Topic: Will the Ordinals craze cause a UAHF soon? - page 2. (Read 408 times)

I don't think there's a high risk of a hard fork, and anyone's always welcome to try creating another version of 'Bitcoin' that won't succeed (so that doesn't really matter). The fees are going down, and I just hope that this will be one of the issues that get naturally resolved on its own by the market, namely with a lower interest towards Ordinals, as high transaction fees are affecting everyone using the network. The hype seems to be dying out, there are plenty of other coins to use for NFTs and stuff, and Bitcoin will eventually be left alone, I believe. The high fees are probably an issue not just to regular Bitcoin users but to those using blockchain for other purposes as well, which should be discouraging to them.

Plus if the community truly finds and goes into consensus for a Hard Fork, we better take that as a Golden Opportunity for the Core Developers to make great improvements in the code. The opportunity would be wasted if it's merely just to remove a "feature/bug", depending on opinion, that doesn't really break the consensus rules.

Plus we could be quite confident that long term development for inscribing tokens through Ordinals is a dead end, nothing more can be done with it. Their "network" with a third party/trusted indexer is off-chain. It's better for their developers to use more efficient solutions, like Blockstream's Liquid Network or probably Counterparty?

We do not need a hard fork to fix the exploit they are using to attack bitcoin because the change would be adding more restrictions on the consensus rules instead of removing anything. This is backward compatible and can be achieved using a soft fork like all the previous soft forks.

It is nothing like the scaling debate because there aren't two sides proposing different approaches (increasing hard cap using hard fork vs increasing the capacity though soft fork + second layer).
The two sides in this case would be those arguing against abuse of the protocol and fixing the exploit versus those arguing that bitcoin should turn into a cloud storage.

That's the bright side I have seen in it so far(limiting bitcoin transactions). At least many are learning to leave their bitcoin in their wallet without the thought of transacting it because of the high transaction fees.

Despite the bright side, how I wish the ordinals is to be blocked on bitcoin network. Bitcoin wasn't created as a contracted network for any project in the first place.

i hope the bitcoin blockchain will get back to normal soon, ordinals is clogging up the TXs. as far as the hardfork is concerned, by nature it tends to divide the community, as has already happened in the past with bitcoin cash, but I don't think it can be a bad thing because each of us bitcoiners has preferences and it is right to respect them

There are several reasons why the rise in popularity of ordinals could lead to higher transaction fees on the Bitcoin network. But in order to understand why this will not lead to a new hard fork, several factors should be considered.
First, ordinals are not the main reason for the increase in transaction fees on the Bitcoin network. Instead, it is due to the 1MB block size limit and the increase in the number of users willing to transact on the Bitcoin network.
Secondly, the creation of a new hard fork (UAHF) requires a significant amount of time, effort and resources to be spent on developing a new network and mobilizing the community. While the Bitcoin community, as a whole, strives for a single standard and does not want to be divided into several networks.

It will not destroy the bitcoin but it will surely slow down the investment coming it’s way. Last time when BCH fork happened there was distinction of 1:1 and thus everyone surged to buy the bitcoin but that was literally temporary. Just to receive the BCH and see if they book crazy profits along the way.

Anyways, that was different story but what I want predict from that is it won’t be working if we have more forks. They are just temporary additions to the problems and later situation resets to where it was earlier.

Ordinals NFT should be removed or their way of workflow must be changed differently. That’s the only situation to remove the congestion right now.

This is when you pay for worthless NFTs that will soon fade away, these arts has made some blockchains miserable, take a look at Solana and how some of them snitch and left for Matic when there is no longer sweet liquidity and money, the same thing I expect to happen to Bitcoin network very soon and whoever allow this to be done in the name of open network shouldn't be angry or take an offense when they attack bitcoin for accommodating things they dislike in the beginning.


I don't think there is a global node where transactions are been broadcasted and if you decide to be selective and reject ordinal transactions as a node, Mining nodes will be there to receive them with one hand, they will never let go of revenue because your idea doesn't go well theirs and if there is a division among the community, a fork wouldn't do anything serious, look at Bitcoin BSV and other forks that has happened in the last couple of years, they are only enriching the early holders, no development or passion for adoptions from investors because of the negative speculations.

It won't result in a hard fork soon.

More transactions in mempools than days ago but no more very high fee rates like days ago.
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC%20(default%20mempool),30d,weight

So the problem comes from how people understand the issue and use fee rate. If they keep escalating fee rates, they will escalate it to infinity. Do they want infinity fee rate?

I believe at some expensive fee rate, they will stop like how people rejected to make transactions on Ethereum blockchain with too expensive Gwei or they just don't have enough money for too expensive fee. They can not make transaction with $100 in fee and only have $20 to buy some BRC20 token.

Miners are cashing out big time, so the odds of having another Bitcoin-based hard fork are pretty slim. I'm hoping the spammers targeting Bitcoin with useless NFTs move to other chains with plenty of transaction capacity to handle anything they're thrown at them. Fees on BTC will rise to a point where it'll become economically unfeasible for spammers to continue flooding the Blockchain with Ordinals inscriptions. We just need to be patient to see great results in the long run.

In the meantime, I'd suggest you use an alternative cryptocurrency with lower fees to avoid "breaking the bank". That is if you're planning on spending BTC every once in a while. Else, keep on "hodling" until the tide is over. Who knows if there will be brigher days ahead for Bitcoin? Just my opinion

This won't happen because miners and most of the community won't care. However, now is a ripe time to start creating forked shitcoins that disable the possibility of NFTs and other crap, and dumping them on exchanges like it happened with all the previous forked shitcoins (BCH, BSV and so on). And then someone will create forked shitcoins with even more NFT integration to dump them too. So maybe we'll see a repeat of the previous Bitcoin fork craze that created a lot of airdrops for Bitcoin hodlers.

how stupid do you have to be to buy into this NFT and memecoin nonsense?

99% of the retards buying these things will lose all their money.

you can say the miners are making money which is good for the network.
but it would be better for the network and miners if people would simply invest in bitcoin itself and not fall
for these get rich quick memecoin pump and dumps that is much more likely to get you very poor quick.

I see the chances of yet another forkcoin as close-to-nil.  If fees were that big of an issue for me (but for me, censorship resistance is the far more crucial factor.  I'd have nothing to do with this proposed exodus, so this is all hypothetical), I'd choose one of the existing forkcoins over further diluting the hash rate and making yet another fork where the network effects would have to be built from nothing.  

The far better option in my mind is to allow the market to do its thing.  This will eventually price the spammers out and incentivise them to move to a crappy forkcoin.  The existing forkcoins already have a bunch of junk transactions in them just to prove they can do it, so they won't mind a bunch of memes padding their numbers.

Stand your ground.

random users rejecting zero confirm tx at relay wont stop it.

what needs to happen is the economic nodes (businesses/services which users want to stay connected and viewable by) along with pools need to stop accepting blocks that include them..

its like 2017 but in reverse. where at a certain date a mandated threat that pools will get their blocks rejected if they accept non standard tx (use certain opcodes that dont have any rulesets set). thus after that date it goes back to a system where if bew features are wanted then proposals are needed to say what the rules will be for a new opcode. then devs will release it and a activation system would occur once majority is reached. like it used to be

if it was just a uahf then users will just be splitting themselves off he network by rejecting alot of blocks if mining pools continue building with blocks containing spam junk.

its become a system where the main exchanges and devs can threaten pools. but users have become the followers or leavers

Memecoins brings nothing but pain, and this has been confirmed with this recent btc high transaction fees and congestions. Before the btc ordinals thing, btc network was fine and so was transaction fees.
That ease and cheap fees has been snatched away by the emergence of brc20 memecoins, who would ever thought there will be a brc20 projects on the bitcoin network 
Crypto has really advanced and evolving. 

Yea, you are only speaking for yourself; don't forget that there are a lot of people buying Bitcoin every day; some are buying from CEX and withdrawing to their individual wallets, and this huge fee is going to be a problem for the rate at which they accumulate. I know every day thousands of Bitcoin transactions are going on, as many are buying and many are also selling, and for those people buying and selling, it may be a necessity for them to either buy or sell or spend their Bitcoin, and this high fee just made it a bit messy for some to carry out Bitcoin transactions, although it has reduced so much as of today compared to what It saw yesterday. I just believe this will not continue like this for a long time, and if it does, there will be a lot of FUD, but a lot of people will also adopt and only spend their Bitcoin when they necessarily have to, which will be more of an issue for some who want to invest in Bitcoin newly. For example, some newbie who wants to buy $100 worth of BTC for the first time, would spend like $20 in fees (it's crazy, right?).

---

I believe we will cross the bridge soon.

I don't think this causes a scaling debate. Everyone already knows you don't scale on-chain. I'm not saying Bitcoin necessarily never increase block size. If there is a fork for some other reason for a needed upgrade to Bitcoin I wouldn't mind a 2x or maybe even 4x block size increase cuz its not like the 1MB (or 1MB + segwit I guess) size that Satoshi happened to implement way back in the day is the perfect size ya know, it's just what he decided to put it at at the time. There are reasons to want a bit more txs in the blocks in the future like when newly minted coins go close to zero in a couple decades, but scaling bitcoin is not one of those reasons because you don't scale on-chain, you scale on higher layers. But I don't think block size alone is a reason to fork, and if it is done as part of some other fork it should only be done once because there is no point in actually trying to scale with block size increases.

Anyway, block size increase wouldn't do anything to stop useless crap like NFTs and tokens from spreading, it'd just give them more space to fill up. So that's not even a solution. A solution would be a code change to prevent this sort of non-vital data from being crammed into txs. Some people would say thats censorship but of course it isn't. Nothing about bitcoin was about cramming any old data you want into the blockchain, bitcoin was made for sending money (satoshis) around. Other uses are fine as long as they don't inhibit the sending of money, but this whole ordinals/inscriptions/nfts/tokens nonstop does inhibit it so it is an exploit that should indeed be fixed. I don't know how or what that fix would look like, I see some people say you can do it and some people say it can't be done. I assume there would be some way to do it.

And BCH was a different kind of fork than what you're talking about here. Here you're talking about a fork to fix a caustic unintended consequence on an upgrade, a fork to actually upgrade and replace the current spam-attacked chain. BCH was just a toxic group of people who wanted to turn bitcoin into a centralized altcoin that they control - and they got their centralized failed altcoin and bitcoin kept on going.

There will be no hard fork because it's the trend of the moment but it will soon cease to exist, as happened for Ethereum with NFTs the bubble has burst and now there is less interest in cryptoart, history always repeats itself.

Yeah we also have toook on the bright side of life and situations as we also wait on them to get everything fixed and I've always been on the opinion that every disappointment  is an obvious bemisoness and not a hidden one as proposed in the past.
And this very attack on the blockchain has really cut down my transactions on the blockchain and I really wish it should end but stay a little longer so I can amsace up more for my treatment.

But I don't see bitcoin  fading off because I'm sure that we've seen bitcoin  attacked in the past and also faced with same challenges with increased transaction fees but bitcoon came out fine and stronger  and those who are core believers will actually buy more of bitcoin  because they should be expecting a skyrocketing  anytime soon.

It’s been hard trying to send bitcoin after one might have reason the amount of fees they would make on the transactions, but if it’s necessary you need to do.

Looking on the bright side this has helped limit my bitcoin transactions there by it’s been helping me save up some bitcoin, there is always a good side in everything and also looking at the source of the problem in as much as Ordinals being a thing won’t end immediately it would only take a crash and FUD for it to crash.