Topic: Expect the Orginals game to get even bigger - actual games (Read 874 times)

I see, but few website shows conflicting information. For example,



What do you think?

AFAIK with shareware all that is required is that the Credits list the original creators/owners, it not be modified, and that it be provided for free. It can be distributed in any form.

1st result when searching "shareware":

Actually dogecoin is only used to store the file. But it's still cool to play DOOM on dogecoin ordinals explorer.


CMIIW, but doesn't the creator or publisher still have right how their shareware is distributed?


NFT already exist on altcoin, but Ordinals on Bitcoin manage to gain popularity. So i doubt those people would move to altcoin again.

doge would be used by the broke folks; the rich ones will stick to BTC. Also, ordinals on BTC are somewhat different since they are associated with a particular Satoshi that is thought to have some intrinsic value that most people don't see  . I think these folks will come back again to BTC to pay another visit when a new wave of madness forms up. Ordinals on BTC will be like TikTok trends; they would be most active during bull markets when BTC is making new highs and is getting more attention in the news. Then they fade, wait for another wave, scam a few dozen greedy folks, and fade. Rinse and repeat until people find a new way to make value out of thin air.

I don't see why Ordinals people would switch to Dogecoin, when they didn't even have to switch to Bitcoin in the first place; all of this functionality basically already existed on Ethereum and other cheaper blockchains, before.
But I guess with the popularity of Dogecoin, the fact these people are likely no hardcore Bitcoiners, and consistently high transaction fees lately, there's a chance they lose interest in using the Bitcoin blockchain. We can only hope!

And now you have not a know-off but the entire shareware part of DOOM running on dogecoin
https://wonky-ord.dogeord.io/shibescription/02d0c9820dc020acd8128d80955ff5b7fbeb8c80ee229a408dce5fe6573f404bi0
Interesting part is that since it's a shareware copy nobody can sue on it!

Somebody mentioned 20 doge as cost for it, don't know how accurate that is, but I guess we can say bye by to bitcoin ordinals and a flood to doge at these prices!
Full fee reward was under 15k for doge last 24h so cheap enough to inscribe a shitload of stuff there.

Odds are these guys will price themselves out. Like if such a novel service cost so much to do it'll weed itself out right?

Hmm, just came across this in the Project Development area...
Methinks it deals with what I started this thread about: Using the BTC blockchain for storing retro games... In all fairness the op of that thread does say "a blockchain" (emphasis is mine on the 'a') vs explicitly saying the BTC blockchain.
Nonetheless it still makes one wonder...

Regarding illegal content, from a legal (not moral) perspective, the simplest solution may be to make your node only reachable through Tor. You'll still be doing something illegal, by distributing material that you're not allowed to distribute, when seeding the blockchain and broadcasting new blocks containing such data, but it will be tough for local authorities to find you and get you to shut the node down and / or punish you.

This solves neither the moral concern of distributing such data, nor does it solve the reduced usability through high fees and our nodes' memory being filled up quicker than needed.

I think long-term, Bitcoin needs a Grin-type solution that allows us to 'prune' unnecessary parts of transactions, encrypts addresses and so forth; for privacy reasons, making it easier to spin up a node, as well as stopping attacks that abuse the blockchain for things that are not monetary transactions.

True, I believe we were discussing the matter from an angle that is irrelevant to the big picture. In my previous replies, I focused on the legal consequences for the person uploading legally protected content. However, does that even matter? I mean, anyone can do that and maintain their privacy, and nobody would go after them. I think what matters most here is the other side of the problem: users storing and rebroadcasting that shared content.

Suppose I upload a copyright-protected file obtained illegally (bypassing the discussion of whether I have the right to do so, because clearly, in this case, I don't). If that file becomes part of the files YOU own, by law, you are required to get rid of it, and there is the problem.

The blockchain, as it stands, probably contains a lot of illegal data, be it copyright violations or other illegal content like child pornography or anything deemed illegal by many countries. Now, the question arises: if enough government pressure is imposed on all node operators, how will they be able to prune all that illegal content without affecting the ability of the full node to operate properly (maintain censuses and validate transactions?).

Currently, if an attacker puts something illegal in the UTXO set, pruning it would be difficult without affecting the full node's ability to operate as it should. However, for authorities to know whether your node has that piece of legal info or not would be complicated. In the future, if enough pressure is put on node operators in the U.S, everyone may push for a change. As of now, vjudeu's reply to my suggestion (which I read somewhere in the past) regarding using Zero Knowledge Proof so that nodes don't need to store the complete UTXO set makes perfect sense. there is no interest, especially from mining pools, as it could reduce their profits. However, if shit hits the fan, mining pools might support and even fund a similar fix to protect themselves from governments. As it stands now, it seems like we are giving authorities much more weight than we should. Perhaps, for now, we may as well continue ignoring them as if nothing is happening.

I get your points, and the law is way out of my field, but what concerns me is that only the participants of that illegal activity are held accountable, and permit distribution.

- If I upload Oppenheimer on Google Drive, and then distribute the download link, then I'm responsible for that action. The authorities will warn Google about the incident, and Google will notify me about its deletion.
- If I upload Oppenheimer on Pirate Bay, and be one of the seeders, then I'm also responsible for that action. The authorities will contact me, and request to stop distributing it (in the best case scenario). Then, maybe they request from every other seeder to shut down their operations.

What happens if I upload it on the blockchain? Maybe I'm still responsible, but I hold no permission over the Bitcoin network. So, maybe I get a fine, but the activity is still on-going. I am no longer accountable. So, who is to blame if not every node distributing it?

How is it different? storing something on the blockchain is not exactly "distributing" it, your UTXOs all stored on my PC, but only you can "use" them, the song you bought is stored on the same disk I use (dropbox for example) and i also can't use it.

Also, how do these things differ?

1- you upload a copy of a file you bought to google drive ( meaning you are now by default share it with google and everyone who has access to storage files in google)

2- you upload the same file to blockchain, encrypted where nobody can view it.

I believe at this point, fair use still plays out, when here is how to break it.

For google drive, you intentionally share the download link to that file.

For blockchain, you intentionally share the private key to decrypt the file.

I did some reading in regards to U.S copyright laws, and it is no where near simple, i.e, you can't just say storing a copyright protected file on the blockchain is illegal or legal, it is more complicated than that, i have read different opinions regarding to this subject, you can dive into the rabbit whole by searching for "storing encrypted copyright protected files online".


I was talking about this project itself, the team that inscribed this ninja game.

Such restriction would require a fork (either soft or hard fork), where it's unlikely to happen.


Actually in past miners were prioritizing some transaction with "Aged" UTXO. Anyway, miners merely followed default Bitcoin-Qt (now it's called Bitcoin Core) behavior. But after some time, mining become more serious stuff where miner prioritize profit.

Storing a copy of a legally obtained file locally is not illegal. Distributing a copyrighted file universally without the creator's permission is definitely not legal.

Storing it locally on a cloud service is completely different than distributing it to the entire Bitcoin network.

Both. When downloading a movie from Pirate Bay, sure, you're committing a crime, but so is the seeder who has uploaded it. In fact, most of the times, the authorities look for the uploaders.

Do we really know which people are behind Ordinals? What prevents me from anonymously buying / selling / issuing Ordinals?

This is apples vs oranges, stealing a bike is illegal, storing a copy of a file you obtained legally and lawfully own is not illegal, if you buy a movie/song and store it on your google drive, dropbox or some random VPS that is legal as far as I know.

If I manage to access those files and use them, then it is me commiting crime not you, and I think the same will apply to these ordinals, those folks are not stupid and have probably consulted the right people given that their identities are known to the public -- they would unlikely take that risk.

And as long as there are no cameras and nobody around, how can anyone know you've stolen a bike? Nonetheless, it is illegal to do.

Isn't it already apparent that sweet profit is the answer? Transactions which pay a lot more than "aged" transactions, have priority. Maybe a small amount of profit does not incentivize them enough to bypass such rules (e.g., standardness), but millions of dollars worth of bitcoin definitely outweigh these rules.

Wouldn't be a potential solution to this drama  the implementation of the block space restriction for transactions which use coding to bypass the 'datacarriersize' limit?

AFAIK, in the early days, miners prioritized the  "aged" transactions. Why not continue favoring those transactions that do not circumvent the default 'datacarriersize' cap?

I wholeheartedly agree!
That's why I said the same thing earlier. Now the concept of of using A decentralized public blockchain as an immutable type of cloud storage for what is otherwise ephemeral digital content is a sound one and provided DRM issues can be resolved, having the content publicly accessible would be great so We The Public can read/view/play, etc it.

Just as with out of print books, there is a shitton of games, movies, software etc. that is no longer distributed by the copyright holders that users would LOVE to have access to and be willing to still pay the copyright holders for the rights to access it. Again, that said - using the BTC for it is NOT the way to do it.

Not a lawyer either, but as long as you don't intentionally expose the private key then how would anyone know the content?  besides the law explicitly says according to what NFW posted above


And the size of inputs is 4x the size of outputs.

My bad. You can inject arbitrary data in UTXO. It's just more expensive.

The history of those coins can be safely ignored in the sense that they were recreated, but you do need to know about their past to reach their future, so some nodes will still need to store that piece of information.