Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 26. (Read 7771 times)

Yes they are losses. If a user paid 1sat/byte for a transaction before ordinals attack and now the same user has to pay 100sat/byte because there are 500000 monkey pics queued in mempool the user is losing money/Bitcoin. The network has come to a complete stall now after the BRC20 attack joined ordinals attack in a massive ddos targeted at Bitcoin. 

You are basically saying that just because other people's transaction doesn't matter to you then we should turn bitcoin into a cloud storage because that junk data also doesn't matter to you!!!

Why should they?

Seems rather your singular behalf, as the protocol doesn't understand "extra garbage". It understands valid and invalid. I can agree it's valid garbage, but apparently acknowledging something is garbage versus invalidating that something because it's garbage does not seem orders of magnitude different to most here. But it is.

Answer the following question and you'll understand the point: are my financial transactions any more useful to you than Ordinals?

*sigh*

I don't see how this is so difficult for people to grasp.  Embedding non-financial data in the blockchain has always been there.  People have been doing it for years.  There's simply more of it now.  This has always been possible. 

On top of having that part wrong, your instinctive reaction to "fix" it is to CHANGE Bitcoin, in order to introduce gatekeepers to determine what is or isn't acceptable usage.  This is fundamentally wrong, because once that's possible, law enforcement agencies will start looking for ways to introduce gatekeepers to prevent anyone who hasn't completed KYC from transacting.  That would cause a pretty rapid end to this little experiment and Bitcoin would be considered a colossal failure.  And that's just one possible example of ways things would turn to shit real quick if even a few of the censorship advocates in this topic had their way.

You are the bigger threat if you think gatekeepers in Bitcoin are a good idea.  YOU are the ATTACK here.

Thankfully, the protocol cares about your "views" as much as it does the views of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments.  As such, the network will continue to accept transactions some would rather see blocked.  Because that's what it was designed to do.

Some here consider Ripple a centralised shitcoin because it has centralised validation.  It's the one where traditional finance institutions are building a permissioned network.  Effectively, banks control the chain.  At all times, they get to determine what is valid and what is invalid.  They can also freeze balances if they choose to.  But it's considered highly efficient.  There are no silly pictures embedded in Ripple as far as I'm aware.  Perhaps you'd rather take a look at that if you're struggling to cope with the level of freedom Bitcoin has afforded you.  It sounds more akin to what you want.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "I might not personally need them", doesn't mean other people don't". I was speaking on Bitcoin behalf, not on my singular behalf. The base layer was perfect as it was. It didn't need the extra garbage!


Did the Ordinals / Inscriptions, BRC-20 and ORC-20 changed any of that? Bitcoin was already like that before! As of now, the only way to shut Bitcoin down is to bring the entire internet down, and even so, as soon as any node at any point of the world became online again, it was enough to resume the network again. So, all these new garbage didn't bring anything new to the network.



I understand that but the thing here is that this is only atracting shitcoiners! Bitcoin doesn't need shitcoiners! And it seems that these tokens (or whatever people call them) brought more adoption and more "traffic" to the network, but the point is also that thhey are not using the network to what it was supposed to be used in the first place! They are using it as cloud storage!

This is my view and I simply can't agree with this garbage!

Just because you might not personally need them, doesn't mean other people don't.  At the end of the day, if you can find a way to build it and it works, it's very difficult for people to stop you.  Which is precisely why no one can shut Bitcoin down (that's a good thing, in case you needed the hint).

Just imagine the number of commercial banks, central banks, law enforcement agencies and governments who wish they could just snap their fingers and make Bitcoin disappear forever.  But they can't.  And yet, here people are saying they want to undermine the very freedoms that make it impossible for those entities to shut us down.  Don't you see how reckless that it?

Building more efficient ways to transact is always preferable versus trying to find ways to stop people transacting.  Because once it's possible to stop people, THEN you'll find out what an "attack" on Bitcoin really looks like.  I sincerely hope no one ever finds a way to prevent people from transacting.  And I wish people understood why that's so unbelievably important.  

Will people please listen to reason and stop being so short-sighted?

That was what I was referring to. If these Ordinals, BRC-20 and ORC-20 were not possible in Bitcoin, those patches-on-top-of-patches wouldn't be needed. But seems that devs are not considering this as an attack! Some of us, do consider it an attack!

Yeah, the BCH and BSV chains are stuffed full of images and other media.  Someone made an Ordinals equivalent for DOGE.  This stuff absolutely exists on other blockchains.  They just don't carry the same level of prestige as Bitcoin.



The provision of an incentive is a natural way to encourage people to transact in a considerate manner, without trying to control them or deny their existence.  All this pitchforks-and-torches, tyrannical lynch-mob, "let's just ban it" mentality is discouraging.  I feel that approach would weaken the network.  It's about creating the right environment to incentivise the behaviour we'd like to see.  If the discussion were more along those lines, it would be more productive.  Things like this would provide an incentive and offer a more efficient way for gullible speculators to buy and sell silly pictures.  Even if the rest of us think it's stupid. 

I understand and aknlowledge you hhave a point on the free market for fees, however, I still argue that this thing is using the Bitcoin network only as a cloud storage for crap stuff. This is not what Bitcoin was intended for. Wy wouldn't they go for BCH or BSV networks? I'm honestly asking because I don't know if this is technically possible!

Anyway, I still think something should be done regarding this attacks despite the fact that people may see this as an oportunity to make the network even stronger and resilient!

To be honest BRC 20 is a great idea where we have smart contract like Etherum did build on popular and most recognizable blockchain BItcoin but it overloads the Bitcoin Network?'

I am just curious is there a possibility that Bitcoin has layer 2 but way way more efficient like Eth did with their layer 2 chain polygon arbitrum or optimism

It sounds more realistic than you might expect when there are exchange which have BTC/tBTC pair. And they can even make argument testnet coin actually have value because there's cost to mine it.


As if suing Casey would stop people from using Ordinals. But if you or someone else suing Casey for such reason, i would classify such action as attack to open source software/development and i hope you went bankrupt after lose on court.

If you guys are still considering legal action, well good luck with that because the original Ordinals client is CC0-licensed (in other words, it's in the public domain).

I am not contradicting myself, you say Ordinals caused huge losses like it created an opening for people's funds to be stolen in the network. TX fees isn't losses, a time will come when miners will receive incentive only through TX fees which will not be so cheap then, will it also be called losses at that time. I don't support this invention and i don't use it, but people are using it, and because the network is permissionless, they do not need my permission or yours to do so.

There is a particular reason. Competition. It's a free market feature. Deal with it.

Cry all you want. Transactions are, by design, resilient to censorship.

Honestly but how relevant a transaction malleability and scalability proposal is, in comparison with banning a certain type of transaction because you don't want to pay more in mining fees? I can't think of one relevance.

If you think more noise is going to yield your desired result, you might be disappointed.  You're still offering up a wishlist, rather than a course of action that everyone can agree upon.



As you seem to be one of the most aggrieved and are stating that there has been an impact on your business, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and get the ball rolling on that? 

Which legal precedent for 'an inventor being sued for people using their invention exactly as it was designed to be used' will you be invoking? 

Perhaps it's satoshi you need to sue?  Given that your argument is people aren't using their invention in the way you think it should be.

I didn't compare the Ordinals Attack and its preventive measures with SegWit. I pointed out that in 2017 people were attacking core devs and anybody supporting SegWit trying to prevent it from happening and we didn't listen and pressed on.

Back in 2017 those who were performing the different types of attack on bitcoin were also a community and their funds surpassed at least tens of millions of dollars.

Again in 2017 the mining pools were making massive amount of profit from the spam attack and yet we managed to activate SegWit and the attack was also eventually eliminated.

You are contradicting yourself here. Ordinals caused (and continue causing) huge losses. People who paid cents (satoshis) for their tx are now paying much more (x10-x100) for the same tx for no particular reason. This is because the network is getting ddosed by the NFT criminals.

Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network. 

Not a fair compression IMO, SegWit implementation had no exclusion of a certain type or category of users, even the people who opposed it were essentially looking for the same goal that SegWit was going to accomplish they just thought their approach was better, maybe a few miners were upset about the fact that people can now transact cheaper using Segwit, but nothing major in terms of counter-arguments against SegWit.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

i doubt that would hold up in court. you might have to go after individual people that are using his tool to abuse the network if that's the way you feel. imagine that. people uploading monkeys to bitcoin getting sent to jail. and that creates a chilling effect wherein other people become afraid to upload new monkeys and only trade monkeys on the darkweb...isn't that how bitcoin started out by the way? 

Ordinals didn't cause any loss, it wasn't an attack that compromised the network or people's wallet, not that it is even possible, so what has a lawsuit got to do with this. BTC is even a decentralized currency, so if you ever lose BTC in your self custody, no lawsuit can help you recover it. Ordinals truly takes up block space, but it isn't a threat to BTC; it only causes mempool congestion and makes people to pay higher tx fees to outbid others and get their transaction confirmed, it is surely going to cool off.