Quote from: witcher_sense on Today at 07:36:12 AM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 04:58:19 AM

There has been a speculation that this attack is going to fade away slowly and there won't be any need for intervention to fix the protocol where it is being exploited by the Ordinals Attack. That seems like wishful thinking now.

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.

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?