pull down to refresh
108 sats \ 23 replies \ @super_testnet OP 14 Mar 2023 \ parent \ on: Inscribe the planet: an online tool for inscriptions with no need to sync a node bitcoin
I think I do concentrate on really useful software Darth, let me explain one of the reasons why I built this
I consider inscriptions a vulnerability in bitcoin, they make it worse money and highlight the drawbacks of segwit's blocksize increase. In order to build support for at least a partial mitigation (like reducing the blocksize again) I think exploit tools for this vulnerability are very useful. They highlight a problem that (imo) ought to be addressed.
Increase use of Bitcoin = increase space used in blocks.
That's how you solve this problem, not with these shity inscriptions.
There are many more things to be done for Bitcoin adoption.
There's too much paid attention to these crap inscriptions, for nothing.
More attention = idiots will exploit it.
Just leave the market decide and do not encourage idiots.
Super... I know you. You are capable to do great things. Don't lower your level with these craps.
reply
More attention = idiots will exploit it
I agree and that is why I built this, to make it easier for idiots to exploit this vulnerability
I think that is important to do because it can have two positive results: either it demonstrates that this vulnerability is serious, leading to a mitigation, or it demonstrates that this vulnerability is insignificant, meaning there is no need to fix it
If inscriptions are really a vulnerability -- as I strongly suspect they are -- then I think they need more attention, not less
Fixing parts of bitcoin that seem broken is a priority for me
reply
This is an interesting level of logic I'm not sure I share. accelerationism always seemed nihilistic and naïve to me, and is potentially a cover for ones real motivations.
Quite frankly, I don't believe you.
You know this is a vulnerability, and you know how it can be used as one. So do I. The fact that we're not making a CVE out of this is because we're just dicking around hoping no one catches on to how it can be deployed maliciously, while also hoping our enemies don't have the balls to do it if they do know.
But murphy's law is a bitch.
Congrats on enabling the coming attack, I guess.
reply
Congrats on enabling the coming attack, I guess.
Thanks, I guess
reply
You're responsible.
reply
I gladly take full responsibility and 100% of the blame
or honor
whichever
reply
you won't want to. there is no honor where I see this going, only shame and regret.
Cringe take.
Bitcoin is a 14 year old geek freshman at Money Highschool. It can and should be bullied. Support doesnt make you stronger. Resistance does.
reply
hoping no one catches on to how it can be deployed maliciously [...] while also hoping our enemies don't have the balls to do it if they do know.
That's not how security works. That sounds a lot like "security by obscurity" which is heavily frowned upon in the itsec community (for good reasons).
I totally can understand why @super_testnet did this. I just don't agree it's a problem and see more risk in enabling censorship if we do something about this.
However, if inscriptions are really as bad as some think, bring it on. The earlier, the better. I think that's the same reasoning as @super_testnet has.
This post can be compared to LNsploit, I guess.
reply
That's not how security works. That sounds a lot like "security by obscurity" which is heavily frowned upon in the itsec community (for good reasons).
I don't disagree, but that's what I'm seeing how the collective is essentially treating this situation, otherwise they're entirely missing how this can be used as an attack.
However, if inscriptions are really as bad as some think, bring it on. The earlier, the better.
In this case, I disagree. no one is ready for this kind of attack. many are in denial about it.
reply
sheit the only positive of this ordinal shit was they had to run a full node.
reply
that was an illusory positive because inscriptions do not in fact require running your own node
now that it's clearer that inscriptions are a net negative, consider joining my campaign to mitigate them via a blocksize decrease
we meet on stacker news daily to argue with people who are wrong on the internet
reply
I was about to ask what is the point, but your reasoning makes sense. Let's see what happens
reply
Are you really in favor of doing a hard fork to decrease blocksize just because of inscriptions / ordinals?
(Correct me if I am wrong, but to my understanding, it will be a hard fork since blocks bigger than the new smaller size won't be valid anymore)
That sounds like total overkill to me. They are paying for block space. It's not an attack.
SegWit enabled Lightning Network. The current situation just tells us we should use it more imo.
reply
A blocksize decrease is a soft fork because old nodes won't reject smaller blocks as if they were invalid -- when they see a small block they think "that's fine, there's no rule that says blocks have to be huge, they're just allowed to be"
A soft fork is a new restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes still see all the new block contents as perfectly valid
A hard fork removes a restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes see the new block contents as invalid because they break a rule that those nodes still enforce
They are paying for block space. It's not an attack.
It's not an intentional attack (except when I do it I suppose, because I explicitly intend it as an attack) but it does dump jpegs on bitcoin's blockchain so that it is harder to run a node. I run a node because I want bitcoin to be the best money it can be. To the extent that it is also a storehouse for monkey jpegs my motivation to participate falls a bit, because to me that "storing other people's random files" is a poor reason to run a node. I don't mind storing other people's transactions, even when it's somewhat hard on my machine, because doing so helps me know that my coins are valid. I do mind storing their nfts because there is no benefit to me.
reply
A soft fork is a new restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes still see all the new block contents as perfectly validA hard fork removes a restriction on bitcoin blocks or their contents, done in such a way that old nodes see the new block contents as invalid because they break a rule that those nodes still enforce
Okay, makes sense from a full node perspective. But I was thinking about miners: Any miner which produces a block bigger than your new smaller limit will be incompatible with your fork.
So there will be one fork mining small blocks and one fork mining big blocks, no?
And not only one chain which everyone sees valid like in a soft fork.
reply
All soft forks impose new restrictions on miners that they have to follow to stay in consensus. E.g. the segwit softfork took bc1 addresses -- which used to be "anyone can spend" addresses, because you could spend them without a signature -- and made it so you could only spend them if you put a signature in the witness data. At the time, miners running an old node still "thought" they were anyone_can_spend addresses, but if they had ever tried creating a block spending one without a signature, upgraded nodes would have considered that block invalid.
So when a soft fork happens it is important for every miner to update their nodes otherwise they can mine invalid blocks and the network will reject them...and they will lose money
reply
Ah okay, I see. I think that's also why we had miners signalling for taproot, right? It was a soft fork but as you explained it, miners still need to agree.
Thanks for the explanation!
Edit: Lol, just noticed they posted a video on https://taproot.watch/
reply
I don't really understand the freakout over ordinals. The way I see it, it's a way to pad out any unused space in blocks with more "transactions"
Considering we're also still in a bear market and a lot of miners are hurting, the increased fees helps decentralization too. Also, minting inscriptions is way too inefficient above a certain feerate. Most ordinals seem to hover around the 1-4 sat/vB mark, so a higher feerate would reduce ordinals usage anyways