Inscriptions option #27589

1. 
   Retropex commented at 10:20 pm on May 6, 2023: none

   There has been a lot of spam on bitcoin for several months now, it is urgent to do something to stop the spam of Inscriptions on the chain. A whole bunch of shitcoins arrived because of brc-20 and strips the least informed bitcoiners on these topics. a lot of bitcoiners praise the assets of bitcoin such as the fact that it is a hard currency unlike shitcoins so why let this thing proliferate on the chain?

   I hope that the developers will not just refuse this request and especially that they will take a little of their time to make this code optional for example with an Inscription=0 in the file bitcoin.conf

2. Inscriptions patch 867e9260de
3. 
   DrahtBot commented at 10:20 pm on May 6, 2023: contributor

   The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

4. Retropex renamed this:
   Inscriptions patch
   Inscriptions option
   on May 6, 2023
5. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on May 6, 2023
6. fanquake closed this on May 7, 2023

   ---

7. 
   michaelfolkson commented at 1:43 pm on May 7, 2023: contributor

   @Retropex: Ask on Bitcoin StackExchange whether what you are suggesting is a good idea (short answer is any default policy change or custom policy option doesn’t necessarily stop inscriptions as you can still submit consensus compatible transactions directly to a miner). There is already an ordinals tag with previous Q&A on this topic.
8. 
   recursive-rat4 commented at 5:33 pm on May 7, 2023: none

   you can still submit consensus compatible transactions directly to a miner

   Is it time to remove the standard transaction policy?

9. 
   michaelfolkson commented at 6:23 pm on May 7, 2023: contributor

   @pavel-vasin: Discussed here. Bitcoin StackExchange next time please.
10. 
    Fiach-Dubh commented at 7:09 pm on May 7, 2023: none

    @Retropex: Ask on Bitcoin StackExchange whether what you are suggesting is a good idea (short answer is any default policy change or custom policy option doesn’t necessarily stop inscriptions as you can still submit consensus compatible transactions directly to a miner). There is already an ordinals tag with previous Q&A on this topic.

    what if the intent of such a filter is not to stop them, but to simply not have ones mempool (whether mining pool or individual) participate in their dissemination.

    ie personal choice.

    This choice, even though irrelevant to an effect network wide, may still be popular enough for people to be running mystery meat clients.

    Therefore, would bringing this within Bitcoin Core peer review, as was with datacarrier=0 be a consideration?

11. 
    dzyphr commented at 10:09 pm on May 7, 2023: none

    It will be left up to personal choice no matter what, however I think we should take the approach of mitigating anything that really looks like spam which again will be personal choice.
12. 
    RicYashiroLee commented at 5:34 pm on August 10, 2023: none

    @Retropex: Ask on Bitcoin StackExchange whether what you are suggesting is a good idea (short answer is any default policy change or custom policy option doesn’t necessarily stop inscriptions as you can still submit consensus compatible transactions directly to a miner). There is already an ordinals tag with previous Q&A on this topic.

    The key word is ‘cumbersome’, to make hash-anchoring(stamps, inscriptions, etc) as cumbersome as possible. The argument of ‘because it is possible to to it in some other way, let us then loosen up all doors to garbage data’ is a bad answer, not one of a true bitcoiner, IMV.

13. 
    Retropex commented at 12:42 pm on August 20, 2023: none

    @MarcoFalke @fanquake @jonatack @achow101 Still no consideration for implementing countermeasures?

    The number of nodes seems to be decreasing lately, the blocks are full of inscriptions and the UTXO set continues to grow at a very worrying speed.

    You can see in blue the inscriptions in each block on this site.

14. 
    Retropex commented at 1:06 pm on September 5, 2023: none

    Still no reaction to give the tools to the node runners to defend themselves?

    link

Contributors
Retropex DrahtBot michaelfolkson recursive-rat4 Fiach-Dubh dzyphr RicYashiroLee

Labels
CI failed