An OP_RETURN output can definitely contain more non-OP information than a standard segwit native transaction, but the problem remains. People can still inject images as chunks of addresses.

Nowhere near it? Lol. We're talking about people who waste thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin for transaction fees, and you think the same cannot repeat if there appears to be enough demand?

This is another level of speculation. If you can fool people into buying "digital images", I'm pretty sure there will be some dumb asses who will buy the same concept under the "chunks of addresses". It's the same piece of information in the end.

They could also split it in 256-bit chunks, as with multi-sig segwit.

im not changing anything. thats the thing the trolls dont understand. my posts are opinions i make from my own mind. on a DISCUSSION forum
opinions that core decided they dont want to hear about. opinions the core idolising trolls dont want even talked about

i dont release code because any code i do release will be hit with REKT campaigns by trolls idolising the core roadmap of road congestion adoration

i simply highlight the issues and debunk the troll narrative. this after all is a DISCUSSION forum

once you realise why everyone else ends up shutting up due to troll attacks by core cult clan worshipers*
once you realise why there is no other dev group offering a brand that offers protocol level upgrade proposals
once you realise why the forum moderators are also core devs
once you realise that same core dev group now only want self-review from within their team and argue if any outsider scrutinises them

you will start to see the bigger problem of the bigger issue of why these bugs are not fixed

by the way, the trolls do ask me to write code. not because they want an option the community can use to prove bitcoin is open.. but to REKT it and have more drama for them to entertain themselves with to prove their loyalty to a central point of failure


*topics like this one prove that many people are not content with how things are. there are more topics about wanting onchain scaling more topics about wanting the ordinals crap to stop.. then there are topics idolising subnetworks as the solution, or topics praising that ordinals should stay

funny think is im the one with the opinion rules are needed.. your the one opening your house up to wrecklessness

if you opened your house up as a airBnB host, i would love to see the before and after pictures.. and then see you not repair your home. but just walk away leaving it dilapidated

your mindset to thinking ordinals will sort itself out and that ordinals is part of the "make yourself at home" mindset you have.. is just a mindset of dont fix your home dont maintain your home, just let your home sort itself out when you start hearing cracking and wind between the cracks.. imagine what happens to your home with that mindset.

bitcoin WAS a great innovation because code created rules to actually check and validate stuff.. the relaxing of the rules is not a feature

much like having a bolted lock on your house front door. securing you for years. then one year removing the lock so anyone can comein and make themselves at home.. is not a secure system

and no bitcoin is not self encoding network of AI. it actually requires dev involvement. so again "let it sort itself out" is suggesting dont ask for a repairman, dont fix the plumbing, dont replace the broken door locks just let things fix themselves.. see how far that gets you, and i would not want to be a guest inside that home(you woul d never get repeat customers if you advertised your home on airBnB)

i do laugh at some of the other trolls that have the same "make yourself at home" mindset, where they say analogy wise, 'there is no point replacing the door locks for better locks. trespassers can still break in via the 80mm bathroom window making 200trips to get what they want.. so lets just leave the front door open to make their lives super easy'

What are we to do exactly? You only talked about a need to do something, but did not suggest what we should do, so I personally will be glad if you can suggest things to be done as i myself lack ideas.

But then, based on my personal understanding, the bitcoin blockchain is completely decentralized as we know it, which simply means that there is absolutely no way for use to wipe off or out a project built on the blockchain, we all will have to bear the effect of their presence on the bitcoin network.

And besides, the current high fees is only affecting us, not the miners, in fact, for the bitcoin miners, this is an opportunity for them to make some really good money for themselves. So, for with very little amount of bitcoin, the best advice is to avoid on-chain transactions at the moment, at least, until the fees comes back down again, or better still, use the lightening network or alternative chains for emergency transactions.

the ledger is decentralised
the ability to self custody your value is somewhat decentralised (yet many prefer custodians centralised exchanges)
however the devs(yes bitcoin is code and code is wrote by devs) is centrally (at its CORE) controlled by its namesake CORE

they didnt choose CORE randomly. they didnt slogan "bitcoins reference client" meaninglessly. there was alot of bribery and sponsorship and campaigning to get that control where other brands get REKT if they dare propose protocol changes CORE dislike

so its CORE that need to fix THEIR bug

We know that ordinals cannot be modified once they have been erased from the blockchain. Furthermore, destroying the transaction in bitcoin is too expensive.

Now, what you claim about us being unable to roll back the bitcoin blockchain is based on my knowledge, or technically, it is still feasible to do so; it's just too complicated and disruptive. This demands a great deal of collaboration from independent miners and nodes.

*Historical Rollback of Bitcoin

You see in Bitcoin, preventing abuse has always been about making it harder not impossible. If they try splitting the data into 20-byte chunks (or any other method) that already introduces a lot of complications and they will soon face old limits, for example in this case there is the standard transaction size which limits the number of outputs that tx can have or it won't be relayed...

Maybe you are right but I don't think it can gain the same level of hype.

Then maybe it's time to propose change. Perhaps start off this forum, talk about it in Bitcoin Core's github, and if you see recognition submit a BIP. One thing's for sure. You are not going to change anything if you continue calling it "Ordinal attack" in an Internet board.

I personally have mixed feelings of whether I'd support such a change, but I'd tend to oppose it, because frankly, I believe anyone should have the right to do their bitcoin as they like if they're willing to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'd absolutely love to see other expert's opinions on this.

not only limit length, but have conditions of content. and limit how many outputs can be this kind of non bitcoin address opcode(opreturn)
opcodes left "open"(lack of conditions to allow upgrades later(nulls, nops, opsuccess, [insert ur buzzword])). can also have a condition of
if blockversion >known ruleset version, treat as isvalid, else reject.

thus anyone using the opcode before actual rules are applied to the content(before a consensus upgrade).. the tx gets rejected. however when an upgrade happens in consensus to change the block version then old nodes would "isvalid" it when not knowing the content