Ordinal filtering / Ordisrespector

Any guides out there on how to apply dashjr’s ordisrespector patch to my node? I want to filter out the spam, will not tolerate an exploit/attack of Bitcoin.


It’s not an exploit or an attack. It’s a normal function of bitcoin which is supported by most of the nodes.

You can filter ordinals from the mempool but this makes no difference especially not when your node is only in listen mod, which is the standard for umbrel.

I disagree. Bitcoin is money, not a platform for sending jpegs. If software behaves in an unpredicted way, it’s a bug. A serious bug is a vulnerability, and if people exploit this vulnerability, it’s an attack. I am guessing there are no guides on how to accomplish this with umbrel. Might be just the kick I need to actually spin up a real node on my own.


Bitcoin works as designed. Ordinals is a function which was enabled with Segwit update. Adding data do the Blockchain was not unpredicted. The use case is! The public ledger is not yours so you can not stop others from using bitcoin as they want.

What’s a “real node”? Umbrel comes with bitcoin code, which is the reference implementation. There is no switch like “disable ordinals”.

Luke Dasher uses his own implementation of Bitcoin which not supports essential BIPs. That’s why his Bitcoin implementation doesn’t support Ordinals. But his blockchain also has the data in it.

Currently miners benefit from ordinals. I don’t think they will block the protocol.

IMHO: Chill! Bitcoin is sound money and ordinals doesn’t change anything about it. Ordinals will vanish over time because they are use less and people are willing to overbid this transactions.


The bitcoin protocol is decided by node operators (not miners, not token holders) - and not by community members telling other community members what to do.

The dashjr proposed patch is not even a fork - therefore it is a very legitimate question by @axnor to ask how to apply that patch.

Actually, I have the same question - and would welcome that the Umbrel team enables the patch as a setting / switch - similar to the ability to prune, … which are included in the most recent versions.

Thanks! Best, m

@axnor Your likely more interested in filtering Inscriptions, not Ordinals. Agree with your concerns.

1 Like

There is no “patch”, because it’s not a bug.
All you will get with quick fixes is an invalid blockchain.

If you don’t want Ordinals just disable Taproot and Segwit and you will not see it but you will lost many features. A shitty trade off in my opinion .

Bitcoin is an open protocol and everyone can do with it what he want. If someone want to save images in the blockchain then this is a completely valid use case since 2013 not even since ordinals.

You can not stop people from using the ordinals protocol even is your node ignores the data.

So if you want to ignore my advice and do stupid things like dashjr then feel free to do so, but don’t ignore the risks that come with that!

Let’s not debate if inscriptions are a bug or not - and if any setting / node change should be called patch or setting.

Fundamentally, it is not unreasonable that some node operators (including myself) don’t want to store inscriptions above a certain ‘size’ - I am happy to store the ‘chancellor’ message.

It is a reasonable ambition to keep using taproot / segwit and have a preference to not download / store inscriptions above a certain ‘size’.

1 Like

Agree with that!
The problem is that a blockchain is not really made for a use case like you want.
When you delete some data from a block then the block hash is no longer valid.

I can fully understand that you don’t want to save “useless” jpegs.

Let’s get a little philosophical:
Inscriptions can be much more than just jpegs.

One day people will store testaments, contracts, etc. on this storage as they cannot be deleted or tampered with. Who are you to judge whether an inscription is worthless or not?
Give it some time to develop before you demonize new things.

End of the philosophy lesson

Currently the rate of new Ordinals transactions is getting lower. And the ledger size is not increasing more than the maximal 4MB per 10 Minutes.

Let’s wait a little and see where the wind will take us.


I take it that if we can enable pruning of ‘old’ data - we can also enable pruning of ‘validated’ blocks / inscriptions?

I assume that 1000 copies of a testament / jpeg are enough - and we don’t need 20k+ copies?

Sure, that’s possible. But you will loose historical data. It’s okay for mobile custody solutions but a validation node should have all the data in my opinion.

You have to trust and can not validate your own. That’s not what bitcoin is about. Memory is cheap so there is no reason to delete data.

Yeh how do I stop cp for being stored on my harddrive.

Is 100% is an attack on bitcoin. I will be an easy attack vector. “BTC node operators are storing cp!”

As I said before it’s not an “attack”. Everything works as intended and node runners have committed to save 4MB of data every 10 Minutes.

Everything works as intended.

And just in case you haven’t noticed: The blocks are not bigger than usual because many users doesn’t even support segwit.

@rieger_san So you are happy having child porn stored on a hard drive in your house?

Everyone can put data into the blockchain when he pays for it.
You can not block this because of reasons I explained above.

Im not interested what data is stored in the blockchain I just host a validation note and don’t judge about the data.

If you want to run a full node you have no choice :man_shrugging:

Well run your node over TOR so you don’t get a knock on the door