pull down to refresh
354 sats \ 3 replies \ @pillar 9 May 2023 \ on: Bitcoin is not under attack of ordinals or BRC20 bitcoin
Different people have different views on what code should Bitcoin run.
I'm Alice. Bob wants to implement a version of Bitcoin with change X, which I happen to not like. I don't like it because I consider it undermines Bitcoin's long-term mission of becoming an electronic peer to peer cash system. I can label Bob an attacker. Bob clearly doesn't see himself as an attacker.
I, Alice, will run my node with whatever code I decide to. Bob will do the same. We both might talk with Charlie, who is unsure about which version he prefers, to lure him into our vision.
Depending on the differences between the code I run and the code Bob runs, we might fork.
My point is: you state that BRC20 is not an attack. That is your opinion. Other people will have theirs. Whether a certain implementation is an attack or not is completely subjective. And more important than our opinions, are our actions. All the talking in the world doesn't change a thing in Bitcoin. What matters is who runs what code.
I don't want Bitcoin to be used to trade NFTs. Hence, I will run patches that drive my node away from that, like ordisrespector and ordislow if it gets implemented. If you like monkeys, I assume you will run a node that supports that behavior.
And a question, just for me to better understand your reasoning. Would you consider the push for big blocks during the blocksize wars an attack on Bitcoin, or not?
Would you consider the push for big blocks during the blocksize wars an attack on Bitcoin, or not?
I don't see any comparison between this post and the question but this is my answer: That was outrageous, that was a direct attack of the protocol. Mining mafia was trying to control the protocol via agreements between themselves, leaving other actors outside on purpose. Jonathan in his Blocksize wars explained with more details but to answer you main concern: do I conider an attack? Yes, because they filled the criteria number 5:
Integrity The attack must compromise the blockchain integrity, leaving the security under ashes
The 2017's NYA would compromise the protocol as it was explained here. I don't see the same behavior in the ordinal side but maybe I'm missing something.
reply
Well, I was asking that because, as I understand your criteria, the big block stance wouldn't be an attack on Bitcoin. You mention you consider it because of criteria #5. To be honest, I don't think I fully grasp what you mean by "compromising the blockchain integrity" nor how did the big blockers threaten that.
reply
I don't think I fully grasp what you mean by "compromising the blockchain integrity" nor how did the big blockers threaten that.
big blocks -> blockchain grows faster -> more space required sooner -> higher costs to running a node -> less nodes -> more centralization -> less censorship resistant -> more potential for forks -> more potential for compromise of blockchain integrity
Ordinals or BRC20 do none of that. On the contrary: they contribute to the security budget
reply