Topic: (Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed - page 29. (Read 7771 times)

I don't think they remove it, and who would do that.
It opens up a posibilty for other decentral coins which are more thought thru than Bitcoin
There are a few to choose from. Litecoin, Dash, BCH to name a few. 

This is a insider attack on Bitcoin allowing this to happen.

If they won't remove it forks will come.

Many are working on it already to take us back to a simpler time no counterparty risk with LN which also had a flaw during the recent events by way of not being able to update the channel state without paying the on-chain fee. which was crazy.

But I don't think L2 is the solution, because at some point the money has to go to L1, and extremely high fees will drive people away rather than attracting more users.

The L2 should only be used for day-to-day transactions, with bitcoin having to be loaded and unloaded from there.

DEX (based on stacks) might be the solution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdq54yHDUq0

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?
I doubt there are actually too many players involved in creating these. When the hype (if there ever was much of one) is over and everyone sits on their BRC-20 shit-token-pseudo-art, there will not be much incentives left to create these bloating transactions. Slowly but surely I wold expect to see less transaction stuck in mempool over the next few weeks until fees and blocks are at a normal level again.

I think you're confused between Ordinals and BRC-20. BRC-20 (which is discussion of this topic) is only about token.


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.

Not art, because they have flaws that have been completely exposed by Ethereum NFTs (people will just abuse it to make what I call "lazy art", to make a quick buck, which screws over the buyers in the process, which gives the entire NFT system a sour taste in people's mouths.

Much better is for a layer on top of Bitcoin to be used for genuine seals/stamps of approval issued by private companies for their own products.

BTC network has its use cases, that is why it is valuable and is used all around the world, from all i have read and understood about BTC, art isn't one of its use cases. 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. BTC has enough use cases for higher adoption, especially in an organic way.

Though this exploit has already happened, and the reason why i can't find a middle ground on this situation is if you call for ordinals to be removed, you now sound like you are promoting censorship in a censorship resistant and permissionless network. Maybe a chance for the network to be exploited in this way should not have happened, but i believe its end has to happen in a non-censorship way.

Only time can tell how long that is going to take or how long we will have to keep enduring high fees. But I believe the attack to be unsustainable. There is a limit to the number of idiots who buy NFTs/scamcoins. If that makes me naive, then so be it.

BRC-20 is a useless parasitic existence which needs to definitely be removed. If that means rolling back Taproot, then I am all for it. Althought personally I doubt that the attacks will be a long term thing. Hopefully this is just a dumb fad which will calm down and even perhaps die out, over time.

I would not call it a "fatal flaw which can bring an end to Bitcoin". Its rather an irritating thing which can and will be carved out of the Bitcoin chain "ecosystem".

At the cost of bloating the Blockchain and stopping it's intended use.

You might as well tell us where in this whitepaperdoes it talk about Bitcoin being a peer to peer electronic art system.

What higher adoption if more users are going to stop using the network because of very high fees due to the unnecessary network spam that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?

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

Forget about Hodlers, I doubt if they even care about the current fees.

The problem is that the high fees are not sustainable for people making day to day transactions in the long run. This is supposed to be one of the strong points of Bitcoin. Eliminate the middleman who could charge you exorbitant fees like how banks and all those other payment providers do.

With this confidence and the innocence you have, I am sure they (the attacker) gave up on the fees on the Ethereum Network that spiralled past $100 even when they had hundreds of thousands of Dollars in their pockets after selling scam coins to gullible traders.  

Our hope is the congestion stops when the hype dies down, but let say it continues for 2–3 years like it happened in another network. What next?
How many of us do you think will start using alternative networks in order to make transactions?

The Bitcoin white paper is titled: "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". 

Bitcoin was designed to be an alternative to the current monetary system.  The reason it is slow is because it needs to be distributed, decentralized and immutable.
If we continue to allow it to be used for things other than currency it will loose it's value as a currency.  It was not designed to be an efficient network which could support non cash functions. In order to keep Bitcoin as a "Cash System" ordinals need to be removed from the system.

I urge the developers to make this change immediately!

I run three nodes and if necessary, I would support a hard fork to remove ordinals.

Thank you!

I doubt there is any need for concern over the whole BRC-20 debacle. The truth is that its not sustainable for the attacker, while profitable for the miners and irritating for the Bitcoiners making transactions.

In the worst case scenario, a soft fork will cut out the entire system but at the same time who is to say it will not return under a different disguise?

I am not worried. The only reason why money launderers and scammers are so interested in it right now is because its heavily unregulated. Its still a separated market, though. And without a means of trade such as a centralized exchange, there is no point to it, making BRC20 incredibly centralized. Once its declared a security, which it most likely will be, nobody will want to touch it.

Yeah if BTC hodlers panic and cry for a dev rescue BTC deserves to crash out.

This is a test of wills and BTC needs to hodl hodl hodl. Also do a few small btc moves to support net work.

Fees were high in 2017, and the same discussions took place regarding increasing block size, as it is the easy idea to solve this problem, and we all know what happened to those who chose that solution BitcoinCash does not represent 10% of the current Bitcoin value.

Putting pressure on developers and trying to change things will lead to bad results in the long run. This fever will not last long because all those who use tokens and smart contracts will not be able to pay higher fees for a long time, while the average Bitcoin user who believes in its ability to survive in the long run, will know that it is a temporary tax.

Consider what happened as a forced HODLING and try to Delay your Bitcoin transaction for this week| Volunteer campaign
Edit

As it stands (from what I gathered in the mailing list), it does seem that developers agree this is an important issue but also that they're not actually going to do anything about it.

So it's up to the rest of us to make Layer 2 implementations that will mitigate it for end users.


PS: It's ironic in a way. I understand that miners such as yourself are not happy with seeing all these requests to remove BRC-20, but to see this kind of opposition from nocoiners or random people from Ethereum and other shitcoin networks is comical, at best.

Like, notice all the tweets from ETH maxis posting screenshots of dashjr's opinion about it in the mailing-list discussion, and he has a grand total of... 1 post in that thread. I guess they don't have the balls to call me out directly  

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

As a miner its cool 😎 to see the high fees.

 The key 🔑 is do the high fees break the back of the 25k support.

Crashing us to a nice dip buy. Or do the crazy ass degenerate players that think they can break btc price support bust out.

The worst possible thing is removing BRC20 which would be fully admitting that BTC is a loser and can be broken by a piece of shit thing like BRC20

If you believe in btc you should support it by doing a few btc moves and paying high fees over the next two weeks.

IE on or two 10 dollar fees paid won’t break you over the next two weeks.


Crying to developers to fix it and having the developers do something is terrible.

Think of the future when fees are too small to support miners will you be crying for developers to raise the fees? I think not. Guess what miners will do down the road they will move to scrypt algo or any algo that supports mining.

Btc traders and users want small tiny fees miners want bigass fees.

The play goes back and forth.

Lets see what happens by June 1.

My guess is fees drop down and things go back to normal.

At 144 blocks a day and paying 1 or 2 coins each block you are spending 4.2 to 8.4 million a day in extra fees.

The people doing this will run out of coin. May take all of May but they will shoot their load and be spent.

I agree, BRC-20 provides an attack vector (albeit an expensive one) - malicious actors, along with dim-witted doomers, can fill the blocks up with feces. This prevents the ordinary, often un-unbanked, people from using Bitcoin as its intended purpose - 'A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash'. This would force individuals to look for alternatives.
The blocks should only be filled with financial transactions - not with monkey pictures or sh1tcoins.