(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 23.

BrianH

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 253

Quote from: pooya87

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".

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

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 02, 2023, 12:13:21 AM

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?

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.

Quote from: DooMAD on June 02, 2023, 04:31:39 AM

Find a better solution.

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".

Cricktor

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 1010

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 02, 2023, 05:26:06 PM

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.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: ABCbits on June 02, 2023, 04:49:39 AM

Maybe you can see the difference easier if we draw 2 lines based on previous and current line segment.

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...

_act_

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1298

Lightning network is good with small amount of BTC

Quote from: NotATether on May 27, 2023, 07:44:07 AM

After huge pumps and dumps / crashes / scams and other fails, a tiny amount of shitcoiners become enlightened and see the errors of these coins, and become Bitcoiners. But most don't learn, that part is true.

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.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 01, 2023, 08:04:51 PM

Quote

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.

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.

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

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3934

Merit: 3190

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: pooya87 on June 01, 2023, 11:30:36 PM

One of the signs is seeing old bitcoiners defending this exploit of the protocol in the name of Bitcoin principles such as censorship resistance!

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.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 02, 2023, 12:13:21 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on June 01, 2023, 11:30:36 PM

In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

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.

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

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: pooya87 on June 01, 2023, 11:30:36 PM

In this scenario Casey Rodarmor, Unisat, etc. is the origin of the attack but aren't the lone attackers.

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?

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 29, 2023, 10:41:27 PM

This thread might be of interest to some here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36119042

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!

Dimitri94

full member

Activity: 742

Merit: 157

Quote from: _act_ on May 09, 2023, 04:58:17 PM

Quote from: NotFuzzyWarm on May 09, 2023, 04:49:32 PM

Overall I completely agree.
BTC was designed for currency transfer/storage.

Tokens, smart contracts, etc have no place in it! As the OP has already said there are more than enough other blockchains around to support that stuff. Ya know, ones that were created just for it...

Miners are happy very well this time because they are making more money from transaction fee and they are not going to agree on anything that will not make them gain.

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.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: nutildah on June 01, 2023, 03:03:41 AM

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.

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?

Quote

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.

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.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 01, 2023, 02:41:45 AM

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.

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.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: stompix on May 31, 2023, 05:50:34 AM

The consequences of doing nothing to prevent the next one? Wink

With users seeing this and ending forever their plans on dealing only in BTC for on-chain tx and switching to alternatives?

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.

darkv0rt3x

hero member

Activity: 1260

Merit: 675

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

Quote from: TryNinja on May 27, 2023, 01:10:12 PM

Ordinals bad? Even Peter Schiff, Bitcoin's number one hater, can see some use in them. Cheesy

https://twitter.com/PeterSchiff/status/1662210584178475008

A retarded commenting on retarded things! lol

Quote from: stompix on May 31, 2023, 05:50:34 AM

Let's combine a bit the replies!

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on May 23, 2023, 08:54:39 AM

I was saying that, as many others, I don't agree with this garbage in the blockchain!

I said it before, and I used the same term, delusional majority, when some 2-3-100 guys in a tiny crowd think that just because there are others who agree with them and in this tiny space they are more numerous than the ones that disagree they somehow are the overall majority. The same shock as a 24/7 wow player has when he enters a cafe and nobody gets his gaming jokes! Going further:

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!

stompix

legendary

Activity: 2912

Merit: 6403

Blackjack.fun

Let's combine a bit the replies!

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on May 23, 2023, 08:54:39 AM

I was saying that, as many others, I don't agree with this garbage in the blockchain!

I said it before, and I used the same term, delusional majority, when some 2-3-100 guys in a tiny crowd think that just because there are others who agree with them and in this tiny space they are more numerous than the ones that disagree they somehow are the overall majority. The same shock as a 24/7 wow player has when he enters a cafe and nobody gets his gaming jokes! Going further:

Quote from: nutildah on May 31, 2023, 03:53:45 AM

Seems to me that BSV devs are just defecting to BTC because there's way more money flowing in Ordinals / BRC20. I could of course be mistaken. But LTC and DOGE are now facing similar issues with spam, blockchain bloat & network congestion so I'm inclined to believe its not an anti-BTC conspiracy.

As I was saying, everyone has their own opinion, even on this thing, the first tweet is about people defecting from BSV and going back to BTC, although I really think it's a ton of sarcasm in that reply I don't doubt more think the same, it's not an attack, it's a way they make money cause there is demand on BTC rather than on BSV. Some might see it as proof of BTC being better some might see it as a terrorist attack, unless we go and have a mandatory vote and count everyone on this planet it's a bit premature to say the majority hates or loves Ordinals.

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on May 31, 2023, 04:18:14 AM

what consequences is that? if it dies down then we're back to normal right?

The consequences of doing nothing to prevent the next one? Wink

With users seeing this and ending forever their plans on dealing only in BTC for on-chain tx and switching to alternatives?

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: nutildah on May 31, 2023, 03:53:45 AM

I think its just a case of the blockchain-agnostic degen crowd following the newest trend. And it will die down before too long, probably within 3-6 months. Unfortunately it will have long-lasting consequences.

what consequences is that? if it dies down then we're back to normal right?

oh and that's too bad to hear about LTC. that's the one thing that has always been cheap to send. hope those fees aren't going up too much. Shocked

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 30, 2023, 06:22:01 AM

Unisat ~= Calvin Ayre, https://nitter.it/B2029org/status/1655611301412982784

Seems to me that BSV devs are just defecting to BTC because there's way more money flowing in Ordinals / BRC20. I could of course be mistaken. But LTC and DOGE are now facing similar issues with spam, blockchain bloat & network congestion so I'm inclined to believe its not an anti-BTC conspiracy.

I think its just a case of the blockchain-agnostic degen crowd following the newest trend. And it will die down before too long, probably within 3-6 months. Unfortunately it will have long-lasting consequences.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: originlegacy2323 on May 30, 2023, 01:06:38 PM

So how can we ask for a fork?

you don't ask for anything. you do it. research bitcoin cash.

Quote

also, whould a fork remove any content related to the submitted Ordinals?

it depends how far you want to rollback the blockchain.

originlegacy2323

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: pooya87 on May 09, 2023, 10:57:56 PM

Your general idea is correct, you just made some small mistakes:

Quote from: BrianH on May 09, 2023, 04:31:16 PM

It was not originally intended to support tokens or smart contracts.

Bitcoin does support smart contracts, in fact each transaction you make, you are creating and using smart contracts. It just doesn't have certain functionality that would allow creation of tokens.

Quote

Bitcoin will never offer the transactions per second to support these type of transactions.

It is not about TPS or capacity. In other words even if bitcoin could handle 1 GB blocks and a billion transactions per second, these types of spam would still not be tolerated.

To put simply it is all about usage. Bitcoin was created to handle transferring money not as a cloud storage.

Quote

The change to allow BRC-20 in Taproot needs to be rolled back.

To be clear there is no such thing as "BRC-20" in Bitcoin or Taproot. It is not part of the protocol. It is fake centralized term the scammers are using to give their attack some sort of legitimacy in the eyes of the naive.

Quote

This is a dangerous, fatal flaw to the network that could be used to bring an end to Bitcoin.

I don't think this can "end" bitcoin but it is definitely damaging it real hard and must be prevented.

Quote

What are your thoughts? Should BRC-20 be removed? What is the best way to do this?

Again BRC-20 does not exist anywhere in the protocol to be removed. There is a vulnerability in bitcoin consensus rules that is being exploited by malicious attackers and that must be patched.
At this point the best solution is a soft fork to mend the flaw.

So how can we ask for a fork?
also, whould a fork remove any content related to the submitted Ordinals?

Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 23. (Read 7771 times)