Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 10. (Read 9515 times)

Good question... For as long as I've been on Twitter he's just been trolling maximalists and core devs. It seems some of the major podcasters really upset him, for what reason I'm not entirely sure... but its all pretty ridiculous & inconsequential influencer-ing.


It seems to contradict the previous article you posted, which was written almost a week later, but it is more in line with the reality of how things are playing out (IMO). Turns out having an image "on-chain" doesn't really mean a whole lot to NFT collectors.


Very true, and the majority of NFTs will trend toward zero indefinitely, regardless of market conditions. There's simply too many out there & too many new ones being created every day for all of them to retain value.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-nft-trading-volume-tanks-98-since-may-dappradar

would you agree with that article? it seems about right what i would have expected. but the entire nft market is in a slump. these things don't just go up forever. there have to be corrections. but for people to try and sue because they were stupid enough to buy a jpeg image for millions of dollars i hope they don't get anything.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/buyers-of-bored-ape-nfts-sue-after-digital-apes-turn-out-to-be-bad-investment/

True enough.  They're also not going to waste time to try and genuinely optimise their infrastructure if the primary goal is simply to offload the memes to the next sap and move on to a new swindle (that looks and sounds like all their old swindles, but bundled in a shiny new wrapper with the latest jargon and buzzwords).  Pump shit -> Dump shit -> Move on -> Repeat.

What happened to Udi Werthimer? Why does he look as though he "hates" Bitcoin?


But the silly-picture-selling crowd doesn't want to store their pictures in a offchain layer. They want them in a highly secure bank-vault, which the Bitcoin blockchain provides. That's probably what will give them their "value".

Wow, just about everything in this article is incorrect, which isn't surprising seeing as how Cointelegraph is known to push things that their editors / management have a vested interest in.

So first of all, the main tweet that this article is centered around was written by a known NFT con artist, Leonidas. In his tweet he says, "you can't make this stuff up," but in reality he makes nearly everything up. He's really good at rallying a select group of suckers from pump to pump -- that's what he does. He's not an "ordinals developer" as Cointelegraph claims.

Neither Leonidas, Udi Werthimer or Cointelegraph mention that most of the "inscriptions" are actually BRC-20 mints, which are people paying an inscription service to mint useless pump n dump tokens on their behalf.



They're not even doing anything with the BRC-20 tokens, they're just minting them because somebody like Leonidas told them to. The only real winner here is the service, and those who have a stake in the success of the service.

Much like the jpeg inscriptions, this is 100% hype driven and will not last.

and yet:
Bitcoin Ordinals appear to be alive and kicking, with nearly 85% of Bitcoin network activity dominated by inscriptions and BRC-20 minting on Aug. 21.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ordinals-inscription-still-making-majority-btc-transactions

hard to believe that if it is really true. but i guess it is.

the one exception might be that a (significant minority of) miners could just continue to use the UTXO set to do this, and try to keep their heads above water by refunding each others tx fees in a free transaction

that's pretty far-fetched though, stupid ideas are doomed to die. Ordinals only really worked in the first place because scammy people *believed* that *marks* would be stupid enough to believe in it; as I say, it's more likely that ~95% of people trading ordinals knew it was the latest greater-fool scam

Not much further down the road, though.  We're already pretty close by the looks of it.  If this stuff has to exist, it should arguably do so in the most optimised way.  That's what this protocol appears to offer.  The silly-picture-selling crowd just need to utilise it.

but it is kind of a 'fail' as a currency.

It's more like a $10,000 t-note made for large transfers of value.

scrypt algo with LTC/Doge is far better suited for smaller transactions.

Not that btc is not good to move large wealth or expensive artwork "NFTS" it is great for that but is has not yet fully developed a network for small change movements. Maybe LN will do the trick down the road.

What do NFTs do, right, giving Bitcoin a bad name.

but that's what ostriches do when they're scared right?

a few people upthread were panicky. maybe talking about it actually made you all a little scared, and me, well, not so much?



well, yes

No one could censor them because that would be against Bitcoin's ethos and they are not breaking any rules, so the best way to deal with it is - not talking about it? Hahaha. It's like the ostrich's head in the sand.

What's ironic is there's actually no solution. We merely need to accept that they're using Bitcoin in ways that we don't like. We can call it spam, an attack, or an exploit, but it will just be a matter of personal opinion.

my apologies to everyone if I didn't make this point sufficiently clear upthread...


...but I'm gonna make it here again.

this whole phenomenon is based on the NEWNEWNEW scam, most "altcoin" stuff is, and we all know it already. in fact, most people trading newly issued stuff are actually engaging in a scammy blinking contest: probably most players in the market activity know they're playing the "hold my bag" game

and then it all starts again next week with the "new" NEWNEWNEW: same game, "!!new and exciting tech!!" **yawn**


and the major irony for me is the same as it was with most of these Bitcoin protocol/relay policy/ecosystem debates; it's possible to make the whole thing worse than it really is, simply by talking about it more than it deserves

Here's a good resource for keeping tabs on BRC-20 & Ordinals activity:

https://dune.com/jellyz/brc20-track

It has come back a bit recently but I think the worst of it is over. That's the thing about degens: they get bored quickly and move on from one things to the next. After Ordinals/BRC-20, it was Doginals/DRC-20, then Ethscriptions (bring it full circle, writing NFTs in ETH tx data rather than via smart contracts, lol). There's also been similar attempts to do the same for Litecoin, Polygon, Avalanche and even Monero, with the last one being all but wholly rejected by the pre-existing community.


Fair enough... kudos to you for keeping an open mind through your journey and I should remind myself to attempt to do the same.

given that the information about Ordinal tokens/NFTs is available publicly somewhere, do we have a BTC value for how much this has cost?

I say this because it might help to put this all in perspective. If someone out there is losing money to the tune of > 1BTC on this nonsense thus far, I think we can safely say they will not continue to do so for long.

I didn't read the whole thread, do we know some kind of net figure for BRC-20 and it's fellow apparitions?

Seems that didn't go down well with you, kindly pardon me. Curiosity have a way of making one appear awkward sometimes so, I guess that was my case. Maybe my personality trait of not wanting to be left in the dark have turn out to be a major weakness.



Glad you clarified this....I got @JayJuanGee bored by my asking for clarification as I thought you actually had any source to support what you posted.

I agree with you that there are more and more tracking tools that are available (even for people who don't have keys to wallets), and so there could be some usages for tracking when coins move that can help us to determine how scarce the BTC supply might be in terms of when the coins were last moved - however, at the same time, these are still likely probability calculations more than anything, and there could be quite a few kinds of circumstances in which coins do not move, but the key has not been lost and someone actually has the ability to move the coins but has chosen not to.


This seems like a pretty lame point that you are making because scarcity does not necessarily result in lack of liquidity, especially since we are dealing with a divisible asset, and even though on the blockchain, bitcoin is ONLY dividable down to 8 digits, the lightning network has already allowed for going down to 11 digits, and even on the main blockchain, such softforks to allow such further divisions seems like it would not be difficult to pass.. and I am pretty sure that it could be a softfork, even though I don't claim to have any kind of technical prowess.

Anyhow, I guess my point here is that anyone can get bitcoins, and sure they likely are going to cost more when they are even more scarce than we might have had otherwise thought them to be, and then surely if a million coins all of a sudden move (or unlocked), then the circulating supply of bitcoin becomes less scarce at that point, even if those bitcoin had previously been known but then had been speculated to have been without keys.. and also in that regard, there could be some coins that end up getting their private keys hacked because they are stored in such a way that the keys can be discovered, and surely those kinds of change of ownership may well end up having affects on bitcoin's known circulating supply...

so yeah, even with all of satoshi's coins becoming available (or getting hacked into), whether that is 500k or 1.5million BTC, there would likely be some short term, and perhaps even medium term shocks to the supply and perhaps even perceptions of the vulnerability of the private keys of the supply to get discovered, but at some point, the BTC prices would move back to some kind of an equilibrium.. whether at lower prices than previously or not.  None of that means that people are more or less easily able to get BTC, even if they might have to buy less of an amount, and sure all people (whether poor or not) are likely not going to be able to buy as many BTC in the future as they are able to buy now with the same amount of cash... but what else is new...

Right now, you can buy $1 million worth of bitcoin or you can buy less than 1¢ worth of bitcoin...and even if satoshis go up to costing way more than 1¢ per satoshi, they still can be divided further, and are currently being divided into 1,000ths (on the lightning network), and could be divided further in the event that liquidity becomes a problem... it is the infinitely divisible issue that does not make the units less valuable, but it makes them ongoingly divisible to the extent that such divisibility might be needed in order to address possible liquidity issues.

The bad @JayJuanGee I should get my memory checked or maybe my brain is thinking one thing and my keyboard typing another thing but in all, I accept the mistake of allocating the wrong figure to satoshi Bitcoin starch, between I believe that in the end, you were able to get the point I was trying to make on unspendable Bitcoins which are locked in either satoshi wallet or other wallets that owners may have lost access to either by way of losing the wallet private keys.


First, we must intentionally continue to work on improving our securities and preventing loss of access to our Bitcoin assets either by way of losing the wallet private keys or losing the wallet to hackers, and also we expect that shortly, we could see new wallet development that can give it users the ability to use other features to trace, track and control the access to their wallet even if there have no access to the wallet keys.


If such development exists, there will be lesser loss of wallet and minimal unspendable Bitcoin in dead wallets, because losing those Bitcoin forever may breed a high scarcity of Bitcoin in the future and the inability of newer members to be able to accumulate Bitcoin all the way up just like we are doing right now.

Oh gawd..  

Which one is worse?  Ojima-ojo stating that satoshi lost 15 million bitcoins or your (adultcrypto) repeating such nonsense as if there were some kind of a possible basis in such nonsense, when I already stated that the number of BTC that satoshi had was/is somewhere in the 1 million BTC or less territory.  

It is pretty easy to verify several of these kinds of basic facts rather than getting all dramatic about non facts and then repeating and posting about non-facts as if there were some actual basis for such.

This number seems so strange and unbelievable. You know of any single Bitcoin wallet holding as much as this quantity of Bitcoin? Can you point me to any material or website link where I can read about this? I will want to know how you got this information.

That means @Ojima-ojo statement of 15 million Bitcoin associated to Satoshi may not be entirely correct. I hope to get the clarification because if the statement is right, it means the entire world will be left to trade only 6 million out of the 21 million Bitcoin that was created... this will change my expectations on the price of Bitcoin going forward.