Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Merits 4 from 3 users
Re: BRC-20 needs to be removed
by
d5000
on 12/05/2023, 21:48:30 UTC
⭐ Merited by DooMAD (2) ,be.open (1) ,Lucius (1)
Sorry, this thread is full of misunderstandings. I'm not in any way defending Ordinals but please acknowledge that:

- "tokens" or "assets" are around in Bitcoins since as early as 2013/14 or even earlier (EPOBC protocol, Open Assets, Mastercoin/Omni, see coloured coins)
- even NFTs were deployed on the Bitcoin blockchain in 2016 (Rare Pepes on the Counterparty platform)
- Ordinal NFTs need to be differentiated from Ordinal BRC-20, even if they're technically the same thing. BRC-20 token transactions store data extremely inefficiently. But they are quite small and would be perfectly feasible with a protocol not based on Taproot at all, or with a "crippled" Taproot with some kind of size limit for arbitrary data. So if any code change takes place limiting Taproot, the "spam" could perfectly stay; in the case Taproot data pushes are banned entirely they could use an OP_RETURN based token protocol like Counterparty, or if OP_RETURN is also banned or crippled, even encode data in public keys or the sequence number (that was the first idea for tokens in BTC).

See also this post from the developer discussion and also this one from Peter Todd. Thanks for linking to the discussion anyway, seems to be the only benefit I had from reading this thread Grin