Topic: Are you for or against ordinals? - page 2. (Read 653 times)

It seems that ordinals are just a new shiny thing, similar to NFTs back when they appeared. I don't oppose such things, I believe that it's good that some are experimenting with Blockchain use cases and ways of capitalizing on new markets, but I'm not interested in them either. Can something like this really be stopped? One can simply decide not to participate, sure, but that's not the same as stopping ordinals. Also, isn't Bitcoin founded on the idea of financial freedom? So why try to impose a centralized restriction upon something else? People should be free to experiment and choose what to put their money in, and it's not some sort of obvious scam like a Ponzi to try imposing any bans.

using the guy above's mindeset
so lets just carbon copy over every dogecoin tx into the witness of bitcoin "coz some want it"

I deliberately didn't vote, because the answers are traps. So I either don't have an opinion on that matter or love / hate the entire thing? Nope. I'm completely in favor of my opinion, that is to say they do have a place in Bitcoin if some demand it. The fact that I find Ordinals incredibly meaningless-- and the NFT-digital-art concept as a whole-- doesn't mean I don't consider it bad for Bitcoin.

Yeah, guys, please be more active! Please spend a second of your time to participate. 190 votes that would be cool, we'd be able to get a fuller picture. Hoping to see more action during the weekend!  

What you are forgetting is that since bitcoin is not a token creation platform, it is impossible to create tokens including NFTs on Bitcoin! What we are seeing here also has nothing to do with NFTs even if the attackers introduced it as that. They are literary using OP_PUSH to push data to the blockchain. There is no smart contracts, or tokens here.

P.S. 190+ views and only 14 votes!

Basically this.
I'm fine with NFTs on Bitcoin. I think the use of NFTs for crappy randomly generated images is pretty stupid. If it was like an actual art scene that would be a bit more interesting, but its just companies/people putting out collections of generated stupid images and the fad driven NFT crowd being gullible enough to pay real money for it. There are MUCH more interesting uses for non-fungible technology but it seems the whole market has adopted the "NFTs are images" idea which is lame. But as for them being on Bitcoin that's perfectly fine it is just another use case for Bitcoin. BUT the problem of course is that they just spam the blockchain. This is not what Bitcoin is for and it crowds out the main reason for Bitcoin's existence, which is to be money and allow currency transactions.

If NFTs only took up as much space as a normal transaction that would be fine, or better yet if they were done on a side chain where all the extra NFT data was stored on the side chain that'd be perfect. I could care less about NFTs on Bitcoin, but spamming and filling up the blocks with stupid image data is terrible for Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community and its viability in the future.

^ nope
solution to having a bitcoin NFT system of file hashes is much simpler then that..
again it does not use taproot or op return

your last paragraph shows good thinking outside of the box but your not quite there yet

Simple, it can be selected inside OP_RETURN, as a part of the protocol, also because there are no size limits, because it will be never pushed on-chain. It is just a way to choose any data, and link it to some bc1p address, with a proof that it is linked, so it cannot be modified by any third party. And then, all rules are controlled by separate network that will store those commitments. Of course, you can put only your image and nothing else, but then it is your fault that you didn't specify the destination in your commitment. And if you use a protocol that didn't specify it, then blame the protocol designers, that they didn't prepare some OP_RETURN format that will track ownership correctly.

Also note that when you reveal your OP_RETURN commitment, then you also reveal some public key first, that has to be tweaked by TapScript, to match your bc1p address. So, you can easily use that public key to control ownership, or even execute it recursively in your network, if you really need that.

Another thing is if you want to make commitments, then you don't need any Taproot addresses at all, because it was always possible, even with P2PK outputs. Every time you spend your coins, you have to attach some signature. It has R-value (that has to be a valid point on secp256k1), and s-value. So, if you want to create new commitment for any output that uses OP_CHECKSIG, you can get this R-value, convert it into Taproot address, and then check if your commitment matches that R-value. To do that, you can first produce a normal signature without ordinals, by using any wallet, then use that R-value as a Taproot key to be tweaked, then add some TapScript, and publish a signature using modified R-value instead.

Omni was a sidechain that relied on its own secret ledger kept by Tether in addition to Bitcoin's decentralized and open ledger, in order for them to be able to centrally control Tether via minting and blacklisting.

Ordinals are just a hack of Taproot spending path capabilities, so it's not like there is any layer involved in here. Same goes for Ethereum NFTs.

op_return is another 'dead weight store' but not a proof of transfer

because
bc1qcreator 0.001 ->  opreturn hash
                                 bc1qreceiverA 0.0005
                                 bc1qreceiverB 0.0005

bc1pcreator 0.001 ->  bc1preceiverA 0.0005
                                 bc1preceiverB 0.0005
                                 witness dead weight meme

block data does not designate which the opreturn/meme goes to.. is it A or B?
....
however bitcoin does have another way to store a  'file hash' and spend it in a provable way. that links it to a destined receiver in blockchain data

thus not needing to use opreturn nor witness weight to store whole files. and instead have a tx with average tx size that can prove a 'file hash' and prove its transfer/ownership

However, he also wrote that putting full data related to other assets is not a good idea:
That means he approved BitDNS, but not by putting all of those domains' details into Bitcoin transactions. And this is the problem with ordinals: the concept may be acceptable, but not the way how it is done.

Even better: they could use OP_RETURN inside TapScript (and then stop worrying about any size limits, except those enforced by separate network for ordinals). Then, the owner of a particular Taproot address can always reveal TapScript in some ordinals network, while it will be guaranteed that this TapScript will never be pushed on-chain. And then, other TapScript branches or spend-by-key can be used to move those ordinals.

Well there have been significant improvement to transaction propagation and output selection in the core software (that were made since 2017) that will likely be mitigating against these attacks in real time. I personally do not think that this niche tech-art is going to threaten the current state of the network especially since it is highly ineffecient, is likely a zero sum profit game, requires centralized systems to operate, and seems to carry little to no social weight amongst organic bitcoin users.

Things like this are kind-of annoying but I think the network has succeeded in preventing these types of nuisances from becoming a major issue.

In some sense it is worth considering only how do we promote the most efficient network possible, banning something that just uses the current state of the software is literally impossible. We need to incentivize healthy usage, and for the most part we do. In fact if it weren't a well-off mining pool making all these huge transactions they would almost certainly not occur since they are unprofitable. (if something like this were to be sold at a profit I would almost certainly consider it a scam) Never sell 2 bitcoins for 1 bitcoin trust me haha.

I'm interested to see what the result of this vote is going to be although I think it may have been too soon to ask this question since most users don't know what Ordinals is yet and more importantly they haven't yet faced the consequences of this attack.

When looking at the fee chart history we can clearly see that despite seeing very high fees like 50+ sat/vbyte, fee rates regularly drop back down to <5 sat/vbyte which means the effects haven't yet been severe.
Let the attack get worse and let the tech support board get filled with topics with the title "why is my tx stuck" like 2017 and then we'll see what people truly think about this attack

positives?

ordinals v1.0  (the sat rarity)
is not a aspect that has any traits that are proven by blockchain data
its just user display of translation and given meaning by human decision. after the fact
decision and meaning that can be changed and not protected/fixed by blockchain data

ordinals v2.0  (the witness junk spam memes)
are just locked data store has no proof of transfer to specific new owner


v1.0
when a pool creates a block and has a coin reward of a mile stoned blockheight. EG a "halvening height" block
reading blockchain data. you cannot tell which of the 6.25coins is most important
is it the first or last
you cant tell becasue if a blockreward is 6.3btc (reward+0.05btc tx fee total)
is the first spend the reward or the fee..
does the fee come first or last in the reward

are people transfer newcoin or just the regeneration of old coins that were fees

heres another thing
imagining it takes 625seconds to mine a block for a 6.25btc reward
is the most important say the first second/first sat. or the last second that actually solved the blockhash meaning the last sat

are sat important of a blockreward top down or bottom up
again
if the total reward is 6.3
can you tell if it is 0.05+6.25 or 6.25+0.05

again if someone then spends the coin

bc1qminingpool (6.3) -> bc1qpoolworker1 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker2 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker3 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker4 (1.26)
                                     bc1qpoolworker5 (1.26)
what in blockchain data PROVES that the most important rare satoshi is in which output
who deserves the rare satoshi.. top down or bottom up
the BLOCKCHAIN DATA cannot tell you this. thus its not a true system of proof

its assumption based on lack of blockchain proof and just software decision. where software can change decision without needing blockchain data security to uphold a rule stays or changes to adjust to the new rule

....
v2.0
memes in the witness are not tethered to any output. thus again. which output deserves ownership. the blockchain cant prove it. its again just an assumption made in software where the software can again choose a different path/destined recipient as owner

...

as for those shouting "fee incentive to push fee up"
whom does it benefit

the spot market is the mechanism of pushing up to benefit the miners. they simply refuse to sell at a loss to put pressure on the market to rise.. it does not need bitcoin peer-2-peer fee's to rise PER USER to compensate miners
if anything MORE tx per block should be the mechanism if people want to assume that the peer 2 peer network fee is the thing..

more people all paying $0.10 is better then less people paying $10.00

---

when blocks of 1.5mb can have 3000tx
but blocks of 4mb have less than 1000tx

i do not see the economic benefit of such system

I've voted for "no opinion", although I actually have an opinion

1) the ordinals concept generally is not that bad and has even some positive aspects,
2) but on-chain inscriptions of larger data elements (let's say, larger than a few hundreds of bytes) are not really desirable on BTC, they should better find a home on alt-chains or sidechains. And they should really use OP_RETURN, not a Taproot hack.

So in general I'm "leaning against" inscriptions, but not against the Ordinals concept in general.

I see the benefit of a simple yes/no question (I'm aware of the problems of polls in general ) but in this case I'd have liked some few more options, or a poll with a Likert scale (from "strongly agree" to "strongly oppose"). However, even with it's minimalist design, it's interesting what the outcome of this poll will be.

That would actually a much more biased poll design, because you're mentioning a positive aspect for one of the options, but not for the other one.

I think also a fee market should exist, but within financial-type transactions (which can include contracts, options and even OP_RETURN based tokens with low data consumption). We're currently still near the bottom of a bear market, thus fees are low. If inscriptions stay popular while a bull market is entering its advanced stages, a big influx of large inscriptions could seriously impact Bitcoin's usability, a second "end 2017" scenario would be likely.

bitcoin is a financial network of p2p payments of bitcoin

its not a network that should allow in payments of other assets..
EG
should we also let the witness area be used to input a transaction within a transaction
EG carbon copy litecoin transactions into witness area of bitcoin transactions
EG use witness area to store serial number lists of recently smelted gold bars
EG use witness area to store memes

should we create a whole new currency within bitcoin..

nope. because thats not bitcoin
nope. bitcoin was created for a purpose.

heck ordinals does not even have a proof of transfer system. they just have a chain analysis watcher system of a chose path they can change.. thus it does not even work as a value transfer system
..
weakening bitcoins consensus to allow devs(small group of self-admitted central point of failure) to throw in new code without network consensus has caused junk to be inserted.
its not censorship to reject junk. or atleast allow existing junk to sit. but prevent it in the next block.. thats not censorship, its protection/sustainability

if those that want to cry "censorship" realised bitcoin is actually made of rules that do allow certain tx to be rejected and certain blocks to be rejected. and it always has HAD that ability.. then they will soon learn that bitcoin has never been a "censorship resistance" network it has always been a consent network where nodes SHOULD follow strict rules to protect the network from abuse

so what if it stops HUMANS(devs) from sliding things in without consent.. thats what bitcoin suppose to do. prevent abuses by small groups/individuals

closing the trojan gate that allows devs to throw in these exploits, does not mean it permanently stops code evolution after. it just means to activate new stuff in the future would again require majority of network readiness to support new rules to then give consent to activate new rules. .. the way it should be

This is just so vague. What's "good for Bitcoin" is very relative. Miners will tell you that any transaction which pays a fee is good for Bitcoin. Regular users who don't want to even give a cent will tell you that any transaction which takes their priority is bad-- especially if it's a transaction that isn't compliant with their moral standard, or whatever.

Ordinals being good or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is if it's good or not to prevent someone from using Ordinals.

I think its obvious the ordinals deployers attempt to waste block space which will naturally be rejected by users over time so it doesn't matter how any of us individually FEELS about it, if it is not helping the blocks churn 10 minutes at a time they will die out due to Darwinian evolution. That being said overall just using the chain to store a reference to other data seems just fine, but spam is spam and will be treated as such by organic users of the network. Such a thing could be done 100x more efficiently on a side chain.

What if someone's answer is "yes for the concept, but no for the current implementation"? If ordinals would look the same as other transactions, I would have nothing against them.

For me, the bad thing is the technical way of how it is done, not the concept itself. In the same way, someone can support LN, but it doesn't mean that every transaction should happen inside LN, because then, it would require opening and closing the channel every time, so there would be two times more on-chain transactions than needed.

The same with sidechains: someone can support them, but it doesn't mean that all sidechain transactions should happen on-chain.

Ordinals are different from the old NFTs, they are using bitcoin for their own non fungible tokens.

There was a time that Omni layer for USDT was a common transaction on on bitcoin blockchain, no one thought it is not ideal. That one is still not actually bitcoin transfer on bitcoin blockchain, but altcoin transfer on bitcoin blockchain.

I only seed ordinals as a way it is possible for miners to earn more money and what can lead to increase in mining hash rate later in the future.