SatsAndSports's avatar
SatsAndSports 2 months ago
> Core devs would have tried to somehow contain the effects of ordinals Be practical. What do you mean here? Do you mean a fork should have been rushed out to make ordinals non-consensus-valid? If yes, how do you define an 'ordinal'? For the most part, those transactions looked like normal (Taproot) transactions. In fact, the 'epic ordinals' are simply the first satoshi mined after each halving. In order to filter out the epic ordinals, *you would have to filter out the coinbase transaction after each halving*! If you research ordinals, you'll realise there was no quick fix. And even if there was, it's not responsible to rush out a node upgrade every week to try to squash the latest silly hack. It was somewhat obvious that ordinals (and NFTs and so on) were just fads > Core devs would have tried to somehow contain the effects of ordinals. Since this didn't happen, I can only conclude .... It *could* be an evil Core-munist conspiracy. Or it could be that the topic of Ordinals requires more subtle thought ... (Epic ordinals, and other ordinal stuff, are discussed in detail here: https://www.nervos.org/knowledge-base/guide_to_inscriptions)

Replies (1)

I was implicitly referring to inscriptions when mentioning ordinals, sorry for the confusion here. What I meant is that when inscriptions became a thing and the PR to filter them was proposed by luke-jr by matching against OP_FALSE OP_IF, why did not Core propose relaxing the OP_RETURN limits then? I'd expect that to have been the rational thing to do given the arguments with respect to UTXO set bloat I don't think there is any conspiracy on the part of Core, and I appreciate that filtering spam is not some easy task to be carried out over the weekend, but I don't understand the timing for this proposal, unless this is entirely explained by Citrea as its catalyst.