pull down to refresh

321 sats \ 2 replies \ @phygit 9 May 2023 \ on: Bitcoin is not under attack of ordinals or BRC20 bitcoin
I would put it more simply: it's not an attack for 2 basic reasons:
  1. Ordinals simply exploit a possibility included in the Bitcoin protocol (taproot). We could debate if it was a "vulnerability" or if Ordinals is a kind of "hack", but still, if it's technically doable, people are "allowed" to do it.
  2. Ordinals people are giving some free extra money to miners. How could we consider an "attack" on Bitcoin something actually contributing to finance and make more profitable one of the pillars of the Bitcoin ecosystem?
The argument on Ordinals being made mostly by BSV people is very weak (and wrong IMHO). People jumping into Ordinals are mostly degens trying to get rich quickly. They are just trying to replicate the success of Ethereum (hence BRC-20 to -falsely- mimic ERC-20, and Apes/Punks florishing now on Bitcoin).
Pretty sure the majority of people in Ordinals don't even know what BSV is (and some were not even on Bitcoin before this).
write
preview
52 sats \ 0 replies \ @clark 9 May 2023
Ordinals are a sats numbering system that are unrelated to taproot.
Inscriptions of up to 10,000 bytes have been possible since SegWit.
BRC-20 has been possible in roughly the same form since the P2SH days (2012).
reply
9 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 9 May 2023
Playing devils advocate here to say that point 2 could actually be an incentive trap. What does it mean for those running a full node if essentially 75% of data downloaded isn't relevant to bitcoin? That bandwidth and storage space represents an increased cost to the entire network and it seems like only miners benefit.
I don't care either way. Just had to put that out there.
reply