You can not roll back the Bitcoin blockchain and if Bitcoin community do this, Bitcoin blockchain will no longer be considered as better than Ethereum blockchain or many shit coin blockchains.

Each mining pools, nodes can have their settings to exclude transactions from Ordinals but if they want to do it. Miners get benefit from more expensive transaction fee, higher fee rate because they confirm transactions and get transaction fees.

Reason to roll back the Bitcoin blockchain?
It does not make sense because a Bitcoin block includes many transactions and transactions for Ordinals, BRC20 tokens are one of many in a block.

It's happening all over again.

What can developers do to actually prevent that from happening in the future?
I mean really, I have no idea, that's why I ask.

These ups and downs in transaction fee are so annoying. I mean we all have had transaction stuck in the past I suppose. For signature campaign payment this might also become a problem if this goes on.

A manager will think twice to push a transaction to 30+ recipients if it takes too long to confirm because of sudden fee rise, this might become costly at some point.

The upgrades that made Ordinals possible brought many benefits to Bitcoin. In the past we had on-chain gambling which many considered a waste of blockspace. At some point the people creating these spammy transactions will decide that paying $30 in fees, sometimes much more, and waiting a long time for confirmation is not worth it anymore and will move on to whatever L1 or L2 network is trendy at the moment.

The fees are high but they aren’t as high as during 2017 or during 2021-2022 for Ethereum. Back then you would expect to pay $50 for a single transaction. Today the high cost was $4-5, with fees being around 100 sats byte.

If you can try and do transactions on the weekend, usually there is less activity. Fees were decent until the start of November when they started to go up due to these ordinals on the blockchain.

It is time to end Ordinals.  But it is a high risk task to roll back.  It sets a precedent and this has always been avoided by the Bitcoin community.  Rather spend time trying to find ways to stop Ordinals instead of rolling back.

Do not get me wrong.  Bitcoin is so impressive.  But it has negative bullets too.  This is a scenario that will only be avoided until the day comes where we HAVE to roll back or censor I believe.  Which is extreme danger.  You censor Ordinals.  Then why not censor other things too.  Like I do not know, texts embedded into the Blockchain that should not be embedded.  Then why not censor hackers and scammers too.  Then why not roll back every time there is a massive Exchange hack.

This is why changes take so long for the Bitcoin Network to accept.  Read what franky1 says.  Taproot should have been much smaller than an almost 4 MB junk.  Taproot has been discussed and coded for a LONG time.  Still.  It brings unexpected issues.

I hope one day we can have quick fixes and solve any Bitcoin Network issue within minutes.  But this is almost never the case.  Patience is key.  Always has been.

You can't "roll back ordinals" because ordinals is simply a system for numbering individual satoshis. In theory, they have been around since the genesis block. You can only ask for miners not to include transactions with taproot-assisted inscription data in the witness field. But they will because they want the fees.

Despite this latest resurgence, I'm still of the opinion that Ordinals NFTs and BRC-20 are waning in activity and will not be popular for too long. Their infrastructure is fragile and could disappear when the money dries up.


They are, because you don't dictate definitions. Popular consensus of the user base does. A perfect example of this is when  the word "literally" was redefined to also mean "not literally."

Much like "flat earthers," you are in the extreme minority here. Nobody cares about your opinion on whether or not ordinals are NFTs. Besides, we are not discussing the validity of science-based theories, we are talking about what words mean to the people who use them.

Let's look at the words themselves:

✔️ Non-fungible: yes, ordinals are non-fungible as they are individual units of account.
✔️ Token: as applied to cryptocurrency, yes, they are distinguishable, named units or subsets that reside inside of a blockchain and can be transferred from one owner to another.

I think the main problem is your understanding of NFTs is limited. Even in the face of a decade of mounting evidence that you often have little knowledge of what you're talking about, you remain overly self-assured with what little knowledge you actually possess, which is why nobody takes you seriously.

Fungible tokens are even referred to as NFTs, as are Namecoin names, which are non-fungible but not really tokens. It's not up to you to decide what is or isn't an NFT.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/31/rare-pepe-steeped-in-bitcoin-history-fetches-500k-on-nft-market-opensea/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypj37/rare-pepe-nft-is-not-rare-enough-dollar500k-lawsuit-alleges

You can have the last word as I'm sure you will only further derail this thread with your usual uninformed, argumentative nonsense. I'm out.

without changing the blockchain. the method of "counting sats" is already in error and if corrected would change the suggested path of presumed ownership. yep thats right (ordinals suggested) ownership can change with a few lines of code.. meaning its not immutable

the meme junk sits outside of inputs and outputs(appended to end of tx data) and has no in-data linkage to any output. again without changing the blockchain data the suggested path the junk data follows can also be changed with a few lines of code.

there is no rule that prevents/limits the supply of junk data. no control. no cryptographic proof within the meme or the json crap to secure it. no way for different people uploading the same image/json junk multiple times (no uniqueness)

..
ill give you a hint.. the missing pieces of the puzzle

imagine you want to create a meme token
get the hash of the file. and use the hash as one part of a 1-of-2 multisig. where the second part is a bitcoin key for receiving and spending
that way you are linking the hash to an output/address (yep then it shows actual linkage to an output rather then unlinked data appended to the end of a tx)

create a transaction that includes the data and where sats go to the specific output multisig(containing hash of data)
knowing the multisig includes the hash of junk in its script. means when you want to transfer it. the recipient tells you his bitcoin address and you create THEIR 1-of-2 multisig using the hash and their key. that way it shows the hash moving with an output

of course it does not stop the creator just making another transaction for someone else cloning the junk to give different owners. but thats where the next step of the missing piece of ordinals fails

its not non fungible because one person can create {brc:crap} and another person can also make {brc:crap}  exact same wording exact same digits/characters
these crap things are not "unique" so they are not non-fungible

it fails to stop duplication of junk/hashes appearing. it fails to recognise existing junk. it fails to understand its own data. it has to have rules or laws to secure the data from duplication.. and thats a biggy ordinals fails at.. solving the fungibility.. yep i said it json/meme junk can be duplicated and ordinals has no way to provide uniqueness


the last part is fixing the way in which ordinals miscounts sats.. and thats a biggy too. its basic economics that ordinals fails at

Most likely the miners will not like what you say, these Ordinals that you call garbage bring happiness to them because it causes higher fees and higher profits for them, the more congestion the more the miners' pockets will be filled.

I sent a transaction a few days ago and the fee was about $2. Two days ago I sent another transaction and the fee was about $3. Today, as far as I can see, the fee is 6.85 USD/tx or more. This has become unbearable.

However, I do not expect that there will be an agreement in the Bitcoin community to end the arrangements because there are parties that benefit from the current situation.

What are you going to do about it?  Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant, so you can't just "end ordinals".


Nothing, Bitcoin is designed to be censorship resistant.


It seems you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You don't need Taproot for inscriptions, they are doing inscriptions on Litecoin (which has not upgraded to Taproot) too.


You can't "end" ordinals even if you did a rollback.


Your censorship solution has already been circumvented by inscribers: Transactions over 100kvB are already rejected by nodes' mempools, yet, miners are putting them in blocks anyway.  


What suggestions were made that the developers didn't decide to do anything with?...