Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 27. (Read 7771 times)

It's so nice to see so many "voice of reason" comments here. Delusional Ordinals/BRC-20 shills are drowning in this sea of anti-NFT comments. It's a good thing community is starting to understand the threat to Bitcoin world BRC-20 brings. I actually can't wait for Bitcoiners in the US to sue Casey Rodarmor and Domo for all the losses their inventions caused. 

ordinals/brc20/etc is a direct attack on bitcoin by ETH maxis disguised as Decentralization maxis.

Its sad bitcoin maintainers dont want to fix this.

that sounds like it could get serious. 

If we wanted to pay attention to what the hooligans say, we would have never had SegWit back in 2017 to begin with.

That's the main problem. The tokens are useless as an idea this is why any alternative is not going to work. We already have other "hype technology" from Ethereum to all the other token platforms. We even have at least 3 bitcoin sidechains and protocols created with the purpose of "token creation". However their uselessness means none of these are going to become serious projects.

In other words this means that they NEED TO create their garbage inside bitcoin blockchain to gain any kind of hype since at this point they have exhausted all their options.

That means the only viable solution is the "ban hammer"

This is actually the soundest proposal I've read in days (although bitcoin core developers cannot really take any action themselves at this point, or they will be attacked from all sides by the press and "youtubers" and nobody will use their invention. Just look at what happened with dashjr's comment if you don't believe me.)

The only question remaining is... how? The only way I'm thinking it can be done is, to create a new hype technology? I mean, if Casey Rodarmor was able to ignite it by himself, any developer with modest bitcoin knowledge can.

However, it appeals to me that FedEx'ing all the BRC20 tokens to a sidechain is the best approach. This will allow us to say stuff like "more scalability and thus more tokens", and as a result boot them off mainnet and onto a sidechain.

Or:

Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 (despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter.

At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4

this is certainly an interesting thread. seems like they keep popping up but this one really has generated some intense discussion with good arguments back and forth. appreciate all you guys.

Define "good".

If that's your definition of "good", they I ought to say it's very poor and false. When I make transactions I don't expect to help Bitcoin holders. I only expect to satisfy myself.

Really disappointed by your arrogance of knowing so perfectly what's good and bad for the rest of the users that you're in the position to enforce it on the protocol.

Listen up, and listen good: Bitcoin is censorship-resistant.

I agree with what you said, Actually it should really no longer have brc20. Because bitcoin holders are okay, especially with fees when making a transaction in Bitcoin.

     When they created brc20, did it do any good? did it help bitcoin holders well? What I have clearly seen in the past 2 weeks is that brc20 has shocked us, given us a headache as a bitcoin holders, and deducted us a high transaction fees caused by this brc20 or ordinals. So it should be removed because it has no good effect and help for bitcoin holders. That's why only taproot can disable brc20 and ordinal when developers unite in my opinion.

Coindesk had a related article, based on all these overhyped, practically useless meme tokens that are clogging up networks:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/05/15/greed-token-is-not-a-crypto-scam-but-a-lesson-on-how-to-get-scammed-amid-meme-coin-mania/

You're partly right, at least we can say "tokens are not part of the Bitcoin protocol". What's part of the Bitcoin protocol however is OP_RETURN, which allows storing of arbitrary data which can be ignored by the Bitcoin validation algorithm.

And token protocols are enforced in a similar way than Bitcoin transactions: They use Bitcoin PoW's decentralized timestamping quality to determine the transaction order. So while you can create a valid Bitcoin transaction which is not a valid token transaction, once you are using the token's extension protocol, the token's rules become enforced by the Bitcoin protocol plus the extension software.

I think that's more or less a discussion about semantics, though

You want material you deem objectionable to be removed.  It's literally your thread title.  What else would you call it?



And yet the first thing it did was to record an embedded message in the genesis block.  All transactions came after that.



//EDIT:  Also, whilst I'm certainly no fan of John McAfee, I've just noticed the quote in your sig:


It sounds to me like you have a need for both trust and control if you're calling for intervention for objectionable material to be removed.  You're deviating from your own principles.    

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "censor" and "central authority" or else are throwing around harsh words to further your opinion to others. The well-being of Bitcoin's #1 use over the last 14 years and the trust that it has generated over that time as an always reliable method of peer-to-peer transactions, is under attack due to the spam these tokens have introduced. Let's both agree to disagree on how Bitcoin should be changed, going forward. The community will decide the consensus of how things should or should not be changed again.

But other methods of creating tokens have existed for some time (see d5000's post).  BRC-20 is merely one of the first to gain significant popularity.  It's rare to see widespread use of tokens to the point where it has caused noticeable levels of congestion.  Someone managed to drum up a fair amount of hype for this particular implementation and so lots of people have opted to use it recently.  But equally, someone could just as easily have hyped up an earlier implementation which didn't utilise Taproot and we'd be in much the same position.  And if there was an agreed manner in which to close the Taproot loophole (and I'm not convinced that there will be), people may even elect to use one of those other existing implementations to clog up everyone's mempools once again.  And no doubt you'd then be calling for more intervention to censor that too.  Where does it end?   

Bitcoin still has the strongest security of any Proof-of-Work coin, the most prevalent network effects in terms of utility, and garners the most recognition on the world stage.  The silly-picture-brigade changes nothing in that regard.  I'm not going anywhere because of that.  But I would seriously consider my continued involvement in Bitcoin if your misguided ilk get their way.  Pleading to those you perceive to be a central authority (I'd also point out that devs aren't a central authority, so you've got that bit wrong, too) to prevent people from using Bitcoin is utterly repugnant to me.  Again, I perceive your ideals to be a bigger threat to the health and well-being of Bitcoin than any so-called spammer. 

I don't understand this "censorship" argument. The ability to create BRC-20 tokens was recently added to Bitcoin's code by the developers. This is "censoring" people's ability to perform peer-to-peer transactions efficiently, which was the founder's vision for Bitcoin and is its #1 utility. IMO and many others - this change was a mistake. Changing the code requires consensus among the community. You're trying to draw a parallel with central authority and quasi-democratic changes where there is none. Bitcoin's trustless peer-to-peer protocol inherently avoids KYC/AML requirements, unless people give up their keys/rights and move trust to a central authority. In no way am I advocating for that. If you want better privacy features at the expense of less fungiblity and a more bulky blockchain there is also Monero.

So, let me see if I understood.
This spam transaction only went into the block just because the fee value was high enough to go with higher priority than any other, right? The other 39 transactions are already normal Bitcoin transactions that had higher fees than others in the mempool, yes?

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.

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".

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.

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.


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?


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?

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.

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.

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.