11 sats \ 7 replies \ @dieselbaby 2 Jan \ parent \ on: How to kill Ordinals - by @udiWertheimer bitcoin
What's the issue, exactly? Isn't this Bitcoin working as it's intended to? If people want to pay higher fees, they will pay higher fees...that's how it's supposed to work by design, I thought.
Who cares if you don't like their NFTs or any of the other shit, they're paying to put it on the chain, of what concern is it to you? Do you have this kind of attitude towards how people spend their money in their personal lives, outside of bitcoin?
Is there some kind of a code one needs to follow, in order to not be deemed a "unwelcome in bitcoin"? I thought bitcoin was supposed to be against this kind of mentality, that bitcoin is for everyone. When did this change and why?
A "small" difference with the world outside of Bitcoin is that what happens with Ordinals has a direct (and big) impact on the whole network.
In the fiat world, millions of people can spend has much they want on diamonds, ugly art, or dildos, it will not affect how much fees you pay for your milk at the grocery store...
So yes, Bitcoin is working as supposed, but it also means that it's not working for many users who can't afford to make onchain payments anymore, just because of Ordinals craze.
reply
Sure, but let's not pretend many people are actually using Bitcoin for on-chain payments. I would much prefer that people were, but it's not the case. In fact, many people on this very site have told me that they want the network to be more expensive for people to transact on. Or they say to "go use lightning" if you want cheaper transactions.
Am I wrong or somehow misunderstanding how Bitcoin works, in thinking that even if ordinals were to go away completely, Bitcoin would still be dealing with these same problems of congestion and expensive transactions when met with an increase of people transacting on-chain?
Seems like this has brought to the forefront of people's attention, the issues with scaling L1 bitcoin or providing a better alternative to lightning for onboarding the people we expect to be using Bitcoin for a true future economy. I think a lot of the effort that's been spent attacking ordinals and the people engaging in it (especially when you can encode data into the public keys themselves on-chain, encoded as multi-sig outputs - https://github.com/mikeinspace/stamps/blob/main/BitcoinStamps.md - which would take up even more space than Ordinals, btw) would be better spent focusing on building viable scaling solutions for bitcoin so that this isn't even an issue anymore.
Some of the people building out alternatives to lightning network are coming up with very interesting stuff, like Chainway who are creating a true trustless, programmable scaling layer by way of a ZK rollup - https://medium.com/@chainway_xyz/a-sovereign-zk-rollup-on-bitcoin-full-bitcoin-security-without-a-soft-fork-ca0389a0b658 - they are just one several such projects to keep an eye on, IMHO.
reply
reply
This is the exact problem. The incentive model with fees is off. The use case for inscriptions are to burn 100% of fees. The use case for payments are to spend as minimal fees for an economical transfer. These will always be in conflict, and burning 100% of your sats for fees is not the mode that Bitcoiners desire from the chain.
It cannot coexist, because the spammers will always outspend the transactors, as they WANT to burn all their sats. This is a big problem.
reply
It is interesting to see how this point, and in fact this whole issue, has evolved over the last 8 months. Interesting to see how perspectives and incentives change... and have changed and that fees have returned to 2-4 sats / v byte. And frequently 2 sats / v byte. Those who said the ordinals people / jpeg people would run out of money eventually... were probably correct.
reply
reply
True (I don't know if it's half but it's a large percentage).
However the mass 1 input to many 300 sat outputs continue, they are still there in every block, if fewer of them.
I suppose they are some kind of token standard right now but i'm not sure. On ordpool they appear as xyxyxz.btc over and over (just with different numbers).
I suppose that after the 'mint' is over and speculators move to the next token... the minter can decide to consolidate at any cost and try again, or just abandon the utxos completey. However they are leaving potentially hundreds of $$ of bitcoin on the table though in many small utxos with every block... so I'm not sure how it is economically sustainable for them. When they run out of buyers... they just run out of money even at today's low fee rates.
reply