Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 28. (Read 7771 times)

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 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].

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:

https://docs.bitcoints.org/

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.

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.  

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

I believe something will be done.

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.

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.

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.

 I think they should be removed.

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

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

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

because the network's security relies on the fact that it's congested.

Probably not for too long. This whole Ordinal and BRC-20 business is a hyped-up bubble, waiting to be burst. Hopefully, until that happens, I hope the community won't begin block size wars II.

The most important one of BTC use cases is to transfer funds peer to peer, and to do that one has to pay tx fees, if anything is bloating the network and restricting people from making transactions, maybe we can call that thing a problem.

What uprises me about this mess is the quetion, how long can it be "profitable" / sustainable to send bloated data-transactions to the bitcoin network?

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.