Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 24. (Read 7771 times)

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

I think the reason for there being only one entity handling most of the Ordinals transactions is because Unisat is the only wallet to provide such functionality. If there were other wallets and/or exchanges doing this then I'm sure we'd see a mich higer ratio of public keys involved.

It's all really just hype though, and it's eventually going to fade into irrelevancy just like ICOs.

It would appear this activity is from Unisat which allows for wallets, transfer and minting of Ordinals & BRC20, although I'm not 100% certain:

https://unisat.io/

The motivation is purely to profit.

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

you may be right because i saw him doing an interview once and he was not a big fan of bitcoin in fact i think he was saying how gold was better than bitcoin. but i can't remember exactly.  

He is trying to troll us, he's only using Ordinals because he knows that Bitcoin maxis hate it and always contend with him about his no-coiner policy.

It is best to ignore him completely about this.

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

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

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 sheep get away, believe they became wolves, and return for the next feeding trough, only to fall the second time. That's usually how greed works. Some do live on, believing they were geniuses, though to be fair, I might have met in my life one or two who understand it was pure luck, and retire happily as regulars.

I suppose we need all kinds to keep this wheel spinning. Bitcoin was the latest to brush shoulders with it, but that really is the beauty of it, all are free to use it as they please, and to move on when they realise it no longer suits them.

Meanwhile, haven't seen 100 sat/byte recommended fee despite mempool still towering high.

You say there are competent users among the sheep?  mmh I've always doubted this because whoever buys this rubbish does it with the intention that it can enrich their pockets and therefore foolishly makes the mistake and a sheep, as you rightly said, is eaten by the wolf while those few users who know well wolves will never invest a cent.  because they are not sheep but foxes.  I still see too much shit around and too many sheep.

Or just a bad timing.
Or maybe not enough twitter/youtube/tiktok experts were talking about that and as an effect it did not bring expected amount of $.

If it was a bad timing, sooner or later it will come back.

Eh, I actually saw this coming. It happens during every "sheep hype".

Once the sheep hype reaches its peak in that all the sheep are rounded together, the wolves are let in and devour them all (well, almost all of them - some sheep are actually smart enough to escape with their lives).

I'm not expecting these sheep to have learned anything from this experiment, but if next time they unleash a shitcoin wave on a Layer 2 network, then at least that shows that the crypto community is collectively becoming a bit competent.

Does anyone feel like the problem is actually already self-correcting even quicker than some (or say, myself) predicted? The market cap for these junk coins should be growing, with the amount of new junk entering, yet it's more or less stable (if not shrinking from first week May when it exploded).

That already means the ponzi has peaked. Or that people have moved on to alternatives. Or that the group of sheep is drying up. Or a combination of all of them.

As we, and they, roundly expected, no?

What I mean by "compression" is in terms of both actions revolving around the same thing, which is a request to change the protocol, you compare that SegWit "change" to this "ban" change as if they are equally the same, which is why I said it's not a fair compression, back then, you had people who wanted to increase blocksize (Bcash folks with Bitmain siding them), basically just a small group of people who did not want that change to happen despite not having a major disagreement, they just thought their way of fixing things was better.

Banning ordinals now is a completely different story, it's not just Roger and his friends now, it's a large community of actual BTC users, a dozen YouTubers/influencers waiting for the core devs to take any "censorship" action so they can fill their social media content for the rest of the year.

My take on these ordinals and BRC-20 tokens will likely vanish or slow down close to nothing in a few months from now (I checked most top projects, telegram groups, and influencers and etc. The folks behind all this are too weak to sustain it, unlike how everything looks from the outside, the majority of those folks are just trying to get rich overnight and all of them will get rekt, move on with their lives and go back to living with their grandmother)

if we don't want to let the free market handle them, a ban of some sort shouldn't be carried out now while the hype is still high, just give them a few months, people will find a new "trend" and nobody will even notice that they were banned then.

There aren't lots of definitions for the term. It simply means to allow storage of information. Besides OP_RETURN there are standard scripts, which you can't distinguish if they're used as cloud storage or for legitimate usage. (And at that point, you will have really screwed things up, because the UTXO set will be used as that storage)

Comparably to what standardness allows, it's not. You can fit as much as an entire, 4 MB block in an OP_RETURN output, and it will be valid.

That's true for all transactions.

As if it was possible to add more inputs to bypassing that, right?  

If you think it's garbage, and all that are just greater fool theory schemes, then the best approach is to let it pass, as you're so sure it will!

Considering how this attack has become possible by exploiting an oversight in the Taproot script validation rules, this is a Taproot related issue not a SegWit related one.

That's true but it depends on what we mean by "cloud storage". If it is the very small size we allow to be stored in an OP_RETURN output for example, then we can't prevent that and we aren't. But if it is the exploitation of protocol to store any size without limit (except the block size) then we can prevent it well. We've done that for the past 14 years.

It won't break anything and saying that a single transaction with 1 input/output must not be allowed to be ~4 MB in size to store garbage on chain to scam idiots who would pay for this garbage, is not called "subjective criteria".

Well there is a big difference between usage and exploit.

Great point. I think the people who want to change the original use for Bitcoin into every other cryptocurrency are short sighted. Bitcoin is currently losing marketshare to Ethereum as institutions are withdrawing their money from the network, due to this change. If people no longer use Bitcoin, the value of that monkey pic in the blockchain will also go to zero.

Pro-BRC-20 bug people can argue all they want in favor of this change, but it will not change the fact that BTC is losing marketshare. You can see this decline in how much it has declined in the last week vs Ethereum. Altcoins nearly always decline faster than Bitcoin as people move their funds to Bitcoin, as a safe haven - no longer. I've pulled nearly all of my investment out of Bitcoin until this bug gets fixed.

No one is arguing that the primary use case for Bitcoin was a method of peer-to-peer exchange for the last 14 years. If you alter the original coin to devalue that primary use case, it becomes generic and it will fade away like thousands of cryptos that came after it. Changes to support its primary use case should always be encouraged. That's why Segwit was eventually adopted, because although it may have temporarily reduced miner's fees, it improved the primary use case, adoption and value of Bitcoin.

There is obviously a major schism in the community, which I have not seen since Bitcoin Cash. I see this eventually resulting in a soft or hard fork. If the pro-BRC-20 bug people want to create monkey pics on a forked chain, that's fine with me.

I do think the Devs read Bitcointalk and I think it's important to keep this thread alive. I hope they focus on their technical discussion, instead of disrupting it with spam.

I agree , there's no spam . As long as fees are paid there can't be considered as such . But if you have have to define something as spam , you definitely can't name the transaction that pays more fees a spam .

Edit . But if a part of the community has a problem with the congested mempool i'd suggest to them to either raise fees for their transactions or stop transacting and let mempool decrease in size .

I come to realize that you're correct. There is no universal consensus on what's "spam", for the Bitcoin blockchain at least. We're free to enforce our views in our node, but when it comes to the end point, which what gets into the ledger, all transactions should be viewed equally.

Why is that spam? The miner is free to choose whichever transaction he wants. Why would it make a difference if it paid a fortune or if it paid nothing?

I really can't grasp the spam term . As long as they pay the fees their transactions are valid . As spam is considered a free/cheap method to achieve a goal , i would consider as spam the transactions that get into blocks with a low fee .  Those that transmit transactions with fees under the current low ( 20 sats/vB ) are the spammers in current situation .