Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 18. (Read 6547 times)

On the contrary , ordinals increase the security of the network by increasing the income of miners so the security overall , while LN "steal" fees from miners . Your problem is not to invest a couple hundred dollars to buy some TB disks while miners invest millions . That's insane , guys that want to spend nothing trying to control people that invest much money . Tired of hearing that apples and oranges comparison .

I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

Maybe I'm just a non-technical dumb guy with too many opinions, but I honestly see no difference whatsoever between the "Ordinals Attack" and the Lightning Network Attack on Bitcoin.  They are literally the same thing.  Feel free to convince me I'm wrong.  The only difference between the two seems to be how the users want to use the blockchain.  They both benefit from the same subsidies that should have never been created anyway.  My hope is that this "attack" shows how dumb the layer 2 implementation currently is and maybe get developers to rethink a new situation that doesn't burden actual on chain users.  I don't know, maybe the super simple merged mining system satoshi himself thought was genius and would give users choices without burdening Bitcoin's blockchain to push some patented solution by a single company.

*facepalm* I accidentally deleted ETFbitcoin's post above my reply, it's content is preserved in my quote (I'm not sure that it's all of it, unfortunately)... the quote/edit/delete buttons are right next to each other, and I don't use BCT much of late.  I'll send him a PM to repost it, and I'll fix the thread order.  

1 and 2 are correct, 3 is incorrect because it's talking about a different thing.

The post you've linked to is saying, effectively,  "The rules for witness type v0 further restrict the scriptpubkey to have exactly 20 or 32 bytes of payload, since that's the only sizes v0 can use.  With v1, instead, if the size isn't exactly 32 bytes (the only size that v1 can use) then the v1 rules aren't applied and those are treated the same as the other versions or v1 before the change: nothing is done, only the same validity rules apply as apply for all scriptpubkeys"  -- none of this has anything to do with data in the witnesses.

So for a scriptpubkey to get v1 treatment it must have v1 and exactly the right sized payload.  This leaves room e.g. to create a v1a that (for example) uses 33 bytes to add the sign back to the scriptpubkey or introduces 448 bit ECC without having to burn up an additional witness version number.

This consensus rule design doesn't improve people's ability to spam using large scriptpubkeys because the same large sizes are valid for non-segwit transactions and those couldn't be made consensus invalid without potentially destroying the bitcoins of someone who happened to have encumbered them with an nlocktime release that involves some large script.

Maybe the invalidity risk there is fringe enough that it could still be argued for, I think not, since the underlying attack that you'd be trying to stop doesn't really care *how* the data is encoded, closing off one will just cause them to use others-- but regardless, going around hobbling bitcoin's consensus rules to try to play wack a mole against some spam vector is a pretty *distinct* concern, and should be handled if at all separately and holistically.   Could you imagine if BIP 342 had an "oh yeah, and also all scriptpubkey's-- not just v1 but all unused witness types and non-segwit too are now limited to X bytes, hope you don't have any funds using long scripts that you can't move before BIP 342 gets activated!"? lol

numbering satoshis is not something casey came up with. that idea was born somewhere around 2012 because there's a thread on this forum about them. someone bumped that thread recently!

i'm sure he's a brilliant guy when it comes to technical aspects of bitcoin but he seems like he is in this bubble of people glorifying him and his "invention" whenever i heard him talking. these people just don't get it - the ones he's giving presentations to. they think is invention is great for bitcoin!  and apparently he does too so that's why i say he is dumb. for being a bit naive about how people really feel. i guess by now he knows though if he's had his ear to the ground at all.

maybe you should reach out to casey. he was smart enough to design it. maybe he can help you mitigate it. but make sure you schmooze up to him. he seems to really shine when that's happening...

Speaking of transaction fees, it now costs ~4x more to perform a Bitcoin transaction than Ethereum. Before, both were about the same. That seems to be the new average increase since this BRC-20 bug was introduced.

Source: YCHARTS

I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of finding an exploit in the protocol hidden in the verification rules and not publicly known, is someone who is "dumb" and doesn't know what he is doing.

Well, we first need to get everyone to agree that we need to fix this oversight that is being exploited then begin arguing about the fix. Right now there are still people who either say "it will go away on its own" or claim "there should not be any fix at all".

There's no reason to derail the topic in trying to question the use of Segwit as a cause for the current situation in my opinion. You don't get the numbers, do you? In the months before Ordinals and BRC-20 crap we had an average size of blocks around ~1.20MB. From Feb until now we're at an average of ~1.88M. That gives an increase of growth rate of ~56%. As I run nodes myself, that does concern me, indeed.

No one said, as far as I read here, that the recent growth was exponential of any kind. There's just a clearly visible step up of block size due to deliberately stuffed additional data, I call it garbage, into witness data of blocks.

i can see how block sizes bumped up in february for sure but it's not like an exponential increase in block size they are just pushing the theoretical maximum limit of 4MB per block more i guess. the blockchain can't grow more than X amount of data per day. no matter how people are using it. before segwit that max limit was 1MB per block. so if someone has an issue about blockchain bloat then i guess they need to go back and complain about segwit then because it allowed the increase to 4MB...

Some people may not know about bitcoin very well, fomo and invested at the wrong time like when bitcoin was at $65000. Bitcoin will still get to that price but lack of knowledge may make the people to sell at the wrong time and blame bitcoin.

What I am just saying is that in everything we do, we need to have good knowledge about it before risking our money. Some of the tokens will be scam from the beginning, some may be pumped and dumped, some may remain a shit coin. But all these are no more new like in 2017/2018 and can easily be known from a proper research.

Lack of knowledge can make some people to blame bitcoin, but without bitcoin tokens and non fungible tokens have been existing. But with the help of bitcoin taproot, the tokens and non fungible tokens existed and also increase transaction fee which makes bitcoin utility to increase.

It is not only that alone, because of Ordinals and Inscriptions that lead to bitcoin tokens, we can now see the ones developed for litecoin, doge and other altcoins that had no hope of getting tokens easily before.

Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment. Although i would just show you chart of block size in last 1 year.


Source: https://www.statoshi.info/d/000000002/blocks?viewPanel=4&orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now

If an attacker manages to compel you to abandon the high ground and forfeit your principles, then the attacker has succeeded in their objective.

I'm not defending the exploit.  I'm saying your proposed cure is short-sighted and dangerous.  It would weaken Bitcoin's resilience and open up new (and far more severe) avenues of attack.

Find a better solution. 

I agree. Let's leave Casey out of this discussion.

why do you think casey had any malicious intentions towards bitcoin? my best guess is he was just some guy that wanted to invent something and he had no idea or anything about anything else. lets not label him as a bad guy without some type of proof. maybe he's dumb because he didn't know he was opening up a pandoras box but dumb does not equal malicious does it?

The main characteristic of a successful malicious attack on bitcoin is to get the bitcoin users to do it not yourself. Remember the nonsense called "stress test" years ago? It wasn't just one silly company spamming the network. They got bitcoiners to spam too by funding loads of addresses with small amounts then publishing their private keys. The result was nodes that were flooded by double spends and the mempool that was flooded with spam transactions that didn't come from a single attacker.
In that scenario CoinWallet was the origin of the attack but wasn't the lone attacker.

That is the main principle that the Ordinals Attack is using too. It is not one entity that performs the attack but they have fooled loads of people to participate in it by creating the parallel scam market and the tools to perform the attack.
In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

The principle is commonly used in color revolutions, which I dare say is what's been happening to Bitcoin. One of the signs is seeing old bitcoiners defending this exploit of the protocol in the name of Bitcoin principles such as censorship resistance!

When miners receive more transaction fees than block rewards, they must prioritize their profits. Due to mempool congestion, Bitcoin transaction fees have seen a massive increase. In one of them the mining fee was higher than the block reward. The block number was 788695.

BRC-20 tokens only capitalize on the popularity of Bitcoin to attract large investors by creating a hype but the reality is that these tokens are not as secure as Bitcoin. I think once the hype reduced these types of tokens will have no value and In the long run these will not survive.

but if you think of bitcoin as a system that stores X amount of data every 10 minutes, X hasn't really changed with the introduction of ordinals has it?

that graph looks very linear to me even since february. yes the slope changed but only very small increase in slope of the line segment. so it doesn't appear to me that the blockchain is growing any faster than it was before ordinals came out. maybe a just a tiny bit more and i don't know why that would be but it doesn't seem out of control or anything. how could it be? bitcoin only allows X amount of data to be stored every 10 minutes or so...that hasn't changed ever i don't think.

Its bloat that wouldn't have otherwise been there. Its not so much (right now) in the grand scheme of things, which is possibly one of the reasons why Core devs have been reluctant to rush out any changes, but the smaller the blockchain stays, the better. The less resources that are required to run a node, the better.

You can see growth of the blockchain was relatively linear up until early February of this year, which is when the Ordinals fad really started to kick in, then it sped up since then:

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_blockchain_size


Zooming out, blockchain size growth takes on more of an exponential quality but this probably isn't a good reason to hasten it.

No i mean the consequences if ordinals dies down. then there was less than a year of monkeys and then they're gone. do the existing monkeys cause a long term damage on bitcoin or something? the blockspace used would have been the same no matter if its for monkeys or paying bills.

A retarded commenting on retarded things! lol



Have you counted such numbers? How are you so sure, the so you you called "delusional majority", is not in fact the majority? Or that the tiny space is the space of the supporters instead?
I didn't criticized anyone. I just criticized the garbage! And I continue doing. Blockchain, imo, is not intended to be a cloud storage for the garbage. It's, at most, to be a cloud storage for a financial system, by recording actual transactions between 2 or more parties. Period!
Although I can agree that if the opportunity was left there, then, someone took it and made the garbage into the blockchain. It is what it is!