Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 17. (Read 6547 times)

i doubt anyone here is going to be excited about that  since they seem to be clogging up the blockchain...

i found a way to dev a liquidity pool for brc20 : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/im-going-to-create-a-brc-20-liquidity-pool-5455647

pretty bullish on brc20 and their developement.

It's basically the other way around: Segwit made the transactions cheap, but Taproot enabled bigger standard transactions than before.

There seems to be however still a misunderstanding, because this applies to big inscriptions and not to BRC-20 inscriptions which are very small. BRC-20 could have been implemented in a slightly different way without problems without Taproot (storing the JSON file in an OP_RETURN output). That's basically what the Doginals folks on Dogecoin did.

Thus:


... this wouldn't make sense, because then BRC-20 would simply use another token technology. There are even methods which do not even require OP_RETURN.

Is that what made it possible?  I'll admit I haven't looked into the technical aspect of this as much as I should have, but I don't believe what you're saying is true.  From my understanding (and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) it was segwit that enabled this "exploit" but it was taproot that made it so cheap it was feasible to engage in. 

So from my perspective, the only way I could get behind a boycott of BRC-20 would be to also remove the Lightning Network, which I believe is guilty of the exact same crimes of Ordinals, but since it is patented tech by Blockstream and Blockstream basically runs Core, we are all just supposed to blindly support it.

Yes but the problem is BTC is so fucking valuable that we will have scaling issues.

2009 to 2012 reward 50 btc    vs  fee 0.01 or 5000 to 1 ratio

2012 to 2016 reward 25 btc    vs  fee 0.025 or 1000 to 1 ratio

2016 to 2020 reward 12.5 btc vs fee  0.050 or   250 to 1 ratio

2020 to 2024 reward 6.25 btc vs fee 0.100 or  62.5 to 1 ratio


note the fees are an in my head guess as the the average value of each block fee

we know 2023 block fees got up to 6 coins

but the Long term average over last 3 years is closer to .1 btc a block

I am okay at math and figuring some trends out.

the reward to fee number ratio shrinks every 4 years.

5000.000 to 1 2009
1000.000 to 1 2012
  250.000 to 1 2016
    62.500 to 1 2020       note in my head estimate.

this means

   15.625 to 1  in 2024 or    3.125 reward and   0.20 in  fees on average
     3.906 to 1  in 2028 then 1.5625 reward and 0.40 in fees

btw we are over the fee average for 2020-2023  of 0.1000 btc

As of the  last 10 blocks

793263-0.96
793262-0.90
793261-0.69 2.55
793260-1.02
793259-0.76
793258-0.91 5.24
793257-0.98
793256-1.11
793255-0.59
793254-1.04
    
they are about 0.896 btc a block

I have read various number for fee average during 2020-2023 as high as .15 btc average as low as .07 average I picked .1 for my ratio comparison

it is easy to see May 1 to June 7 we are above .07 .1 or .15 in fact we are over 1 btc a block for about 37 days.

But it dropped a bit  as May 5 to May 12 it was 2.5 btc a block

now it is .896 btc a block .  This is ordinals+BRC-20+NFT clutter.

I have shown ways in a prior thread that pools can push fees up and turn profits.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-all-miners-need-to-mine-on-a-pool-that-pays-them-the-tx-fees-2634505

a method of pushing fees upward and not being able to directly prove any pool does it.

All of that thread's concepts  can be done by 3 large pools with the ordinal/BRC-20/NFT clutter.

And proving it is hard.

It is obvious people are testing the Blockchain right now to see how easy they can jack fees turn profits and not be fingered for doing it.


I don't fear any of that as much as I fear the top pools simply black list all tx's under 50 sats a byte.

I think we are heading that way.

BTW if ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs are barred and fees drop to 0.1 per block

The top 5 pools will be incentivized to blacklist all 50sats per  or 40sat per and lower tx's

So Once again I say leave the ordinals/BRC-20/NFTs just as they are,

 as I rather deal with a wild dog(brc-20) than a wild lion (blacklisting of <50sats a byte tx's)

oh some opec news

"OPEC+ countries also agreed to extend oil production cuts they announced in April through the end of 2024, reducing the amount of crude they pump into the world market by more than 1 million barrels per day." 3 days ago  from google search "opec to lower oil"

i didn't realize cpu speed is an issue when running bitcoin core. i am sure that a simple dual core cpu from 2010 would be fine still in 10 years for running bitcoin core just like it probably is today. a core i5 would be better but i'm not sure it's really necessary. but bitcoin doesn't need high end cpus. it never will.

if someone doesn't have a 100Mbps download speed today they are in the stone ages, just being honest. If in 10 years they're still in that situation then they really have no business downloading a 1Terabyte blockchain. Just being honest. There's companies who just don't want to increase their customers speeds so they try and force them to stay at lower speeds too but that's a different story.

probably not practical but if it was done then that would certainly encourage people to consolidate their coins. 

just don't try and use ssd for something like chiacoin. i heard it eats them for lunch. churning through and doing a bunch of wear and tear.

I agree that storage-wise, it's nothing much. But how about CPU speed, where we know Silicon chip reaching it's limit? How about internet connection, where we know some country and region has either poor or expensive internet connection?


Those who run node either need to use more RAM or cope with slower verification time, where the software need to read UTXO from storage first. And i doubt limiting total UTXO is practical option.


Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's just so many Bitcoin enthusiast use SSD to store blockchain data.


The point isn't leaving pool which only include TX with very high fees, but leaving pool which perform some blockade since it could hurt Bitcoin usage in long term.


I get your point and that's why i mention why P2Pool (which is decentralized mining pool software/protocol) need to be revived if top  pools decide to do that.

But you also have to factor in the possible appreciation of bitcoin into the equation. That is, if the value of bitcoin goes up, even if it is a low fee value, you earn a lot.

Now, do you think the pools will start creating blacklists for those who have low transaction fees? Wouldn't that be acting contrary to what Bitcoin is supposed to do?

Note bold question.

I mine it is a business
I need fee income
Every ½ ing fee income is more critical and the Block reward lessons.

I will be the first to say while I like to see a 6.25 reward and 4.75 in fees = 11 btc per block but I know it hurts the business of btc if it continues for say 1 or 2 years in a row.

My fears for down the road of ½ ing rewards are getting fees to work well enough for

miners, pools and users of btc.

6.25 + 0.75 = 7 seems to work okay

6.25 + 5.7 = 12 seems to be an issue if it goes for a long time 6 months a year seem bad.

so in a year

3.125 + 0.875 = 4 seems okay

3.125 + 5.875 = 9 seems wrong a real problem

in 2028

1.5625 + 0.9375 = 2.5 still may work

1.5625 + 5.4375 = 7.0 seem wrong a real problem



on and on and on

I worry for this to get worse as time goes on.

My bigger fear is not BRC-20 it is top pools simply blacklist fees under 50 sats a byte.

but that's 10 years. in 10 years, we can probably expect 4TB SSDs to cost under $100. Or near it. So an extra 307GB in 10 years is nothing.

wow! that's not good for bitcoin. i guess its time for people running nodes to beef up their RAM... I guess that's another problem with bitcoin is how there's no limit on the size of the utxo set.

why not? nothing wrong with bare metal.

I'd suggest miner switch to different pool and attempt to revive P2Pool first.


If the trends (~1.8 MB average block size after Ordinal popularity) continues compared with past trend (~1.2 MB average block size), i would say far longer if we project in next 10 years. In terms of size there would be ~307GB difference (see calculation below).


With BRC-20 (and similar protocol), the worst part isn't storage but rather UTXO growth. In last 2 months, total UTXO is increased by about 15 millions.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now


And here i still use HDD to store Bitcoin blockchain.


But IMO it comes down to whether which party lose patience first. Could be either pools who lose fair amount of money or Bitcoiner who want their transaction confirmed quickly.

They will actually lose money during sparse block periods if they try that. I cannot recommend this.

Though I don't expect low-fee tx's to get any priority from them as long as the Unisat hype continues.

Time to fork bitcoin.  

far longer or just longer? but isn't there a train of thought that says bitcoin blocks have a maximum size of 4MB so we should just say the blockchain grows at that rate every 10 minutes and adjust your ssd purchases accordingly? isn't that a reasonable expectation rather than to become upset or negative if it happens to not use less than that maximum as often? 4MB is the worst it can get. adjusting our ssd purchases accordingly is the solution. the solution is not to criticize bitcoin for using what it is allowed to.

oh and by the way, in case people haven't noticed, ssd prices have been plumetting. 

As long as the top five pools do not blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte.

Fuck if I was a CEO  of one of  the top five pools I would try to do an Opec oil type group and set min trans action at 50 sats just to see what the market does.

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/pools


Miner / Pool--------Percent

Foundry USA-------33.333%

AntPool-------------22.337%

F2Pool--------------13.574%

Binance Pool--------9.794%

ViaBTC--------------8.419%

total of ----------- over 87.2%

If they blacklist all tx under 50 sats a byte it would be some real fun.

I have to think they will try it.

That will never happen.

It will take decades to open channels for 8 billion people (assuming all transactions are LN-related, which they aren't, since we also have Ordinals and other stuff).

Besides, BTC uses a free market system to determine fees: https://mempool.space/

If fees drop again to 4 cents per TX (it happened a few months ago), who's going to use LN compared to on-chain?

It's a self-regulating system (just like the hashing difficulty). There's nothing to worry about.

I quoted myself about a month later. Fees are down to under 1 btc a block vs 2+ btc a block

last 10 blocks on June 5th

792990 ----- 0.61
792989 ----- 0.73
792988 ----- 0.72 > 2.06
792987 ----- 0.48
792986 ----- 0.56
792985 ----- 0.54 > 3.64
792984 ----- 0.59
792983 ----- 0.63
792982 ----- 0.57
792981 ----- 0.73 > 6.16



far less than may 9th date of my quoted post.

789000-----2.19
788999-----3.93
788998-----5.69 ----- 11.81
788997-----1.78
788996-----3.35
788995-----1.76 -----18.7
788994-----1.73
788993-----1.85
788992-----1.73
788991-----1.84-----25.85



Developers did nothing and fees went down bigly. May 9th to June 5th.

give the developers a pat on the back for the "wait and see move".


6.16 is way down from 25.85

Look at the definition of spam , you can't call spam a transaction that pays more fees than normal . Try to find another term .
 If you had a store and someone was willing to pay you more than your asked price would you deny him your services ? On the contrary , you would leave the other customers and try to please him the most you could . You asked for a fee market , you made it and now people want to pay more to have their transactions validated . Why you call something an attack when it doesn't fit your narratives ?

Nope , you are wrong . If someone has enough liquidity can transact infinitely in LN without closing it's channel/s . In what way that person supports the miners ? On the contrary , with a very small investment , LN nodes work like parasites that suck fees from the true backbone of the system , that has cost billions of investment . Imagine if all transactions move to LN , and miners just wait to be paid from opening and closing channel fees . How would that be sustainable ?

Really ? History proves you wrong https://cirosantilli.com/cool-data-embedded-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain#illegal-content-of-block-229k
Not to mention that satoshi himself used blockchain as a "cloud storage" for his timestamp message .

You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.

P.S. this is repost since my previous post was deleted by mistake.


Indeed it's not exponential, but in long run it'll make time for initial block download become far longer.


This is untrue.
1. It's publicly known since it's mentioned on BIP 342.
2. It's not really exploit when whoever write BIP 342 intentionally remove 10000 bytes script limit which exist on previous script type.
3. Few programmer such as @Coding Enthusiast also found out about it and raise concern at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whats-the-reason-for-not-being-strict-about-taproot-witness-program-size-5340900. See above detailed response by @gmaxwell.

Ordinals don't grant you the permission to use a nearly instant payment network with minimum transaction cost.

They are literally the opposite. Ordinals require abruptly large sized transactions, while lightning makes the best transaction compression to this date.

If this second layer solution didn't exist, I, as an average user, would have paid much more in on-chain fees in the last months.

And complete indolence does harm the network, and "steals" from the miners, because it sets limit on how usable Bitcoin is as currency. Without second layer, it's quite unusable for a 100 millions.