Pages:
Author

Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 18. (Read 7771 times)

legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
December 30, 2023, 12:37:53 PM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.
That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...


THAT might actually be a good, feasible solution if that gets community consensus. Plus the block reward for that sidechain could also have infinite supply to continue incentivizing miners for network security, WHICH will also solve the theoretical problem/question "How will the miners be incentivized for their work if fees alone couldn't support them".
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
December 30, 2023, 08:52:24 AM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.
That IS how they should have done it if they wanted to actually create tokens and explore extra smart contract capabilities but that is not their goal. BTW I summarized this method and its advantages in your other topic. Let me quote it here:

As long as we are talking about other ideas the solution to Ordinals Attack is simple too. Create a side-chain and call it "Bitcoin Ordinals Chain", merge mine it with bitcoin blocks so that you can use the high bitcoin hashrate and enjoy its security and at the same time provide an additional revenue for miners that find those other blocks. That hits multiple birds with one stone by addressing all the things people discuss regarding this attack!
1) It will reduce bitcoin tx fees as the spam would stop
2) Nothing would be "censored" as some users love to call it
3) Miners revenue would increase which is another false argument some users use to justify this attack
4) The scam called Ordinals will still use the "bitcoin" name so it can continue ripping idiots off
5) It is a completely separate chain/network so it can have its own consensus rules and it means the said transactions would become NFTs for real as opposed to now that they are arbitrary data
6) Being a separate chain means it is not going to be limited by Bitcoin limits (block size, script/smart contract limitations, etc.)

They will never do this though because of a simple reason: they never wanted to create a smart contract platform. They just wanted to attack Bitcoin and make it increasingly harder for real bitcoin users from using this decentralized payment system...
hero member
Activity: 1111
Merit: 588
December 30, 2023, 08:05:24 AM
Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.

Nope , miners an pools will work in any case , either fees are low or high , of course profit maximization is a plus for them ( find me a business that's against that ) . Those that were looking forward for such high fees as a result of limited blocksize were those in the maxis camp . Btc just gets what maxis wanted , so you should look others than miners and pools to blame .

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees





legendary
Activity: 2352
Merit: 6089
bitcoindata.science
December 30, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen.

Miners incentive is obvious here,  and it is sad that there is no other actor with power to balance this. Of this is about profit, not the network health or usability.
legendary
Activity: 1568
Merit: 6660
bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org
December 30, 2023, 05:37:48 AM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Or rather, there is no money to be made in a fork because if a hypothetical Ordinals coin was ever listed on an exchange it would be immediately short-sold.

While Bitcoin Cash was profitable to make at least initially for the miners because there was a sizable group of people who supported it.
legendary
Activity: 990
Merit: 1108
December 30, 2023, 05:30:22 AM
The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM).
A pure Mimblewimble chain like Grin is very inscription resistant, but Beam has added many features, some of which (smart contracts in particular) can be used to store arbitrary data [1].

[1] https://forum.beam.mw/t/beam-inscriptions/822
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 4711
**In BTC since 2013**
December 30, 2023, 04:30:30 AM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
It would be pointless.

I was thinking something more similar to Namecoin, with merged mining where it ends up being Bitcoin mining that guarantees security for the entire ecosystem.
Let's say it would be a blockchain suitable for Ordinals, but that worked with the same mining and rhythm as Bitcoin. Bitcoin being the working basis and its protective force.
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 793
Bitcoin = Financial freedom
December 30, 2023, 12:35:55 AM

We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.


The actual reason for the creation of ordinal is just to make money with NFT shit and the person who created knew that it is going to get huge hype and that is why the thing is still in the trend and some investors do believe that this NFT token is going to be the next big, poor people who have no idea and still risk their money.

I just hope something can fix the ordinals that are exploiting the Bitcoin network while doing great harm and I don't know how long this can go on meanwhile shitcoins claim and convince Bitcoin is done and make some money for themselves.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
December 29, 2023, 11:44:58 PM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
It would be pointless.
We already have multiple smart contract platforms to create actual tokens (not fake ones like Ordinals that are arbitrary data). We also already have Bitcoin side-chains that can be used to create tokens.
None of these interested the Ordinals scammers simply because they wanted to attack bitcoin and also wanted to use the Bitcoin name to have access to a bigger "pool of victims" to sell their scam and earn money.

Creating a copyfork (called Bordi? lol) would create something less successful than the shitforks in the past (mainly 2017 era).
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 6403
Blackjack.fun
December 29, 2023, 07:27:49 AM

Yeah, and it's going to have the same effect as vegans boycotting Dinosaur Bar-B-Que.

By rejecting all block that contain ordinals your node will simply become useless, and you can have 90% of the nodes doing the same, as long a no block with zero ordinals is mined all this solves zero, the nodes that do relay blocks with ordinals will keep doing so and miners will keep adding more to the chain, zero impact whatsoever.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

No, the opposite, we're going to have Bitcoin as we know it now and a dead coin from the start, something called Luke's vision or whatever.

legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
December 29, 2023, 03:12:44 AM
Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?

I severely doubt this. Miners aren't going to run software that inhibits profit maximization. Its just not going to happen. An outright rejection of inscription activity imposed by devs is more likely to cause a chain split not in the favor of Ordinals Disrespectoors. We will have Bitcoin (BTC) as it is today and Ordinal Disrespectoor Coin (ODC), for maxi idealists that refuse to adapt to this new paradigm.

A middle ground, as I've been suggesting for months now, would be to place some kind of thoughtfully-placed limitation on taproot script length where things such as coinjoins are still under the data limit yet 1 MB monkey pictures are not.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
December 29, 2023, 03:10:26 AM
The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) is with MimbleWimble (GRIN, BEAM). Even Monero can store Ordinals: https://mordinals.org/

FWIW it's possible on Monero mainly because it has TX_EXTRA field which sometimes used to interact across different cryptocurrency network.


Reject block? No sane people would do that since the block contain some non-ordinals TX. His script would make sense if it doesn't relay all Ordinals TX.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 4711
**In BTC since 2013**
December 29, 2023, 03:04:09 AM
The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.

Yes, and that is what cannot happen. Bitcoin is not a cloud hosting service, which allows you to store things forever, at an excellent cost.

But, I believe that a solution will soon emerge from the developers. Afterwards, the support of the entire bitcoin community will be needed to actually be able to implement it.

Will we soon have a new Bitcoin fork, Ordinalcoin?
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
December 29, 2023, 12:29:26 AM
But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...
The only way to have a pure payment system and nothing else (zero arbitrary data) ....
It's about size of the arbitrary data and its purpose.

Satoshi including a tiny message (a couple of bytes) in the coinbase of the very first mined block in an extremely restricted way (coinbase script size can not exceed 100 bytes) is very different from including any arbitrary data in any transaction in any block at any size without any restrictions.

The fist case doesn't change anything about nature of Bitcoin being a payment system and doesn't hurt anyone. The second case does turn Bitcoin into a cloud storage and is greatly damaging it.
newbie
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
December 28, 2023, 10:18:22 PM

Bitcoin has essentially become digital gold. These changes are breaking the network and eroding the years of trust that Bitcoin has created. This is what gives it value.


BRC-20 made the network congested, and consumed too much storages.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 4711
**In BTC since 2013**
December 28, 2023, 06:59:58 PM
Quote
why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?
Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

I understand what you mean, but (I don't remember exactly when it was) I remember that a few years ago, there was a change that miners/pools weren't willing to support, and they ended up following this change because of the developers and community Bitcoin.



Quote
based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1617
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28917

Thank you for sharing these links, which clearly show Satoshi's position and opinion on this topic.
But, there he is, he is not the owner of Bitcoin, but I think that remembering his opinion can be helpful in making decisions.
copper member
Activity: 821
Merit: 1992
December 28, 2023, 05:37:47 PM
Quote
Did anyone accidentally read this article?
Quote
Code:
ord_fingerprint="0063036f7264"
This patch is not enough. And also, it has a lot of flaws. Because:

1. It is possible to create a transaction, with non-Ordinal witness, that would be rejected by this patch.

For example: "020063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_CHECKSIG"
Another example: "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0063036f7264xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"

2. It is possible to create another flood, just by wrapping Ordinals in a new format, just to avoid those magic bytes, and it will not be censored.

For example: "OP_TRUE OP_NOTIF OP_PUSH_3('ord')".

Just change "0063036f7264" into "0164036f7264", and then you can flood all nodes with such censorship. Now, it is too late for rules, which could be so simply evaded. It could be good one week or one month after Ordinals were introduced, but they are not sufficient here and now.
hero member
Activity: 882
Merit: 792
Watch Bitcoin Documentary - https://t.ly/v0Nim
December 28, 2023, 04:58:20 PM
Did anyone accidentally read this article? Taproot Wizards launches script so haters can now reject Ordinals on Bitcoin

As far as I know, similar code was already written by other developers and is this a reinventing of bicycle? I also haven't found this article on other major crypto news websites. By the way, aren't Taproot Wizards the ones who wanted to make Bitcoin magical again by letting you to upload jpeg files on blockchain?


By the way, I recently read an article that states that Polygon version of Bitcoin Ordinals also significantly increased gas fees and I just have a logical question like normal human, how many ordinals/nfts are created each day and how many millions of people pay money in these NFTs? Maybe we all are stuck and missing something here while the world keeps moving on. What's going on?
copper member
Activity: 821
Merit: 1992
December 28, 2023, 04:02:32 PM
Quote
why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?
Because developers have less power than you expect. They are not "gods", as some people believe. Introducing Taproot was not a simple decision of a single group, because it was first accepted by mining pools, and the whole process of activating any soft-fork can take months or even years. Which means, if there would be some limit, and if there would be any need to raise it, for whatever reason, then the same process would be needed, to increase maximum TapScript size. And the same is true about the size of the block: if you want to change 4 MB witness, into for example 8 MB witness, then you need another soft-fork, if you want to keep that data in every single full node (because if not, then you can store unlimited data through commitments, without any forks).

Quote
Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?
No. If developers would want to "make miners happy", then they could just increase default fee rates. Or, if you need a more covert way, do a transition from secp256k1 to something "bigger", that would be "quantum safe" (or whatever), which means "more complex", and of course "more expensive". But this is not the case: if it would be, then Ordinals could be just the part of Bitcoin Core, but as you can see, this is not included, and some developers even created some minority versions to reject Ordinals (but other developers didn't, because there are worse things than Ordinals, and thankfully, they are not yet present on-chain, as long as spammers are focused on Ordinals instead).

Quote
Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.
It is not that easy, if you quote what Satoshi said about "Lady Gaga videos", or about "BitDNS". Unless you say that those posts are not written by Satoshi, but those people are beyond saving.

Quote
But Satoshi posted the first text message in the blockchain (bank bailout)...

If you ask me, that was a mistake
Today, that kind of message could be included as a commitment instead. But of course, there are many improvements, that could be done, if someone would want to reinvent Bitcoin. For example, if someone is going to create another altcoin, then there is no reason to have more than one address type. And if that would be the case, then the message from the Genesis Block, could be just included behind that public key, as a commitment.

Quote
based on everything we know about Satoshi and his Bitcoin White Paper, what did he think of these Ordinals? Would he support it, or not?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1617
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28917
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 4711
**In BTC since 2013**
December 28, 2023, 03:05:26 PM
Since Bitcoin is not centralized and Satoshi doesn't own the right to Bitcoin protocol, technically what he thinks should not matter.

However, Satoshi has always been clear about the purpose of Bitcoin. The reason why he created it. Which is to be a payment system and it is clear that he didn't want to create a cloud storage. You can see that all over the whitepaper and in his posts in this forum.

Yes, you are right, Satoshi does not have any direct power in Bitcoin. But it still has its influence. This influence is still felt today, related to several aspects that have remained unchanged since the origin of Bitcoin, such as the size of blocks.

The point now is: why are developers so faithful to block sizes; and freely let the Ordenals and other extras take over the network?  Roll Eyes

Either way, you said the fundamental thing: Bitcoin was created with a payment system! And I think that was the main pillar that Bitcoin should continue to follow, and prevent other things from harming that pillar.
Pages:
Jump to: