Quote from: NotATether on Today at 11:50:10 AM

It would've been better if this was built on some Layer 2 protocol, but now that the gates to L1 have already been opened, we will just have to put up with it.

the thing about gates. they swing open. and can be swung closed again
hardening consensus to treat such "gates" as limited to x byte lengths per entry is possible. its even possible without needing to re-org existing data. thus only having a couple months of existing bloat. and then closing the gates to only allow entry of slim entrants again

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 11:50:10 AM

Quote from: Artemis3 on February 08, 2023, 04:38:28 PM

I don't think its about censorship, but some of the suggestions made by franky1 make sense, stricter rules to ensure its bitcoin transactions and not bloat. This needs to be done before its too late...

Sure miners might enjoy the high fees, or even those interested in promoting parallel blockchains... Unfortunately this comes to the expense of nodes and actual bitcoin transactions.

Note that already half of the network is being polluted with this bloat. Now its a race of pushing down the transactions not belonging to whales. High priced NFTs are willing to pay the high fees a mundane transaction wouldn't. Who benefits more from this sabotage to Bitcoin?

I wonder how are these ordinals being created anyway? Like is there a special software that will mint some arbitrary (image) data but with dedicated addresses for this purpose?

they are allowed in due to consensus softened opcodes
EG repurposing the old "anyonecanspend" opcode(op_0) in 2016-7 to be treated instead as a "default:isvalid" that allows anything to be pushed through unverified by treated as valid without checks
then a sub class of opcodes under that one. which also has an opcode to let in another subclass of such where there can be many opcodes that do X, Y,Z and one that is treated as again as default:isvalid. but without even a byte limit. thus allowing any length through