Topic: The severity of the Ordinals Attack is increasing - page 4. (Read 1029 times)

Yup, wishful thinking. Maybe it won't technically "last", but it could easily take years until they run out of funds to spam, and that's all they need...

I think its part of his vision. Give the people the freedom to do as they like. If they want to do something stupid like leaving their Bitcoin in someone else's hands, thats fine. They have the freedom to do so and once they lose their money, they will serve as an example to future Bitcoiners not to do the same.

The whole Ordinals "attack"? A lucrative reward for the miners.

It will not last because it is not only a nuisance to Bitcoiners, but simply unsustainable and pseudo-decentralised. It is still on a secondary market because Bitcoin has no DeFi protocols. So obviously the launderers will soon hit a wall of regulations and government barriers. There are only so many idiots who are willing to throw their money away for Bitcoin NFTs / Memecoins. Its just a fad and it will disappear. Like ICOs.

And all the poor saps who bought the memecoin scams will be left stuck, sitting on them.

History does repeat itself, this ordinal attack is again being conducted or sponsored by big block supporters (BCH, BSV scammers):

Like i have been warning since February, this is different because they found a sustainable way to attack Bitcoin. That the spam is actually profitable or not is wishful thinking, once demonstrated there are actors willing to spend money to spam Bitcoin for their own interest in having Bitcoin hurt as a project.

And besides this is how the mempool is looking like now:

The main problem its not matter what the thing is, BTC ETH, GOLD, FOOD, SEX, ETC, WE CANT FIGHT AGAINST the stupidity and greed from some people.

Their are gonna pay $ 100 for a transaccion with the only willing to be rich from evening to morning, its pure greed and gambling, its like buy a lottery ticket in a more sofisticated way for them.

Their brain works in that way, and most of the people in the world sadly have that think, they only re think when the scam explode, but they dont really care they only run again to seek the next one.

The greed and the dream of being rich from one day to another its more powerfull than anything.

ummmm what?!?!?!

Who in their right mind would say Bitcoin isn't a peer-to-peer digital cash? That is literally what it is. Everyone knows that.



Anyway, I agree with the people who say Bitcoin is not a file storage system. It was never meant to be used for something like ordinals and the fact that taproot had this unintended exploit only means that we need a fix. We need an update to not allow this sort of spam to take over the blockchain. Honestly this should be very high priority and should be something that gets fixed and implemented fairly soon, like definitely before the halving.

Bitcoin is for moving money, not storing useless image data. Just because Bitcoin is decentralized doesn't mean the community must allow this sort of spam to continue just because a protocol update accidentally allowed this to happen. Let's get another protocol update in the near future to fix this attack vector.

Yes, I remember this muddy story with voting for Segwit. This seems to have been accompanied by a deep internal rift within the bitcoin community, a large part of which opposed any change. Then there was an equally deep disappointment among the miners, deceived by the fact that there was no increase in the block size, although this is in conjunction with the adoption of Segwit. This was soon followed by the bitcoin cash story and the hashrate war. Do you really want to repeat this success?

Ordinals are not IPFS or a Tor hidden service and they should not have the responsibility to circumvent censors such as the Great Firewall.

Bitcoin is not designed to be a file storage service, else we'd be hosting our own bitcointalk images there and would not need Imgur or Talkimg.

@franky:

I'm sure that these miners that are just paying themselves with fees are taking advantage of the high fees situation caused by BRC20.

So, BRC20 usage needs to die down so that the miners (the ones with half a brain, at least) have no justification to make 600+ sats/bytes transactions.

No, it's not. It was conceived this way by its creator, but the number of people buying Bitcoin in centralized exchanges, even leaving them there, and the number of people using custodial wallets is far from the initial idea. I don't think Satoshi had in his mind people paying massive capital gains tax on their Bitcoin sales either, since you don't pay taxes for using cash.

Often an invention ends up being different to a greater or lesser extent from what its creator conceived.

Moreover, Bitcoin has become so valuable that it is almost contradictory that it can be a cash, because what is valuable you don't spend it, you tend to keep it, something that Gresham was able to perceive.

On the other hand, I agree with witcher_sense. As Bitcoin becomes adopted, and we reach those dream prices of $1M per bitcoin and more, as halvings progress it will be normal for fees to be higher, so paying a few dollars for a coffee or similar using the main chain will be impossible. Right now it's going through a crazy bubble of people thinking they are going to change their shitty lives by becoming rich overnight spamming images on the blockchain, and I understand why people are upset.

But I would leave things as they are: whoever is stupid enough to pay those fees to store shit should pay them. The rest of us will have to adapt to the fact that we can't make small payments using the main chain until the bubble bursts, but as I say, bubbles aside, in the long term I think fees are going to go up.

Bitcoin is clearly a peer-to-peer system of digital cash as perceived by its creator; however, any improvements like Taproot makes it less and less of what it was supposed to be. If Taproot made it a cloud storage, then we should blame ourselves, not those expoiting this "bug", for accepting this change. SegWit has so far been benefiital for Bitcoin, but the last one was clearly a short-sighted misstep that made this stupid attack possible.

FYI they were saying the same thing back in 2017 that the spam attack is benefiting miners and they will never accept the soft fork and they will continue spamming to keep the fees up. We know what happened after that...

By that logic we should not have hard forked after the 2010 value overflow exploit and called it "legitimate usage of the protocol" and allowed the miner to keep the massive amount of coins they received as reward after exploiting the system!

As I've said many times, bitcoin use case is very clear. It is NOT a cloud storage so anything like Ordinals that exploit the protocol to use bitcoin blockchain as a cloud storage must be prevented. If you want to compare this exploit with legitimate adoption by people and countries then I don't really know how to answer your first question

the latest attack is not ordinals. its idiots injecting transactions into blocks to spend value to the max to create dust utxo and majority of previous utxo go to fee's

edit: for instance in the latest block

there is this
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/addresses/btc/bc1pxdgz3gh9lygk2uhhekrg4wnxm3pk6y0767rzp78w28ggmvkuprzslvmaqr

the value being spent is the near same as the fee
where its stupidly leaving silly dust amounts as left over amounts
(having $28.23 and putting a fee of $28.03 to leave just $0.15 as left over.. has no rational purpose of real world utility)


if you take the taint back a bit you see the spender also makes large tx fee
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/672b92b29a5c70bb71f5429e5f6313e2cded071d8fa5aafa484fec4fe76e7350
$216 fee for just a tx of 1345 bytes.. which sat/byte=575sat/byte to set up the crap stream of utxo spending 99% of themselves

these transactions have no real purpose of function of spending you buy products/services. they are just spam transactions to cause fee mania

That's what a hard fork does, a soft fork adds rules of the protocol which does not make a second chain. If you go through my post history you will see that my opinion about hard forks is that they are not practical.


Selfish? We are talking about the entire bitcoin community having to pay large fees just to do their day-to-day business.

This solution which I have just proposed does not depend on miners doing anything different, it is protocol developers that do all the fixing.

Now please explain to me what kind of use cases BRC20 tokens provide for end users (and trading does not count). Go on, I'm waiting

---

And about the miners: Nobody has actually commented on whether or not they endorse this token craze, so nobody should assume the role of conspiracy theorist and consider the miners to be "the world elite George Soros powerful people" until they actually say something about this.

That means, for all that we know, they could be against it, or they could be for it. We don't know for sure.


Most people who jump in to BRC20 are not adopting Bitcoin, they are just using it indirectly for the sake of the tokens and will gladly abandon all of it once they are done with the tokens. In other words, they are like the current crop of altcoin traders.

The only existential threat to the network is its split into two competing branches with an inevitable hashrate war between them, which you are now calling for.

It is deeply erroneous and selfish to attempt to judge the validity of a transaction by the usefulness of its contents. Before the first bitcoin sold for fiat money, the entire bitcoin network was absolutely useless from the point of view of the layman, although by that time it had already functioned quite stably. The key to Bitcoin's anti-fragility is its architectural simplicity. The miners are not trying to evaluate the usefulness of the contents of the transaction, but for some reason you are trying to get them to start doing it.

I mean something shouldnt have done at all. But we all know bitcoin is decentralized and if the protocol or thing he created (ordinals) have something wont put him in jail then theres nothing wrong though it really affect the whole network.

Exactly and we cant stop it right? Only we wait for this to die down or should we say if they already grabbed a lot of profits. Adoption can be good if many can use bitcoin but I doubt some are gonna use it when the fees are really high like this.

I prefer people getting their shit together to stop the existential threat to the network if it means the entire Bitcoin Discussion becomes an Ordinals board temporarily.

I for one will support any soft fork for this.


There's a difference between putting non-bitcoin data with a niche use case on the blockchain, and putting "worthless" (BRC20 creator's word!) BS on the blockchain in hopes that it will pay for your Lambo and 48 months of house mortgage that you're about to get evicted for.

That's how she already works. You can shake the air as much as you like that you do not like this way of using the network - it will not change anything. In the genesis block of bitcoin there is an encrypted text fragment of the headline from the newspaper, you can at the same time resent that this is also the misuse of a network intended only for the transfer of financial information. If some government wants to use the bitcoin network as a public distributed ledger, for example, to store all real estate transactions or educational diplomas in it - should we consider this a misuse of the network, while each transaction is properly paid and confirmed by miners? And if someone pays with bitcoin for the purchase of drugs, weapons or human organs - should we consider these confirmed transactions to be wrong, because we do not share the motives of the people who committed them for ethical reasons?

The growing adoption of Bitcoin, especially by nation states, may also lead to serious mempool congestions and unbearably high transaction fees. Would you also call it an attack on Bitcoin, or where should we draw the line? Who are to decide which use case of Bitcoin is acceptable? I think that the decentralization of Bitcoin should work in both ways: no one can prevent you from using Bitcoin, and you cannot prevent anyone from accessing it and using it in whatever way they see fit. Don't take me wrong, I also consider Ordinals a scam, nothing else, but a tricky way to siphon off money from naive investors, but I am totally against forking off every time we see red squares on the mempool.space website. Ordinals is a mere demonstration of how the Bitcoin protocol will look like once everyone is using it to make transactions. We shouldn't fight it because the adoption is inevitable, we should embrace it and adapt to its consequences.

What do you mean by illegal?

Bitcoin is open source, decentralised and clearly freewheeling as long as the basic operating protocol is not impacted. With Bitcoin, if something is doable, it can be done without any authority intervening. After that we all agree that what is feasible and can be done, is not necessarily good and should not necessarily be done...

I hate this Ordinals crap and the consequence it has on transaction costs and the congestion of the mempool.

But some people do have an interest in it: imagine you own a BTC mining pool, which does not pay transaction fees to its miners.
Imagine the profit you make when the fees are 1.5 BTC or more per block?!

I imagine that some industry players will fight to preserve this Ordinals crap at all costs.

I think we should only wait for the hype to die down. Degen peoples are increasing the trading of those so called ordinals. Its true this will affect regular business or merchants that use of bitcoin for transaction. But does this action by the creatoe who established this new tech of ordinals is illegal? I mean does core devs can somehow fix this? Since the creator choose to use a decentralized platform for this idea.