(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 22.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3444

Merit: 10537

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on May 12, 2023, 06:07:22 AM

And there is a question that is kind of messing with me. I don't have enough knowledge to answer it but these jsons that have been being included in transactions are somehow using some space, right? So, if there is this space available, why can't it be used to include even more transactions in a block? Isn't it viable? Why is there this space available and ready to be filled (now) with this spam jsons? Why can't this space be used to improve the efficiency of the blocks and blockchain in terms of number of transactions per block, at least?

Number of transactions per block depends on the size of each transaction. After SegWit soft fork, it also depends on how many of them were using SegWit; the more SegWit transactions, the bigger the block and the higher the number of transactions in that block up to 4 MB. The smaller each transaction, the bigger the number of transactions in the block.

Take these two blocks, even though they are both special/extreme cases but are also good examples: 367,853 and 786,501

The first one is pre-SegWit so the max size is 1 MB (or 999,956 bytes to be exact) however it contains 12,239 transactions simply because the transactions in that block are among the smallest sizes possible*.
The second one is post-Taproot/post-Ordinals-Attack and the size is 3,978,938 bytes however it only contains 39 transactions simply because it contains a spam transaction of 3,969,494 bytes where the attacker pays $13500 to include that tx in this block!

* These are special cases that are not normally possible. In short this block is cleanup of another attack against bitcoin where the attackers flooded the chain with outputs with 0 satoshis paying to OP_TRUE.

Quote from: d5000 on May 12, 2023, 05:48:30 PM

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since ...

If you change the content of the OP_RETURN in this tranasction to send 2000 USDT instead of 1000 USDT, the transaction is still a perfectly valid bitcoin transaction, will be relayed and mined. However it will no longer be a valid Tether/Omni transaction, and the Tether amount will not be transferred to the secondary address anymore.

Since none of these protocols are actually supported or enforced by the bitcoin protocol, we can't say "these 'tokens', etc. exist in bitcoin".

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap.

It is trivial to "surpass" bitcoin in market cap considering how easy it is to create fake supply (mc=supply*price) and how centralized shitcoins with huge premines like Ethereum have unlimited supply. But I don't see them gaining anything more than that, specially shitcoins that have a mutable blockchain with no real world utility that have been on a downtrend against bitcoin and have lost 60% of their value ever since 2017. Wink

Lucius

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 5637

Blackjack.fun-Free Raffle-Join&Win $50🎲

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

Maybe people like you are the reason why projects like this don't fail much faster than they should, because after all, money drives everything, and too many people obviously have too much money to invest in various tokens or some new invention, believing that it is "that something" that will make them rich. You yourself say that you are not an expert, but obviously 0.7 BTC is not a problem for you, your money, your risk.

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I've been reading and hearing about "Flippening" for almost 10 years, since the existence of ETH and its owner's obsession to flip BTC, but it hasn't happened yet, despite the fact that the max supply of ETH is constantly changing and actually looks like it will be infinite. Fortunately, it's not all about money, as most people see it, but there is also something about trust, as some have already mentioned before me.

With all the changes that ETH has made since its inception and with all the changes that follow, I wonder how anyone still believes in such fairy tales?

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

It is my humble opinion that these ordinals will destroy themselves sooner or later, or rather when they run out of money, that is, when people realize what kind of nonsense this is all about. In addition, bitcoin developers are not the ones to point the finger at and say "fix it", the game is run by the miners and the only thing that matters to them is to make a profit, and do you think they want to kill the goldfish that fulfills all their wishes?

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: d5000 on May 13, 2023, 02:17:18 PM

The most modern standard is probably RGB, which uses lots of advanced cryptography, it's however afaik still not stable, that means that the final version may not be 100% compatible with now, but it's coming closer. It supports Lightning out of the box.

I wouldn't argue that all of these token protocols are useless. Generally I only see the meme tokens such as BRC/ORC20 as something toxic that has to be dealt with, not things like RGB (which could have something useful to store on them that could actually work out for Bitcoin), and even Ordinals to some extent - but with the full knowledge that art NFTs have only a little bit use and that's it.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: BrianH on May 12, 2023, 09:05:43 AM

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

It could be argued that the vision was how no one would be in a position of power to intervene and prevent others transacting. But what you propose is that someone in power should intervene and prevent others from transacting.

Now imagine I'm in charge of one of your nation's security agencies or the treasury/taxation authorities. In such a position, I wouldn't like how you're transacting without me knowing exactly who you are and what you are doing with your money. Maybe you're funding terrorists or failing to pay your taxes. How about I apply pressure to those same someones in power to prevent you from transacting in Bitcoin until you'll completed all the necessary KYC/AML and other privacy-crippling hurdles? Things go to dark places very quickly when you consider the implications of what it is you're asking for here. Censorship for some could easily escalate to censorship for all.

Personally, I take the view that your ideals are far more dangerous to Bitcoin's longevity than a bit of short-term congestion. Bitcoin is neutral. That means sometimes people will use it in ways you may not agree with. But that's simply the price of freedom.

Renampun

sr. member

Activity: 2044

Merit: 329

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: Expressgint on May 10, 2023, 12:23:04 PM

I find it great, that you have something like the BRC 20 standard,

that makes it possible to store & share inscriptions via the btc blockchain.

This is unique.

Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.

If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.

And not just left for the world of alt coins.

Regards

Have you ever heard why vitalik created his own Ethereum token, it's because his proposal regarding smart contracts was rejected,

now you say the adoption of NFT and arts should be pushed with bitcoin network, are you out of your mind on this!!

Pure Bitcoin was created for transactions, not for shit token, Satoshi sees BRC-20 as a joke that interferes with his/her/their/our vision and mission of creating Bitcoin.

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 6012

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. [...] I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I'm here in agreement with BrianH: Bitcoin has enough reasons to exist on its own without any additions. It's the most sound cryptocurrency, the most decentralized one (Ethereum is probably a security!).

And I absolutely don't see why you think that "now" the danger of Ethereum surpassing BTC is bigger than let's say in 2017/18 when the ERC-20 bubble started and everybody was talking about a "flippening". And finally: Even if a flippening occurs - Ethereum is a completely different asset class, a mostly centralized enterprise platform. Its public is very different from BItcoin's.

I can however understand your reasoning a bit. I am for example interested in contracts resembling options or futures for Bitcoin. If something like "DeFi" can be replicated on BTC in a totally decentralized way, I think Bitcoin could profit inmensely from it, as we could mitigate risks associated to volatility on the platform itself. I am also interested in smart property, which is similar to NFTs.

However, Ordinals is not the technology I see as appropiate for that. Ordinals is a cheap hack, and BRC-20 tokens are extremely inefficient when compared even to old token standards like EPOBC and Counterparty. See below for RGB, a technology which I see most promising. I think all "token", "smart contract" and "DeFi" standards should support second layers, like Lightning and sidechains, to avoid cluttering the main chain. And RGB does that.

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s].

I think you misunderstand the whitepaper. No part in the whitepaper says that tokens should not be possible on Bitcoin. There are tons of technologies built "on top" of Satoshi's original technology, not only token platforms (like mentioned 3 posts above) but also Lightning, atomic swaps and other interesting contracts.

My personal opinion: Sell your BRC-20, if you still can Grin

Quote from: BitcoinTS.org on May 13, 2023, 01:29:02 AM

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:

https://docs.bitcoints.org/

This is NOT the complete list of tokens, but only the list of token standards based on Ordinals. There are many, many more!

The most modern standard is probably RGB, which uses lots of advanced cryptography, it's however afaik still not stable, that means that the final version may not be 100% compatible with now, but it's coming closer. It supports Lightning out of the box.

Mame89

sr. member

Activity: 1512

Merit: 418

Quote from: joker_josue on May 12, 2023, 12:16:12 PM

Quote from: BrianH on May 12, 2023, 09:05:43 AM

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

That's right!
One of Bitcoin's strengths was never deviating from Satoshi's initial plan. The fact that everything continues to work as it was done from the beginning, guarantees stability and continuity.

Therefore, I think that everything that deviates from the basic idea of Bitcoin must be rectified, so that everything remains as the initial plan.

One of the things that annoys me the most is when I'm starting to get involved in a project and suddenly the rules of the game change. I think this is very bad and discourages the project.

Yes, even though ordinals and BRC-20 love new use cases in Bitcoin, ordinals and BRC-20 split the Bitcoin community. Bitcoin and satoshi maximalists say these ordinals are an attack on Bitcoin. Why? The first problem is that this idea has existed since the time of satoshi and was rejected by satoshi himself. For example, there is BitDNS whose idea is more or less the same as the .sats domain but was rejected by satoshi at that time. Santoshi said Bitcoin was created only as a decentralized peer to peer financial system.

The second problem is social issues. since the launch of ordinals in January 2023, the Bitcoin community has been divided again. For several reasons there is a social issue. An example could be someone inserting a picture or news about Tiananmen in the Bitcoin protocol which causes Bitcoin to be banned in China for example. And Actually this happened in 2017. Now with the protocol ordinals, everyone can easily insert pictures. For example, pornographic images on the Bitcoin network. And that's irreversible, it's also not funny if the Global reserve currency has all the coins in its "doodles". According to Bitcoin maximalists, this makes Bitcoin not pure anymore.

The third problem is block struggle. Inscription satoshis (sats) are currently competing for blockspace on the Bitcoin network and disrupting other transaction activity. Ultimately causing the Bitcoin network fee to be more expensive, the ones who actually benefit the most are miners.

The fourth problem is in security. For example, Wallet Unisat is immediately hit by a double spend attack after being launched. In conclusion, BRC-20 is still in the experimental stage.

BitcoinTS.org

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 1

BRC-20 is not the only bitcoin token. There are several different bitcoin tokens in existence.

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:

https://docs.bitcoints.org/

BrianH

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 252

Quote from: wtfmidn on May 12, 2023, 09:07:23 PM

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s]. Not unless someone here believes that Jesus wrote that white paper. Grin

I'm open to being ridiculed. I just want to learn and protect my investments. Thanks for reading.

I hear your perspective. However, you have to see the big picture.

Bitcoin drives the cryptocurrency market. It's held at least 40% of the market for nearly all of it's life. When things get bad - people flock to Bitcoin, because of it's ability to function as a peer-to-peer method of exchange.

Bitcoin has something that no other coin has as much of - trust. That trust was founded, because it has worked as a trustless, peer-to-peer payment system for the last 14 years. Ordinals damage that ability. They are throwing shackles on - not taking them off.

There are 1000s of other coins out there. Some of them have better features than Bitcoin. However, making a coin that specializes in everything means you have a coin that excels at nothing.

Bitcoin operates using PoW. Few coins still have the ability to be supported by any computer in the world. It's already a more trusted platform than Ethereum 2.0, which uses PoS. ETH's PoS algorithm centralizes the network and will make it easier for the network to be hijacked, as its value increases. There are other smart contract coins that are much faster than Ethereum, less expensive, have fewer outages and may also offer NFTs - so what does Ethereum really offer?

Bitcoin specializes in one thing. It makes sense it would need to adapt to become better at that specialization. But it does not make sense to try to offer something completely different that other coins already do better.

As for changing the Constitution, the interest in Bitcoin is stronger today, because someone thought it would be a good idea to shackle people with a federal income tax (16th Amendment). Maybe it's a good idea to keep things the same?

wtfmidn

newbie

Activity: 8

Merit: 11

Hello everyone. I'm not an expert at all but did purchase about 0.7 BTC worth of ORDI earlier this week, so am very interested in this discussion.

My initial reasoning for purchasing the coin on the ordinals website was that, finally, bitcoin was [now] going to throw off its shackles and [eventually] give many more people many more reasons to buy it; which would also mean that [eventually] there'd be many more people not buying ethereum.

There is a clear and present danger that ethereum will usurp bitcoin as the number 1 coin, in terms of market cap. I am of the opinion that if this happens, bitcoin will slowly fade away into insignificance. I hope that I'm wrong about that, but my concerns about it meant that I was initially delighted to hear about brc-20/ordinals.

I don't know if or how it can happen, but my opinion right now is that bitcoin developers must find ways to deflate the erc-20 bubble, or bitcoin will lose prominence at a rapid rate of knots.

I don't believe that the original whitepaper for BTC should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever in the future, any more than the US constitution should be left unchallenged and unchanged forever [since the 1780s]. Not unless someone here believes that Jesus wrote that white paper. Grin

I'm open to being ridiculed. I just want to learn and protect my investments. Thanks for reading.

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3892

Merit: 6012

Decentralization Maximalist

Sorry, this thread is full of misunderstandings. I'm not in any way defending Ordinals but please acknowledge that:

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since as early as 2013/14 or even earlier (EPOBC protocol, Open Assets, Mastercoin/Omni, see coloured coins)
- even NFTs were deployed on the Bitcoin blockchain in 2016 (Rare Pepes on the Counterparty platform)
- Ordinal NFTs need to be differentiated from Ordinal BRC-20, even if they're technically the same thing. BRC-20 token transactions store data extremely inefficiently. But they are quite small and would be perfectly feasible with a protocol not based on Taproot at all, or with a "crippled" Taproot with some kind of size limit for arbitrary data. So if any code change takes place limiting Taproot, the "spam" could perfectly stay; in the case Taproot data pushes are banned entirely they could use an OP_RETURN based token protocol like Counterparty, or if OP_RETURN is also banned or crippled, even encode data in public keys or the sequence number (that was the first idea for tokens in BTC). Or fork Doginals and use simply P2SH.

See also this post from the developer discussion and also this one from Peter Todd. Thanks for linking to the discussion anyway, seems to be the only benefit I had from reading this thread Grin

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2023, 12:03:07 AM

Having a block size cap which would create a fee market in case of a spam attack which discourages/prevents prolonged attacks is not exactly called "network security". Security of the network relies on many things including hashrate and its decentralization.

Both of which rely on the computational power that the network incentivizes to spend, which incidentally corresponds to the cost of block space.

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2023, 12:03:07 AM

Not to mention that bitcoin was secure when the blocks had barely any transactions in them

Never have I argued the opposite. However, it'd be utter clueless to consider bitcoin increasing exponentially in price when the block subsidy will not be sufficient. The only realistic approach, is that transaction fees will be the backbone of the network in two decades from now. So Bitcoin, more or less, relies on the fact that it will be congested.

BrianH

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 252

This article summarizes the current situation nicely and introduces an additional regulatory concerns caused by BRC-20, which are little more than storing trash variables in the blockchain:

The More Bitcoin Acts Like Ethereum, the Less Investors Should Like It

Quote from: The Motley Fool

Are new NFTs and meme tokens good for Bitcoin?

When the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the original Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) white paper back in 2008, he envisioned the cryptocurrency as a peer-to-peer digital payments system and the ultimate form of "sound money." Some even imagined that one day, Bitcoin might replace the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Flash-forward to 2023, and we're starting to see some unexpected innovations coming to Bitcoin's ecosystem that seem to contradict this original premise -- among them, highly speculative meme tokens and new non-fungible tokens (NFTs). What's concerning it that these innovations are leading to higher transaction fees, network congestion, and complaints about market disruptions. What's going on here, and what impact should it have on your decision to buy Bitcoin?

The "new" Bitcoin

Perhaps the easiest way to describe what's going on here is that it is a battle between the "old" Bitcoin and the "new" Bitcoin. The old Bitcoin is the cryptocurrency originally proposed by Nakamoto. The core purpose of its blockchain is to handle digital currency transactions. From this perspective, blocks on its blockchain should only contain transaction data -- nothing more. Proponents of the new Bitcoin, though, believe that the core Bitcoin blockchain should be used for more than just digital currency transactions. Why not the creation of NFTs or even meme tokens, such as those found on the Ethereum (CRYPTO:ETH) blockchain?

...

Real-world impact

According to one blockchain analytics service, 65% of all Bitcoin transactions on May 7 were related to BRC-20 tokens. Put another way, 65% of the traffic on the Bitcoin blockchain this past Sunday involved people swapping in and out of meme tokens. Things got so out of hand, in fact, that Binance (CRYPTO: BNB) -- the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world --- had to put a temporary halt on Bitcoin withdrawals.

The important point here is that we are starting to see disruptions in the way Bitcoin is used, and these are causing higher fees and network congestion. In El Salvador, where Bitcoin is legal tender and used for everyday purchases, the transaction fees for withdrawing $100 in Bitcoin are now reportedly as high as $20. Think about that: If your bank charged you $20 every time you took $100 out of the ATM, you might start looking for a different bank.

Of course, the innovators who brought us Ordinals and the new BRC-20 tokens will describe how much functionality and utility they are bringing to Bitcoin. Perhaps they will tell you how they are helping Bitcoin reach wider mainstream adoption. And they will claim that they helped to create a billion-dollar market opportunity literally overnight. Fair enough.

But I can't help thinking about that 65% figure. Are two-thirds of Bitcoin transactions now just related to speculating in meme tokens? Please, nobody tell Gary Gensler this. As soon as the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman finds out that crypto enthusiasts have turned Bitcoin into a speculative meme-token playground, it's game over. And that's a primary concern of mine. How can anyone reasonably describe Bitcoin as "sound money" when people are playing with meme tokens in the background and inscribing funny pictures into its blockchain?

Should you invest in Bitcoin?

At one point, I thought the new NFTs might be a good thing for Bitcoin's future valuation. However, with the arrival of BRC-20 meme tokens, I've started to change my mind. Many of the most popular Bitcoin BRC-20 tokens are clearly designed to be meme tokens. The top tokens in this category by market cap now include a pizza-themed token, a frog-themed token, and a token that calls itself, yes, "meme." Now that larger, more mainstream cryptocurrency exchanges are starting to list these tokens for trading, this problem could get bigger as more people get in on the meme-token mania.

For now, I remain bullish on Bitcoin long term. But, in the short term, I'm taking a close look at what's happening with NFTs and meme tokens. If the primary purpose of Bitcoin -- to act as a peer-to-peer digital cash system -- is being hindered by high fees, congestion, and other forms of market friction, then it might be time to pump the brakes. If Bitcoin is trying so hard to become Ethereum, why not just invest in Ethereum?

I was nearly 100% into Bitcoin. I am divesting myself of my Bitcoin holdings, until this matter gets settled. I am sure I am not the only one.

joker_josue

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 4508

**In BTC since 2013**

Quote from: BrianH on May 12, 2023, 09:05:43 AM

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

That's right!
One of Bitcoin's strengths was never deviating from Satoshi's initial plan. The fact that everything continues to work as it was done from the beginning, guarantees stability and continuity.

Therefore, I think that everything that deviates from the basic idea of Bitcoin must be rectified, so that everything remains as the initial plan.

One of the things that annoys me the most is when I'm starting to get involved in a project and suddenly the rules of the game change. I think this is very bad and discourages the project.

BrianH

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 252

Bitcoin loses trust if the developers move away from Satoshi's vision and try to haphazardly bolt on every new shiny object.

Thanks for the link to the developers' thread. It looks like they are giving serious consideration to how to address this issue. The solution is not an easy one, because they have already introduced "security regression", as one developer put it, into the network.

It is naive to think this will go away. If we wait on this issue and the value of Bitcoin is reduced to where people no longer have trust/buy it, the system could collapse as mining becomes unprofitable. We could have a Terra/Luna feedback death cycle.

Also, at the current rate of transactions (600k / day), if a central government wanted to destroy trust in Bitcoin, spamming the mempool with a billion dollars in transactions could flood the system for about half a year - that's nothing to many governments.

At the mining concerns, the price of Bitcoin will continue to increase to support the miners - as long as their is value in the system. That value is destroyed if the peer-to-peer payment system no longer works. That is a short-sighted view. What will the miners have to mine if their ASIC hardware is no longer worth anything?

Rolling back Taproot is unlikely, but patching Bitcoin to remove the non peer-to-peer transactions needs to be deployed. The problem is so bad that I had a transaction stuck in unconfirmed status for over 4 hours yesterday, after paying the highest fee in my software.

darkv0rt3x

hero member

Activity: 1176

Merit: 647

I rather die on my feet than to live on my knees

Quote from: ABCbits on May 12, 2023, 05:45:32 AM

Maybe, but rollback shouldn't be option any Bitcoiner (who value immutability property of Bitcoin) consider.

Yeah, no rollback. We would fall into the same paradigma of other shit networks that have the "power" to travel back in time. Immutability is a key feature of Bitcoin blockchain. It needs to be kept that way!

Quote from: ABCbits on May 12, 2023, 05:45:32 AM

Flooding Bitcoin network always has been possible though, even without Taproot. The difference is Ordinals, BRC-20, ORC-20 and other thing give financial incentive to make people do such thing, without even thinking their action may flood BTC network.

And on top of that, this exploit has been being used as a cloud storage. That is not the purpose of the Bitcoin Blockchain although some argue that any information in a blockchain is "cloud storage", that even the normal transactions in the blockchain can be considered cloud storage. But in this case, my argument is that blockchain was created for this purpose, not for storing monkeys and all kind of crap! As already was said smewhere, this might even remove trust from the blockchain, from some users perspective and make them leave for another blockchains!

And there is a question that is kind of messing with me. I don't have enough knowledge to answer it but these jsons that have been being included in transactions are somehow using some space, right? So, if there is this space available, why can't it be used to include even more transactions in a block? Isn't it viable? Why is there this space available and ready to be filled (now) with this spam jsons? Why can't this space be used to improve the efficiency of the blocks and blockchain in terms of number of transactions per block, at least?

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2856

Merit: 7410

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: bitmover on May 11, 2023, 11:09:38 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on May 11, 2023, 08:12:43 AM

Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot.

I believe something will be done.

Maybe, but rollback shouldn't be option any Bitcoiner (who value immutability property of Bitcoin) consider.

Quote from: bitmover on May 11, 2023, 11:09:38 AM

A few hundreds of people cannot flood the network like this with a malicious script (and the ordinals can be used like this).

Imagine if Faketoshi (or some other authority) wants to flood the network, making bitcoin unusable.

In my opinion, this is already a security problem. Similar to a DDOS attack.

Flooding Bitcoin network always has been possible though, even without Taproot. The difference is Ordinals, BRC-20, ORC-20 and other thing give financial incentive to make people do such thing, without even thinking their action may flood BTC network.

Quote from: pooya87 on May 12, 2023, 12:03:07 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

That depends on people's definition about smart contract. Some people define smart contract as turing complete scripting/programming.

That is a subcategory of smart contracts and this definition was popularized after the introduction of Ethereum. Otherwise ever since 1990s a smart contract is technically a program or a protocol that can be executed automatically without human intervention, trusted third parties, etc.

The best and simplest example of a smart contract is the vending machines which is the oldest implementation of them too.

Thanks for reminder, it's piece of history i forget. But it doesn't change fact people these days is more familiar with definition introduced by ETH/ETH community.

Who is John Galt?

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 280

Quote from: joker_josue on May 11, 2023, 02:51:52 PM

The problem is not the size of the block, but the organization of the block.

For example, always having 25% of the block reserved for transactions older than 72 hours, regardless of the fee, would make much more sense. This would allow all transactions to flow through the network, preventing them from being held on hold for weeks. At the same time, those who want to move to the front of the queue can pay more fees.

This will only work for the occasional temporary increase in mempool size, which of course is fine too. But if the mempool grows systematically, anyway, sooner or later the 25% quota for old transactions will overflow, and they will also have to be ranked somehow additionally, because some transactions will start to overdue.

But it looks good as a temporary solution, because it will reduce commissions for non-urgent payments.

satscraper

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 1298

Cashback 15%

Quote from: Bitcoin_Arena on May 09, 2023, 06:35:24 PM

I think they should be removed.

Luke Dashjr for it. He has urged other developers to end both BRC20 and ordinals shit.

vjudeu

hero member

Activity: 667

Merit: 1529

Quote

For example, always having 25% of the block reserved for transactions older than 72 hours, regardless of the fee, would make much more sense.

In the past, there was a concept called "coinage": the older your coin was, the higher priority it got: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Miner_fees#Priority_transactions

Later, it was replaced with the simplest approach of "from highest to lowest satoshis per byte", and today we still have that system, counted in satoshis per virtual kilobyte.

Because I don't expect any soft-fork in the near future, all you can do is to use your own mempool inclusion rules. If you are a miner, you can enforce that. But to make it de-facto standard, other mining pools and solo miners would need to join (and be ready to earn less, so convincing them may not be that easy).

Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 22. (Read 6328 times)