Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 19. (Read 7771 times)

It was a hype about NFTs on ethereum blockchain. What happened after it? A lot of people loose money on it and nobody using this now.
Now it on bitcoin blockchain... Strange thinking by bitcoin team I think... To make miners happy?

IIRC, he released the Bitcoin binaries after the Genesis block (maybe that's why those 50 BTC are unspendable).

His text message was a clear political stance IMHO... not that I mind text messages that much, since they're small by nature, but once you open that can of worms, then people can store literally everything.

Just wait for BSVers to join this thread, they'll show you Satoshi quotes saying he endorsed storing video/audio files in the blockchain.

No, it was not a mistake to quote the newspaper as this was needed to prove that the Genesis block and further blocks weren't pre-mined.

It was also to my knowledge the only time that Satoshi Nakamoto included such data into blocks he mined. He clearly didn't see the blockchain as something to store superfluous bullshit or bloat it with stuff that doesn't have much to do with Bitcoin transactions details.

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

If you ask me, that was a mistake, but many people (especially BSV/big blockers) will disagree, because they don't see it as a mere payment system.

They see it as a sci-fi totalitarian/all-seeing eye dystopia, where even camera video feeds will be stored in the blockchain with immutability.

People in tech communities always tend to have different goals/visions about a project, especially as a community grows more and more, more dissenting/divergent opinions will be formed. It's just human nature.

You won't understand what I'm saying, unless you've experienced it yourself in other communities too (such as metropolitan wireless networks, Linux distros etc.)

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/

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.

Interestingly enough a similar situation rose back in 2010 when people were trying to use bitcoin blockchain to store "arbitrary data" to be used for the project called BitDNS. His opinion about it is clear as he states that it should be separate and not in bitcoin blockchain. That is why a separate project called Namecoin was created.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.28917

But from what I understand, this is just the opinion of some people in the developer group.
For things to really move forward, they will all need to support the idea and actually code something.

The question that arises is: 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?

If you take a closer look, actually that website took information from MITRE.


Have you read discussion on GitHub Bitcoin Core, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/28408? Even if it's merged, it wont completely stop Ordinals TX.

A week ago I attempted to script a ViaBTC transaction broadcasting automatically using shell script, it was to wait until e.g. 8:00 sharp and then send a CURL request which I dumped from Google Chrome, the problem is that even that is not working because it complains about invalid captcha. This is despite the fact that I also copied the captcha headers and made sure they were fresh. So I don't know how these bots manage to do it really.

Even worse that it's ORDINALS transactions being broadcaster out of all things, you know, the very transactions that caused this mess in the first place.

Prunning the spam from a full node is less of a problem for me. Overpriced legit transaction is top severity issue, I think.

Hardfork may not be necessary to keep spam in check. It is possible to bring back the incentives structure that existed before SegWit. Spam didn't benefit from discounted price for blockspace. Currently, legit transactions pay more for pushing bits on Bitcoin and so they are at disadvantage.

The root cause of the issue is so-called "witness discount" introduced in 2017. Everyone (including spammers) paid full price per bit beforehand. Nowadays, spam is privileged - the price for a bit of spam is lower (approx. half the price of a bit of a legit transaction). It is discounted under the so-called "witness data" in contrast to the alternative "OP_RETURN"). There are the details and real examples: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29146.

Why wasn't the discount vulnerability exploited before 2023? There is the additional limit that acts like "safety valve" but only for Segwit v0 type of transactions and not Segwit v1 (Taproot) which was introduced in late 2021.

Let's restore the incentive structure that existed before SegWit or level playing field. Legit transaction wouldn't be put at disadvantage and could outprice spam. A backward compatible change in Bitcoin Core will be enough to make it happen.

Except that they can't. By design, Bitcoin allows a fair amount of entropy even in the plainest of transactions, at least 32 bytes per output.

The harder that you try to censor the current ordinals encoding, the more you force it to adopt alternative encodings exploiting that entropy, that are indistinguishable from regular payments.

While that forces them to pay more in fees, that's clearly not going to stop them.

WORSE yet, by forcing their encodings to be indistinguishable from regular txs, you make it impossible to prune the ordinal data from a full node.

Yes, I can confirm ViaBTC is plagued by bots. They're offering to accelerate 100 transaction per hour but even if I refresh the page at 10:00, at 10:01 there are no free spots left. Due to ordinals/brc20 spam ddosing the sh*t out of the blockchain my transactions are sitting there 10-20mb from tip for days, even though the fees are quite ok (~100sat/byte). 

Please Ordinals should be totally scraped out of Bitcoin network, they said with time Mempool will be less congested but as time goes by its becoming more annoying and now what we use as free accelerator (ViaBTC) as been taken by bots, there is no such thing as equity here all they care about is either spamming or making money, there are no decentralisation here, just annoying folks who only cares about themselves

So looks like the rumors of a hard fork really do seem more credible if this is going to be patched out.

The explosive fees have finally forced me to adopt the lightning network, and now I even got my own node.

I think in the future instead of running our own bitcoin nodes and putting c-lightning or LND on them, we will just rent out a node from a provider like Voltage. and then buy channels with Amboss.

But now with that sorted, yeah I'd like the madness on layer 1 to stop. They can make an inscriptions fork if they want, but I'm gonna be short-selling it. Cause it's going to fail anyway.

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ordinals-put-digital-graffiti-bitcoin-blockchain
CoinTelegraph comes down hard on this vulnerability.

Take a look at recent Bitcoin fees. Just passed an all-time high, since the BRC-20 bug was introduced. BRC-20 spammers were rushing to spam the network with @#$% pics before they were cut off, but the Ordinals.com website was spammed! Haha how ironic. Karma.

I agree. For many use cases,  people don't need insane network speeds. Even something like 50mbps down and 5 up might work. But you're not going to be downloading the blockchain very fast that way. Nor will you be downloading things like Windows 10 very fast but I guess it could be done. Funny thing is, even with no bandwith limit on your side, the site you're trying to hit up might be slow which means you're still downloading slowly.

this was like 4 or 5 years ago that I saw someone looking for people to upload videos for them. And guess what? They didn't want people with slow speeds. I think he might have said something like if you're lower than 128mbps on the upload then don't even bother. Probably plenty of people had higher than that. That was 4 or 5 years ago. Just imagine what he wants from them now. Probably 500 or more. So yeah, uploading videos...

no one ever said people need to have 100/40. unless someone is doing something like uploading videos or downloading movies all the time or huge ISO images of Windows all the time I would think even less than 100/40 would be perfectly fine. Unless their job requires them to be doing HD videoconferencing or something. Not sure what that would require.

And then most of the time it sits there unused except for a couple hours a day maybe when someone is browing the web or watching youtube. could be a complete waste of money. And then you have to ask how much data can they really transfer before they get booted?

i agree. what the ISP industry is trying to do is get rid of the lower speed plans so they can charge more for the more expensive ones but still limit you to the same amount of data transfer per month. that's the real issue. people don't really need 1000/200. unless they're doing something specialized like uploading tons of videos.

My bandwidth plan isn't the max that my ISP offers, I could've more if I wanted, but frankly I don't need more and I don't see a reason to pay for more when I rarely even saturate my current bandwidth limits, YMMV though.


I'm curious to learn what the tip of the digital age has bandwidth needs for. What am I missing out without even knowing it? Again, YMMV. I don't know why you constantly try to impose your bandwidth needs onto others. Or maybe I missinterpret it?

I had 50/10 MBit before and didn't feel too bad with the download speed, but the upload speed of 10MBit was sometimes a bit of a bottleneck. That's why I took  the opportunity to up my plan to 100+/40+ when there was a nice offer with some other nice options from my ISP. The next plan at my location would be 250/40 MBit which only would give me more download speed which I don't need maybe 95+% of the time.
Glass fiber is coming too, my ISP has done most of its part to provide it in my area, at least they claim it, but house owners and rental need to do their part that the building where I live gets FTTH installed. If and once this is done, there will be plans like 1000/200 MBit.

I'd still have to find applications in my household for such a bandwidth. Sure, it's nice to have, but it's not for free and I'd need to have a reason to pay for it, which I currently simply don't have. No need to waste money here.


Where do you read in my posts that I have an issue with segwit block sizes or your other silly claims. I'm fine with and don't oppose Segwit block sizes. You make your false claims for what reason exactly?
My personal opinion is that I'm not OK with to exploit a loophole in Taproot which allows to arbitrarily fill witness data space until Segwit limits for even a single transaction, i.e. Ordinals crap filling the blockchain with some bullshit. You're right, it's not on me to judge what is bullshit or not. This arbitrarily added data has nothing to do with the transaction details like inputs and outputs itself.


I assume your mental capacity allows you to distinguish between mandatory transaction content like inputs and outputs and superficially added arbitrary data that isn't necessary for a Bitcoin transaction. We might differ in opinions about that. And btw I don't oppose the OP_RETURN mechanism at all. This has sensible limits which were rarely abused like what we see now with Ordinals.
I don't care about others spent inputs and destination outputs of transactions. Sure, valid transactions have to follow consensus rules, that's not new. But it isn't the first time that some flaws show up in Bitcoin. It's rare but it happened in the past and in my opinion we have a flaw right now. If and how that is to be dealt with, it's not me alone to decide, no question.

and you my friend are on the very low end of the internet speed continuum i would have to say. just a fact here in the usa.

it may not be the norm for others but if they expect to be in the digital age, then there's just some things they won't be able to do if they have a speed like yours even. yours is on the very low end of what someone might consider acceptable in this day and age. here in the USA particularly.

IMO if someone has an issue with block size now vs pre-segwit then they have an issue with segwit. so they should direct their finger in that direction rather than people using the features of segwit to make blocks bigger than 1MB. whether someone considers segwit to be bloating or misusing the blockchain is their own opinion. hardware tech can handle it though and much more. kind of like someone that expects to be able to run a full linux distro using an old computer with a 200MB hard drive. they just need to get with the times. or suffer the consequences.

well thats how bitcoin works. if you don't like the idea of storing other peoples' transactional information then maybe you don't want to run a full node. decentralized does not mean free or without any burden or responsibility...just my opinion. keep in mind, what business is it of yours what someone else's bitcoin transaction is for? none at all right? you shouldn't care or be concerned about it. because that's their business as long as their transaction follows the consensus rules it's none of anyone's business what the details of the transaction are. who sent it, who they send it to, none of that.

At first I feel it's kind of off-topic to talk about ISPs and their not uncommon bandwidth lies, but it has actually something to do with this thread's topic and concerns some have with this Ordinals and BRC-20 stuff.

I pay for VDSL internet connection with around 100MBit down- and 40MBit upstream and I get this bandwidth in both directions, multiple times tested to full extend. It's not the cheapest provider in my area (I'm first world citizen, btw) and I deliberately stay at my provider because I never had any severe issues with service delivery quality and reliability of my connection. I'm OK to pay more for that.
Monthly I create traffic between 300-400 GiB both down- and upstream, my average is usually somewhere in between 600-750 GiB/month combined. Very occasionally I have peaked this to over one TiB/month combined. I have no explicit volume cap in my contract nor did I ever receive any contract termination threat from my provider. In above volume there's some Youtube and other streaming included, but that part isn't much because I didn't stream a lot in the last few months.

Can I expect this to be the norm for others? Of course, not! And I don't know why @larry_vw_1955 thinks that his ISP "luxury" could be the norm for others everywhere. (I might over-exaggerate it a bit...)


Bigger HDDs or SSDs can easily hold the blockchain for years in the future but a constantly bloated blockchain still takes more time to transfer (puts more toll on those who provide blockchain data online and on the receiver side due to maybe bandwidth restrictions), takes probably more time to verify and the bloated space requirement is on everybody who wants or needs to hold a full copy of the blockchain (current pruning isn't ideal and doesn't help or work for all situations). Better newer hardware shouldn't be an excuse for bloating or missuse.

I simply don't think it's a good and worthy idea to be able to store up to nearly 4MB of arbitrary metadata into a Bitcoin transaction even if you have to pay the fee market price for it. I can't judge the pictures or other data that people throw into the blockchain with the Ordinals shit. The ability to easily do it is a flaw in my opinion and we all have to suffer the consequences of it.

i mean greg, if bitcoin permits it then how can you say it is wrong to do it? you're really coming down hard on me and i wasn't trying to argue with you at all. i was just pointing out that tech is progressing at a rapid rate.

i'm supposed to believe a few people posting here over an authoritative article let's look at part of what it said:


The Gigabit 2x plan will initially limit customers to uploading files at 200Mbps. However, starting in 2023, multi-gig symmetrical speeds will be possible, thanks to a technology called DOCSIS 4.0.

Comcast has been transitioning to the standard for the past few years. Once that work is complete, it will have the network in place to offer 10Gbps download speeds and 6Gbps upload speeds on the same connection. In turn, that would allow it to provide symmetrical speeds across many of its cable packages. That’s an area where cable has historically lagged compared to fiber optic internet.


it doesn't matter if bitcoin was designed to store data or not. all that matters is if people use it for that or not.

comparing using bitcoin to do something that is allowed by the rules as they currently exist and have existed since early this year to something illegal like urinating in a public water fountain yeah you need to update your logic...

now, if you'll excuse me i think i need to go do an internet speedtest to see if they're giving me what i'm supposed to be getting. all this talk about being ripped off by ISPs has me wanting to double check...