It's not possible to removeBRC-20 tokens as a "hey, lets remove this kinds of transactions here and that's it".
It requires a consensus, most nodes running software that limits extra data size and that will limit the amount of shit that can be added to a transaction non-related with financial transfer from inputs to outputs.

Now this is not possible with Bitcoin Core because there is a bug that is been exploited, where Inscription can send more data and it will still be accepted by the nodes even if the node owner configured to accept only a limited amount of bytes as extra-data. Once this is fixed, if people update to the new version AND USE this option to limit extra-data size limit, then we can see a reduction in BRC-shit.



This is old, very old. It doesn't work, because increasing block size will increase Storage requirements on the nodes, and Bitcoin only is Bitcoin today because anyone can run a full node from their home pc. If the Blockchain start going t 1 TB or 2 TB in size, it will start excluding people. If the block comes to somthing like 100 Mb, only big companies will be able to afford paying storage disks to run a node, and then decentralization os gone, congratulations.

So, NO, thank you. Increasing block size was defeated back in 2017 or something and should be kept defeated.


This is just not true, it doesn't consider any of the advantages of having PoW over PoS, its only based on one exemple that is just a joke, because Ethereum is a Shitcoin Joke.
A centralize shitcoin Ethereum adopts a solution that gives control over the network to a more centralized group of people and in some way this end up with the appearance of a good thing.

PoW is the only way to prevent double spend, make sure that the valid chain is the longer one, guarantee decentralization because miners can go any pool they want, also miners don't control consensus in a certain way, because node runners (relays) also have a say.
If miners simply go away to a non-consensus fork, Node Runners can start mining and the network recovers itself.

Not, PoS, you give power to those who have more money, now billionaires control the consensus, control the network, can censor transactions, can sensor addresses, can sensor wallet providers, and so on...

Also, PoS doesn't impact directly transaction fees in absolutely anyway, unless you are trying to make people stop using bitcoin cause its not bitcoin anymore, and for sure this chain will be a ghost chain as Bitcoin Cash is today, then you are right, fees are going to zero cause nobody will want this new shitcoin.

The exploit is that you configure your node to not accept extra data over 40 bytes, but the way this data is put in the transaction inscription make your node accept extra data over 40 bytes and relay it.

The correction would make the node configuration be respected and not accept anything over the size you configured you want to accept.

If you don't believe your opinion is better than other opinions without anyone convincing you that other opinion is better yet, than you have no opinion at all.


I think the point been discussed is about "purpose". The purpose that brings passion to Bitcoin is having a "coin", means of exchange, store of value, that is independent from state and gives people sovereignty on their own money.
Seeing the blockchain created for this purpose been used as a cloud-driver to store images and non-monetary tokens or data in general is very painful.

The question is, if ordinals and inscriptions in general are bringing harm to bitcoin in any way, preventing its usage as money, isn't this something worth doing something about? Block space is been flooded with images (memes, useless), and jsons creating tickers that represent nothing in reality. This is Ethereum business, not bitcoin.

I don't mean a hard-fork, or a soft fork, I really don't know, but I think it worth discussing without throwing out that anything related with discussing this would be "censorship".



Yes, they pay for it, as I pay for Google Drive space or iCloud... they are using my node as a cloud storage and paying for someone that's not me. It's expensive and unfair with "amateur" node runners, with their 1 TB storage and a raspberry pi.

At some point this might push these small node runners out of the network and make Bitcoin less decentralized.


Before Taproot we didn't have anyone trying to play Ethereum on Bitcoin, because it didn't worth the effort. After Taproot, what can be done to make annoying, difficult or unprofitable to save images of dogs in the blockchain?

No, I don't have the skills, but I'm a node runner and a Bitcoin user so I can talk whatever I want about it anyway. This is a discussion forum, I'm not on the development section if you didn't notice.

Nobody "subjectively" consider anything to be spam. It is spam because block space is being used for things that are not related to "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". This is Satoshi's description of what the system is, and introducing ways to inject more data into the blockchain for a variety of purposes will dimm the main purpose down until its just another shitcoin that only big companies can afford to run nodes.


The proposal is not to ban transactions, the proposal is to avoid or make expensive to make "Inscriptions" inside transactions.
The transfer of UTXOs from one address to the other is not under discussion here.

The title of the topic is a bit misleading.

What Luke said is that they will work to correct a vulnerability that allow inscriptions to bypass extra data limit configured in the Bitcoin Node software.

That means that if the inscription contains data that is bellow the limit configured in the nodes, they will be relayed and mined, if they pass the size limit, they will not be relayed by nodes and therefore will have lower chances to be mined.

The idiots that create Inscriptions have an option, though. They can negotiate with miners to increase their group limit size and relay between themselves until that miner/mining pool finds a block and mine their shitcoins/shittokens.

-------

What that implies is, if mos of the nodes set an extra data limit very low, it will prevent Inscriptions from been relayed and mined, but that would be a choice of the majority node runners choice. And that is amazing, cause that is how it should work.

If the majority of node runners organize and configure their nodes to avoid Inscriptions, that's it, no discussion, the network come to consensus and decided.


Miners do have heavy weight in those kinds of decisions, node runners throughout the network also have. If node runners decide tolower their extra data size limit, but miners keep their limit high, it would still increase the difficulty to Inscriptions to be relayed and get to a miner.

-------

Bitcoin Blockchain space is scarce enough for serious Financial transactions and real world settlements, artificially increasing mining fees with these spams only make things more difficult and noisy. The solution proposed by Luke in his post is too soft, in my opinion a more radial proposal should be raised to avoid kids playing with Blockchain space, otherwise the purpose of Bitcoin is at risk.

There is no efficient second layer solution for micro-payments yet, the mining fees as they are now is prohibitive for people to loading their Lightning wallets without paying 10$ to get some money in there.

I think those idiots exploiting the blockchain and Taproot to create shitcoins and shit tokens and shit 80's looking images should be blocked as soon as possible and Bitcoin used for its main purpose which is to be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

This is just not true.
Until las week I was transferring satoshis here and there for as low fees as 3 sats per byte, 5 sats per byte.


Bitcoin is better than any other shitcoin if you run the first version of it. "More useful" blockchain is just a way to pervert the purpose that this thing was created in the first place.

A bunch of people were worried about how to transact with each other without having a State bureaucrat  on your neck seeing everything and able to censor if they don't agree with what you use your money for.

If you want other utilities, go somewhere else. Leave the thing that is working fine alone and create your own thing.

1. Transfer money freely between free individuals
2. Make impossible to States and Governments and any institution to prevent you from having what is yours or using your money as you wish.
3. Useful commands to make business transactions, complex transactions between business and individuals to be more efficient and secure

Now we have:
3. Use it like a cloud storage to save stupid low resolution images
4. Use it like a notebook to save useless jsons for useless imaginary tokens

See how the thing is degrading slowly?

Just stop messing with what is working peacefully.

I would not be surprised if the incredible Ordinals idea had come from a Government agency seeking to destroy the real purpose of Bitcoin.

Hi

I was looking to the blocks and transactions created to mint ordinals, write those shitty json inside the blockchain and all.

All transactions are of very little satoshi, 294 satoshis, 512 satoshis, things like that.

My question is simple, by creating those little UTXOs, aren't the morons that create them just burning satoshis forever? Cause with the size of a transaction today, fees will almost always be higher than the value of these UTXOs.

Follow up question:

If this Ordinals stupidity keeps going on, for years to come, become more popular and a lot of idiots creating shitcoins and images that children do on Paintbrush and saving them in the Blockchain with these unspendable UTXOs, couldn't this harm bitcoin at some point?

Two quadrillion, one hundred trillion looks like much, but when you count the number of idiots burning money to save a stupid frog image in the blockchain like if it was a cloud storage, well.... there's no limit for human stupidity. That's why I have this concern.

Thank you.

Taproot intended outcomes are amazing, no discussion. But the unintended consequence, unfortunately washes all the gains away.
Complex transactions would be more efficient, therefore would cost less fees and less block space.

Now what we see is block space (which is a scarce resource) been wasted with things not related to the higher intentions presented here: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf




Once we had worried about block size, had year long fights around it, wanted as much people as possible to be able to have their own nodes, be able to have a copy of the blockchain and validate transactions by themselves. One of the biggest bragging differences from Bitcoin to Eth was that nobody can run a Full Node of the Shitcoin, but with very low investmant can have a Full Node of Bitcoin.

Now with this NFT/Ordinal thing the gains of Taproot are gone, actually is flooding the blockchain with non-transaction/signature/script-to-spend-utxo data, opened an attack vector, people cannot transact anything lower than 20 USD anymore... Lots of problems.

I don't care with what people spend their money on, but Bitcoin project has a purpose, very well described in the white-paper and in all its history, and the purpose was never to be a P2P cloud storage for people's shitcoins and drawing.

Greatness is scarce in the world and Bitcoin came to rescue that. If this is an unintentional consequence, something should be done to rescue the greatness of Bitcoin, otherwise it will risk to become just a ETH competitor with a prettier story.