Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 12:50:15 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 05:03:28 AM

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible.

Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

That's a good suggestion. An anonymous user called shoalinfry did it before, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

Why not one of the more technical people in the forum? That's how some changes are heard, with enough support from the community.

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 01:32:26 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 12:50:15 PM

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

I would like to hear it as well... Would be nice to get a summary of how Core maintainers and contributors have been approaching the subject and what - if any - changes to the code have been suggested.

I believe they would be the same as us in BitcoinTalk - mixed reactions from both sides of the debate.

Quote

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

But debate might also be whether it truly is, or is it truly not an issue.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 01:38:08 PM

Quote from: nutildah on Today at 01:32:26 PM

It seems like they are waiting to see how persistent the issue is going to be and whether or not it warrants any kind of alteration. Even limiting size of witness data may not matter as Ordinals peeps can simply chain transactions together as happens with Recursive Inscriptions. These types of inscriptions will be more costly but will not end the problem of people using Bitcoin for data storage... I don't think anything will.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content