISA fee is 2%?

2014 called and has questions about this statement.  Where were all your complaints then?  Are wedding vows in the blockchain an "attack", too?  

When I first read about people doing that, my reaction was "huh, that's kinda cool, I guess it's not just for money, it can do other stuff as well".  But now, almost a decade later, people seem to have suddenly decided against that outlook.  I'd argue, it's a bit late to be calling for it to stop now.  That ship has long since sailed.



Why do people keep saying this?  Embedding pictures and assorted crap was possible long before that.  Various crappy forkcoins which didn't implement that change are also full of images and junk.  There are numerous ways to embed arbitrary data into the chain.  And that's been the case since you first registered your account here.  You're at risk of beginning to sound like fruitloopfranky1 if you keep spreading misinformation like that.  Don't go off the deep-end like him, please.  

You could argue the softfork made it more cost-effective to fill the chain with crap, but it's a complete myth to say the softfork made it possible.

And the primary idea behind that fork is to improve throughput.  What's your alternative?  Would you rather developers didn't work on scaling Bitcoin at all anymore?  'Cause I hear a lot of bitching about this, but not much in the way of an alternative path to explore.  Tell you what, when you create a functional time machine, or crystal ball, and you can accurately predict in advance when someone is going to use new functionality in a way that was never intended, maybe then your critiques can serve an actual purpose.  

The same reason why sending a million requests to a website's server per second is not technically breaking any rules but it is an attack.

Just because you haven't seen it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist. We've been discussing this attack from the day it was created. Obviously regular users who don't deal with Bitcoin every day may not even be aware of the attack taking place and only find out about it when the severity of it has grown enough to affect them.

It's like that website that was being DDoS attacked for months but you only visited it after months to face the problems.

With that said, Ordinals is an attack because it is abusing Bitcoin which is a payment network not a cloud storage. Additionally this attack only became possible by finding and using an exploit in the protocol that was added through a past soft-fork.

But one thing is certain and we have to recognize it.
Something is not normal, there are so many transactions in which the rate is equal to or greater than the value transacted. Even more abnormal is that there are so many people who are not able to wait 20~30 minutes to take advantage of a rate of 50sat/vB for the next block, to pay double for low value transactions.
But then, everyone does what they want with the money.

I once heard a thief say in a commentary on his life: "The money that is easiest to get is also the easiest to spend."
And fortunately, many who are in the Bitcoin universe have made a lot of money with little effort. Therefore, it is easy to spend it.

First of all , to decide if something is an attack from someone you have to look at the evidence . There's no evidence connecting any of those entities with the "destruction" of btc . If there's any kindly point me to it , i'd be more than happy to change my view if serious evidence exist .

Second , if no rules are broken why is it attack ? For more than 6 months that fees were low and inscriptions were made most btc'ers were mocking and no one was talking about an attack . Now that it affects their pockets it has become one ?  

I won't stand with opinions of people that bring nothing to the table other than pure imagination . And that's what cryptosize does , not to mention that he always avoids the obvious if it doesn't fit his narratives .

I try to be unbiased, but just as we can't put all actions performed by world organizations and known lobbyists into one and the same basket labelled "attack on bitcoin" we also can't do the opposite and put them all in the basked labelled "conspiracy theories with no proof." 
The most basic rule of every investigator is that the person who benefited from the crime might be involved in it and there's a bunch of organizations that can benefit from destroying bitcioin. The list includes the WEF, World Bank and a number of central banks. Also, it would be profitable for all parties involved in trading gold and the ones involved in designing CBDCs.

No, because if you use Merged Mining, then you produce regular Bitcoin blocks. Just imagine that instead of discarding some shares, you store them on your own chain, and they are valid only there. In case of "cloud storage", you don't need to move any real coins, so you can use those shares to protect data, without any coins.

No, because all coins will eventually land on-chain, which means, some Bitcoin miner will receive that. The only part that will land on the Ordinal Chain, would be the data, associated with those coins. Which also means, that the Ordinal Chain could contain a lot more UTXOs than Bitcoin, because it could be possible to send "data only", without transferring any coins.

If you need to connect just some data, with a particular address, then all that is needed, is accepting a valid signature. Which means, you simply pick some UTXO, and sign any data you want, and post that into the Ordinal Chain. Note that you don't have to move any coins to do that. All you need is just to connect this data with this UTXO, and just put a commitment into that, into any on-chain transaction (even created by someone else).

Which means, every time you create any on-chain transaction, you can sell "commitment as a service" to anyone. Because then, you can just tweak R-value of your signature, and commit to any data, provided by someone else. And later, that commitment can be revealed anywhere outside Bitcoin (and even stored in a separate chain, if you want to track all revealed commitments). Then, zero additional on-chain bytes are needed, you just change one 256-bit number into another 256-bit number, and you can confirm any data you want.

So, as you can see, many things are possible. But I guess it will simply not happen, because this is not the goal of Ordinals users.

Shower thought. Although it might be a good idea to bring all Ordinals/BRC-20/NFT inscriptions/transactions to "Ordinal Chain", wouldn't the scheme break the incentive structure? Plus if all the coins are mined, wouldn't that make the miners value the Ordinal Chain more if its block rewards are higher?

It's probably better to implement an off-chain layer on top that will have little effect on the functions/operation of the Bitcoin network?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And that's exactly what the Davos elites want.

Zero ownership (BTC IOU), zero privacy (mandatory KYC) and most likely they will also tie BTC IOU on BlackRock (huge proponents of the ESG agenda) with social credit score and carbon credits.

Trust me, I wish someone can prove me wrong in the future, because I hate sci-fi dystopias (unlike HmmMAA who loves mass surveillance for the "greater good").

Bookmark/screenshot my post and let's talk again about it in 2030...

^ Says the guy who believes Craig Wright is Satoshi, believes in NWO's all-seeing eye (your words, not mine) and to top it off, you believe that there's a conspiracy going on to hijack BTC via Mastercard/DCG who apparently control BlockStream (BTC core devs).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

What a bunch of c**p i'm reading . Been  saying that since 6 months at least in the greek subforum . "Nobody has answered" my a** .
Each ordi was inscribed for a couple of cents . Currently sitting at $80+ . That's more than 50000X return , that's a lot of ammo to continue considering that new inscriptions also make profit .
The point was to have a market created . That market is present and it will continue to grow as long as new money enter and speculation continues.

Lolz about the comments that WEF wants to attack btc . Conspiracy theorists can't even understand basic economics and supply/demand . Occam's razor doesn't apply to their "logic" .

Current situation with fees will look like nothing compared to the situation that might occur if bitvm and other protocols start to emerge and give the opportunity to have DeFi on btc . Fees will skyrocket to 1000's of $'s .

Grab your popcorn and enjoy the ride . 2024 will be a very interesting year .


 

Its Venture Capitalists who want to get in on the action. They saw the potential behind it. They are the ones funding the infrastructure & marketing. Here's a few links to give you an idea of who they are:

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2023/10/17/bitcoin-magazine-owner-backs-first-ordinals-fund-which-bought-85k-rock/

https://www.theblock.co/post/263343/bitcoin-ordinals-startup-taproot-wizards-raises-7-5-million-in-seed-round

https://crypto.revuto.com/ordinals_1.pdf

These people see Ordinals as the next NFT rush, and thus far they haven't been wrong. Will it all pop & fade away with time? Most likely, yes, most of it will. But not all of it.

How are people going to continue to have the keys to their coins, if at this point the only minimally viable way to have BTC is to use exchange wallets, or third-party channels in the second layer? 

Ordinals are dumb. Why is this crap on L1? Bitcoin is being rendered unusable by shitty jpgs.

JFC, I knew world economic forum had a bad stink to it, but I never thought they were that crazy.

As much as I like hearing what others say about this, I don't like speculating about who is behind this attack or why myself because the only thing that matters to me is that Bitcoin is currently under attack and we need to keep discussing ways to prevent it.

We had the same thing in 2017 too. People speculated about who is behind that attack, in the end the fee market stopped that spam attack by increasing the cost of it. This time it is slightly different since there is an exploit and there is an attached incentive to perform the attack (the market where the scammers meet to trade the arbitrary data).

Funny how you decided to omit the bold part, huh?

Here's the whole link:

Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better

https://medium.com/world-economic-forum/welcome-to-2030-i-own-nothing-have-no-privacy-and-life-has-never-been-better-ee2eed62f710

Exchanges already charge exorbitant fees for withdrawing BTC (Binance -> $32), so people will feel inclined to keep their BTC on exchanges.

The "Not your keys, not your coins" mantra will soon become a thing of the past, especially for people who do DCA.

I reckon BlackRock will become even bigger than Binance, it will be the go-to place to buy BTC in 2024-2025.

Perhaps BTC will jump to 1 million USD, but nobody will make on-chain transactions anymore, except BlackRock and a few more big institutions... is that a win?

ps: Nobody has answered why this craze/FUD keeps going on for over 2 months. Only someone with a sizeable BTC stash should be able to fund it.

I remember people saying this wouldn't last too long, because it's expensive to keep making Ordinal transactions... and yet, here we are 2+ months later on.

If I were BlackRock, I would try to do the same. 51% attack is too costly to perform (you need to manufacture/buy tons of ASICs), so the next best thing is to clog the network with BRC-20.

The only reason Ordinals is ever described as an aTtACk!!! is to trigger maxis tryhards into crying about it being an attack... It amuses the ordinals enjoooyors, and a few of you have swallowed their bait, hook, line and sinker.

The reality is there is no attack on bitcoin; bitcoin continues to do its thing exactly the way it should. It gives zero fucks about what you think it should be doing. You're left with 3 choices:

1) Soldier on with the way things are.
2) Innovate.
3) Keep crying.

This is a good idea, but WHO would want to attack Bitcoin?

IMHO, it's most likely Davos (WEF & BlackRock)... they want less people making on-chain TX and way more KYC (no more privacy).