Topic: The severity of the Ordinals Attack is increasing (Read 1029 times)

This sounds like a contradiction, claiming that the no.1 rule of the network is that a transaction should be legitimate, and not spam. The BRC20 and ordinals transactions are legimate, hence they are accepted by the network. They are legitimate because the users making those transactions have signed a signature proving that they own the satoshis they use for the transactions, not much else. The reason why the network has fees was never to stop spam but for spam to have a cost, in order to discourage it. I also don't believe this is a ddos, as the network remains available for users who are willing to pay the correct fee.

This is how the network legitimises transactions, by verifying them. It has nothing to do with whether users are transferring coins between accounts or otherwise. 

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.[/quote]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then! I don't think you need to love or believe in Bitcoin in order to use it. A Bitcoiner, by definition, is simply a Bitcoin user. It has nothing to do with sentiment.

Yes, cause the lightning network is created as the second layer and solution for the Bitcoin network. It's transactions are more faster and cheaper than the traditional Bitcoin blockchain transactions.
If the network congestion continues, we will see all crypto exchange switching to it.

I don't the developer we think of another solution than the creation of new fork coin, or making use of the BTC lightning network.

No, you didn't get it. I don't care about how tech works here. I was comparing user experience. Email spam is a serious global issue, same as ordinals in Bitcoin. Email spam if not limited by the email filter would make users' lives miserable. Exactly as ordinals do.


Again, you're comparing technologies, I didn't meant that. What I was trying to say, they have similar effect on the user. And no, there's no need to criminalise anything. It's a system error, a glitch, a bug which needs to be fixed.


I never said that certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. You're absolutely right saying that the network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else. The nr.1 rule is that the transaction should be legitimate, it should not be useless spam. Otherwise, the system stops working as it simply wasn't meant for that. Do you know what a ddos is? Ordinals are sort of a ddos on Bitcoin network.

No, it does not. Loving Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin makes you a Bitcoiner, not sending any satoshis to anyone.

Protocol upgrade or more precisely, a bugfix is not the same as a hardfork.

there is more then one pool
if 90% of one pool stopped. then that pool will make >90% less blocks and >90% less rewards
(EG lets say 90% of foundry is in america)
other pools then make more frequent blocks due to less competition. so their block count and rewards go up

however the 10% that want to continue will be left on a dying pool which make >90% less blocks so their rewards are less. if any. yep if you have a small pool your chance/luck decreases exponentially too. its not a fair %
 
this will mean that the first pool only gets rare blocks or dies
however 10% moving to another pool means a boost in blocks for that other pool but now they have to share with an extra 10%

..
also governments dont need to ban mining they just need to make power companies apply a premium electric tarrif, and then the governments then tax it at 30% ontop and just price people out of wanting to mine in certain countries

EG
mining is not banned in japan or hawaii. but due to electric costs. making it cost ~$120k just to break even per btc mined. no one wants to mine in japan/hawaii

 As part of the recent discussion on Bitcoin transaction fees I had a question I had been lurking in my mind to @JayJuanGee Sir, @JayJuanGee tried to explain it logically but it was easier to understand when @mikeywith added something to him.  Hall
 Contrary to what he said in my question, Minara is not a member of a forum that you can maintain contact with or have the option to contact.  We know each other on the forum.  But miners have no chance to communicate with each other.  So how can they systematically stop work and create network congestion?  However, all miners know how they will benefit.  The most important thing is that the miners will mine independently if anyone wants to slow down they will lose.  His reward will be less than others.  If 90 percent of people stop mining, 10 percent won't stop doing it.  In this their profit will be more.  No one will want to harm them.  They will try to perform their tasks quickly and bring the rewards to their account.
 He also said that as long as we don't need the permission or license of a big country such as the United States, Britain or Russia to do mining, the miners will continue the mining activities without disturbing their mining but with the highest importance for profit.

At an early stage in the development of the network, developers have repeatedly introduced restrictions to protect bitcoin from malicious spam attacks. Your persistence in calling for new restrictions suggests that the current level of development of the network continues to be early and Bitcoin has not yet reached the point of maturity where any attempts to attack it only benefit it. I think bitcoin no longer needs any kind of hyper-custody and is an independent entity that follows its own path with the passage of time.

Think about this one more thing. You don't have to be clairvoyant to suggest that for the foreseeable future, bitcoin will be subject to equally strong pressure from regulators to force miners to drop mixed transactions. Transactions that pass through the mixer will also try to be declared spam, illegal, not in the true spirit of the open blockchain, dirty and not eligible for inclusion in the block. Today you advocate new restrictions to protect against spam, but are you ready to find yourself on the other side of this barricade tomorrow with the only hope of protection from those whom you accuse of connivance today?

Now you said it, that's exactly it. I am sure even worse results would happen if you checked to see the amount of people talking and the amount of people who actually use Bitcoin for other than trading/speculation. In fact, I prefer people use Bitcoin for speculation than not at all.


The funny thing is in fact it is not so much a problem of where we are in Asia. In my country I work in, I can send immediately to neighboring countries, and for almost free. It is when I send to America or Europe the problem becomes fees and delays, and my banks tell me they processed it already but the accepting bank is the one taking the time, and the big fee comes from them, not our banks!

The same if people in Asia work in Europe, they send money home, the banks over there charge huge fees to send back and then if you call the bank here, they say no, the other bank has not sent it yet.

This nonsense shouldn't be happening in 2023 Thanks to BTC, boom, done. Except when high fees like now lol

I wonder how effective the lightning network is.  How does the fee fare on-chain when we use this method.  I also think that lightning network is one of the solution but I am curious about the onchain transaction activity when we use lightning network.  Does it decrease the fee needed?


If disabling the feature that enables Ordinals and BRC 20 is not the way to go then the developer should think of a way to improve the scalability of Bitcoin so that the network can accomodate and not be hampered by this attack or the robust transaction of BRC20 that congest the network.

Those are quite drastic comparisons and completely detached from reality. It wouldn't be the same as not using email filters, email is predominantly accessed on centralised servers/clients. It'd be like asking the internet protocol (that is decentralised and based on basic rules) to censor this spam in the first place, in order for it not to end up at the destination of email clients - that would be the equivalent of Bitcoin wallets.

Do you therefore think the IPv4 or IPv6 should be blocking spam, because the decentralsied network shouldn't allow it? This is what you are suggesting, and it's completely ridiculous if not obvious.

As for drugs or chil porn, these aren't technologies, so there is literally zero comparison. Not to mention there are centralised laws in place to criminalise these activities. Are you therefore suggesting Bitcoin implements centralised laws in order to criminalise these activities? Again, that would be the equivalent of what you are suggesting here. Please try harder next time with your poor quality comparisons.

So no, I don't think certain users should have priority over the network based on the use-case. The network was designed so that priority goes to those who pay the highest fees and follow the basic rules, nothing else, whether you like that or not. If you don't like that, then I suggest you stop using Bitcoin - as that's how it was designed. Likewise it's development has led to BRC20s and ordinals that certain users are paying more for. You can claim that they aren't Bitcoiners, but if you are sending satoshis to Bitcoin miners as fees as Bitcoin network user, for the network to verify, that makes you a Bitcoiner.

I really hope this situation with ordinals / high fees doesn't end up with 2017-esq hard fork proposals, as it's increasingly looks like people are pushing for centralised protocol "upgrades" with these rhetorics...

These "because freedom" comments are just laughable. Let's stop using email filters and drown in spam. Let's legalize drugs and child porn "because freedom". Bitcoiners should have freedom to use Bitcoin and make transactions without being interfered by spammers. Do you agree?

Yes, there's a huge number of transactions at the same time but there's no network attack. Mind you, the insignificant block of Bitcoin was implemented by Satoshi to prevent any form of attack and the recent vast of the Bitcoin network was triggered by the Ordinal project.

Reduction of hype or any news is never the solution and the solution is people using the alternative which is the lightning network.

Maybe they will come up with a solution or introduce a block increase.

You can see a lot of people are frustrated with gas fees and Bitcoin network congestion at the moment but know what to do because there are many transactions at the same time or a network attack. What we need to do now is reduce the hype over this news. The psychological impact of using the bitcoin network to transact is also less stressful. Instead, expect the development team to build solutions to improve and enhance the quality of the network. Bitcoin is a leader in this cryptocurrency and will not be defeated by a problem it has encountered in the past.

This. I said it back in February, that Ordinals is just the beginning, and the problem will remain since they already demonstrated it, even if they stop, others will tryto abuse it. So it pointless to name the individual spammers, but close the vulnerability or at least mitigate it.

---

I was able to push $500 paying $2 after waiting a day, but the problem is that this current gridlock is not from bitcoin traffic, and traditionally we have seen real bitcoin transactions do this (like when exchanges move funds around), imagine when both occur...

Also remember other spammers are joining, because the doors remain open.



4 months of spam, and counting...

i mentioned 3 breeds of bitcoiners
investors throw more then small amounts in one go..accumulators put in small amounts regularly..

so the accumulator people will be hit by fee's each week/month
imagine it like throwing in $400 a month where fees were $40.. 10% fee is rediculous
now imagine third world countries like the unbanked. wher $40 is their entire months wage where they only want to put in $10 .. but fee's are $40

where as investors(not only whales) will have more coin but even if a whale, they will not want to keep withdrawing and depositing daily so end up using exchanges as custodians to keep profits

years ago i used to day trade a non-insignificant amount so i would withdrawal at night and deposit again the next day. but if fee's were this high then. i would not even bother depositing.
right now im just hoarding. i dont move my main stash for years. but my spending stash. well im giving that a rest too.. which is kind of a ridiculous thing to be doing on what was promised to be a payment system. and not im not going to shift value over to another network. i just find it stupid that we should put up with this crap when CODE can be wrote to make the system better. because thats what code can and should do. not the opposite

100% and in the gambling section that its really easy to see, you can measure that by the ammount of people talking divided by the ammount of people who really take part on pools, sahring bets , etc.


Well, this its completly true, a lot of people have a occidental way (and its ok because they live there) to think and they can access easily to the banks international transfer etc, but in the rest of the world that its not easy, its really complicated depending on what country you are and also how much money and contacs do you have, in that part, crypto its very very useful to bypass that limitation.


Two things to say. First i think if you are gonna have BTC to accumulate, fees doesnt make a real problem, because if you have 20k usd pay 10 usd for withdraw or use them, its  not so bad (i know, i dont want to pay 10 usd but in the big pic its not big).

About your last point, this its like religion some people are ultra ortodox and dogmatic, but yes i think like you, those people doesnt know the harm they are doing.

Yes, that's a good point. However, why seems that devs are not going to do anything about it? I think they don't want to do anything about it because of the censorship matter. Because some may see it as a censorship move or because they simply don't see this as an exploit / vulnerability.

the thing is.
those wanting to accumilate bitcoin now fear using the bitcoin network due to high costs.

it costs less now to wire transfer via western union than it does to remit via bitcoin. so people wont want to remit via bitcoin

those investing via trading wont want to withdraw coins from exchanges due to losing profits via fees

bitcoiners being told 'nothing should be done' to make bitcoin better, mitigate costs, avoid exploits, etc are being told this by people that love to offer other networks as solutions. these preachers are not bitcoiners.

Based on my few years of experience on this forum, where supposedly we are all made of Bitcoiners, I really don't think there are that many people at all who use BTC. I'm not saying it's bad, but I'm active in gambling and I think I can know the same people who really gamble with BTC, the majority are just spammers.

Same in Bitcoin Discussion.

But I know some deliberately use BTC because they love the coin and want it to live. I get inspired by that, so I also use BTC just when possible, unfortunately this is not a lot of times.

However, as you said it is small but nontrivial, so it is enough that a few people use it, and it means the few nontrivial are affected by fees.

It's definitely not as bad as it was when first became an issue but big enough that if you pay some things you have to pay fees more than the item.

Somebody in a thread I am active in pays subscription for VPN and that's a few dollars. If the fee is same as that, not worth.

What you said about investment rather than currency I partially agree. For me BTC is like a remittance or wire transfer. I don't use it a lot compared to swiping my card or QR code or whatever. But for me depositing BTC into a casino, or sending BTC to some friend, or receiving BTC, or even shopping online, it can be nicer and cheaper to do, and for sure in terms of remittance, way way faster.

If you live in Asia try sending America or Europe some money or if you work abroad and send money home. Big big fees, big big delays, and sometimes stuck if the bank is a crap bank. It's definitely been useful for me as a currency, unfortunately I don't have enough to say investment, more like savings

YES.

ITs like i come now and i say, " look BTC its censoring me because i cant upload GTA 5 in a block of their blockchain".

Or if we have a family of 65 people and i go out and claim, "look the car industry its against me because they only transport 4/5 people".

Come on, dont confuse  rules or parameters with censoring.

I had no idea what was causing the network congestion, and thanks to OP for starting this thread.  As to your comment, slaman29, I sort of agree; I don't know how many people actually use bitcoin to buy things, but I suspect it's a small but nontrivial amount.  There's probably not much a bitcoiner can do to avoid this shit--network fees have been crazy before, and it happens from time to time.  Right now if I'm not mistaken, some of said congestion has been relieved, no?

Honestly, if you're going to be buying anything using crypto through a payment processor you're probably better off keeping some litecoin or doge in reserve since those are usually accepted as well.  I've always thought bitcoin was a much better investment vehicle than it is a currency, and this nonsense is doing nothing to sway my opinion.