Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 15. (Read 9515 times)

I doubt that Casey Rodamor is even close to the "villian" that you are suggesting that he might be.. even if some of the later developments might have been to strive to evolve cardinals/inscriptions into various ways to attempt to attack bitcoin - whether physically and/or socially.   and your harping on his "kick in the teeth" post was already characterized by GMaxwell as a misunderstanding that Rodamor seemed to have had, rather than as if Rodamor was wanting to be "vindicitive" as you seem to want to read into the situation, Wind_FURY.

Rodamor seems to have a decent amount of skills to have had identified ways to get the cardinals/inscription thing going on bitcoin.. within the available rules.. I doubt that he would characterize himself as a new developer, but I recall that he had said that he had worked at Coinbase for a while, and he had said something about reviewing bitcoin code.. and may even participating in some of the discussions around development, which he likely would have to have some programming skills and abilities to know how the cardinal/inscriptions code would fit into being used in bitcoin, since he seems to have had been innovative in terms of the way that ordinals/inscriptions were introduced.. and that it was a kind of niche that no one had previously exploited (whether thinking about exploiting in a good or a bad way... which I am still not presuming ordinals/inscriptions to necessarily be bad even though there seems to be some later evidence that some of the BRC20 angle of the ordinals are being manipulated by Ayer/Wright - even if Greg (Gmaxwell) might not wanted to have wanted to use shittwat Wright's name within this discussion.

Rodamor had discussed cardinals and inscriptions on several bitcoin podcasts and gave reasons why to develop cardinals/inscriptions on bitcoin (and why not do it on shitcoins)... He had quite a few appearances on podcasts - especially right around the time that the cardinals/inscriptions went live in January/February 2023  (do you need me to provide some links? so you can actually listen to the ways that he discusses how he got into the ideas of cardinals/inscriptions), and he even has his own podcast (and has not had a new episode in the last few months)

Obviously, but WHO is he, and what were his other contributions in Bitcoin, or open source? Have you noticed that Google has very little information about him before Ordinals? Plus in gmaxwell's post, why would he tweet something like, "Really a kick in the teeth for the authors of segwit", with an added piece of misinformation.

https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1614076795082641410

"Kick in the teeth"? Is he saying that with vindictiveness?

Depending on who you ask, Ordinals might also be labelled as shitcoins.

I looked at the list discussion and see that other than luke people appear to be of the opinion that flooding attacks that drive up fees can't be completely prevented with known techniques-- sure users can block some particular transaction shape (as luke suggests) but the attacker will just make their flood look like something else.  I haven't given it that much thought but it matches my (admittedly rusty) impression.

We saw this back in 2016/2017 with sustained transaction flooding.  So I think it's not true to say that standardness rules prevented attacks like this, market forces for fees limit the attack but to the extent that people have become accustomed to consistently low fees as segwit adoption delivered excess capacity and now consider any elevation a disruption-- I don't think I've seen anyone propose anything that would prevent it more than competition for capacity does.  (Of course, there is always the BSV route: eliminate the capacity limits, let attacker push the chain up to many terabytes in size, drive off all nodes, do they can deploy stuff like "confiscation transactions" without anyone being able to do anything about it...)

Fortunately, this kind of attack is limited in its impact (causes the users choice of higher fees or waiting) and its execution is self limiting because it's extremely expensive (e.g. BRC-20 flood costing millions per day).

The attacks that standardness rules addressed were cases where some weird corner case used a disproportionate amount of resources such that you could exhaust the network without spending much on fees.  Those have mostly been addressed, the ones that remain are still protected against by standardness rules. (They ought to be actually fixed, since miners could still attack with them, but good luck there-- the appetite for making protocol improvements-- especially boring housekeeping ones-- given the toxic environment seems to be approximately zero)

That aside, *most* of the "they" you mention have long since quit working on Bitcoin, including myself (who I think might have been among the more outspoken in standing up against network abuse), and I think there is a snowballs chance in hell of any of them coming back now that it's clear that working on Bitcoin carries a serious risk of personal ruin fighting off billion dollar lawsuits from well funded attackers.  If you don't like it, perhaps count up the _20_ pages of this thread, the hundreds of comments on the subject and compare it to the relative jack shit the wider community has done to defend the developers against that other attack.  Every time it comes up there is inevitably someone "honebadger don't care-ing" it-- yet driving off people from contributing is a serious harm to the extent that sometimes engineering is needed to address other attacks.

If half the effort that has gone into the threads on BCT about this issue was put into dealing with Wright a couple years ago things would be in a doubly so (esp since >80% of BRC-20 traffic is from Ayre funded orgs-- it seems to be litterally another layer of the same attack!).

You're getting tricked by misinformation-- what I suspect is some intentional consensus cracking (especially since we know most if not all of the BRC-20 stuff is being funded by Ayre & related entities) though it might just be confusion.

This stuff doesn't have anything to do with taproot-- to prove this to yourself go start up node software from 2019 before the taproot bip was even proposed and observe that accepts this stuff just fine.

You could potentially attribute the attack to segwit in the sense that it increased the block size which made more room for junk but to the extent that your complaint is that fees have been driven up, the same attack would have worked prior to segwit.  It's also easy to see that people were embedding irrelevant data in Bitcoin long before segwit (fine example being the Bitcoin Whitepaper).

If you want to complain instead that the attack is bloating the blockchain on disk of archival nodes or that its increasing the data that must be transferred during IBD-- then it's fine to criticize segwit but otoh where the hell were you when there was extremely widespread demand for additional capacity? -- it's not like bloating up the chain is a surprising result: it's the reasonable and expected downside of increasing the capacity.

It's important when contemplating an attack to realize that the attackers have every reason to mislead about the nature of the attack and the enabling factors.

Another piece of measing narrative craft-- one I've seen rodarmor fall for, in fact describing his action as a kick in the teeth to bitcoin developers-- is the false claim that these ordinals translations are in any way charged lower fees by the network.  This isn't true.  The network doesn't set fees at all, they're established by the users competitively bidding for access to capacity.  Miners accept transactions in order of most fees per unit capacity down until the block is full.  Every transaction competes equally(*) and needs to pay based on the capacity it uses.

The deceptive discount claim dupes people for two reasons:  The first is because Bitcoin's block limit isn't measured in bytes, it's measured in weight.  But because the limit works on weight so do fee calculations.  If the limits was a limit on bytes (or the complaint was how much space archived nodes are using) but the fees miners demanded were irrationally calculated based on something else then it would be correct to say there was a discount, but there isn't.  The second is because segwit did in fact lower fees-- but it did so purely because it increased capacity resulting in a lower equilibrium fee rate. (Again, that's what people demanded.  Good job, you got what you wanted...)

If someone wants to say "because segwit, witness data like signature or witness-embeded garbage uses less capacity" -- then THAT would be true. Witness data using less capacity remains well justified: it should because it's prunable and doesn't have to be stored long term just to run a node at all.  Making this data use *more* capacity wouldn't diminish its effect on driving up transaction fees, it would *increase it*, because it would be using more capacity which could otherwise be used for other transactions.

To the extent that some misguided idiots want to store data in the blockchain the fact that it uses less capacity than it would without segwit only helps mitigate the harm.

To the extent that high fees are from an attack intending to drive up fees it's irrelevant in any case: no matter how it works the attacker has to pay in the fees of the next best transaction they displace in each block they displace it.

(*) ignoring things like CPFP which make some transactions more profitable then their fees imply due to having high-fee children.

Maybe he's a new BTC developer.

TBH, I find it quite amazing that BTC traffic/awareness increased so much during a bear market (yeah, we won't see a proper bull run till the next halving).

Gist? No, just questions.

Who is the entity that made 80% of inscriptions?

If the information that user apps built for Ordinals and BRC-20 were also built by devs who made apps for BCash SV, then is the entity and the developers connected in some way?

Plus WHO is Casey Rodarmor? Where was he during the scaling debate, and which side of the debate did he go in favor? What were his other contributions in Bitcoin?

So what's the gist here?

There's a conspiracy against BTC from big blockers?

I have read through a topic saying that there's a possibility that those building on top of Ordinals, and the BRC-20 "Standard?" are Craig Wright's minions from the Flat-Earthers' Society. I thought it was laughable and from a person who merely wanted drama until I read this,


Plus the timing of Casey Rodarmor's resignation as lead developer of Ordinals,



Who's the new lead maintainer? What's his background?

Technically, if I'm saying Bitcoin it's the Bitcoin network, which includes the blockchain, but you already knew that. If you don't, just get the context.


Ser? Can you give a more comprehensive explanation?


More data = more resources required.

ordinals are made once and can't be changed. once a monkey always a monkey. 

yeah well, that's putting a burden on others but yeah i mean who wouldn't disagree with that? except the people that have to pay for it. and spend more working hours doing it...

Technically it should be blockchain which is getting used here and not the bitcoin. Blockchain is the real highway and other coins or tokens are just the vehicle riding on them. In similar fashion Ordinals NFT is using branch on the blockchain.

More specifically “live data correction” can be done on the ordinals while on the regular NFT this upgrade is OFF CHAIN. It means whenever the later one is upgraded it needs to be refreshed on the server to see changes.

Ordinals are ON CHAIN so they are basically updated on the spot.

I’m not sure if it really affects the blockchain or not, but we surely need more space, powerful processors and obviously faster developments in the code to sustain for longer.

Ordinals are being used for more than just NFT data.

Ordinals can store NFT data and bitcoin token data. There are several different bitcoin tokens in existence.

Here is the Bitcoin Token Standards list:
https://docs.bitcoints.org/

Bitcoin is something far bigger than a mere currency, but few people realize it so far:

https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1654870113105870854

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bitcoin always have the abiity to store arbitrary data pre-Taproot?

Plus "Satoshi envisioned"? That's being ideological, no?


Technically it's a permissionless, decentralized, censorship-resistant ledger. Any user, technically, can use it in different ways as long as it follows the consensus rules.


It's the feature of the network.

From a technical viewpoint, Bitcoin's code was changed with the Taproot patch that moved Bitcoin away from being purely a peer-to-peer electronic payment system as Satoshi envisioned, to include the "latest thing". One of the developers referred to this as "security regression." This is not what Bitcoin was designed to be.

Being permissionless and censorship resistant are features of this payment system.

Now that payment system is being halted by a bug that was introduced.

I've read through the debates from both sides of the argument and played Devil's Advocate on one side, and then the other. After reading many opinions from early users, technical people, and fellow plebs, I agree with the argument that making an ideological debate out of this is a mistake.

We may not like "their" use case, but Bitcoin was designed to be permissionless and censorship-resistant. That means anyone can use it in the way they want as long as their use case is following the consensus rules. From a technical viewpoint, what changed?

yeah i got it now but theres no need to use such huge red letters.

it wasn't a real bet though. real bets don't get done with charities/orginations that you want to benefit if you happen to lose your "bet". 

lets get back on topic though. ordinal theory. you got any theories on ordinals you want to share? 

I.E. Blockstream's Liquid Network.

I'm very confused why they're forcing themselves to use the Bitcoin blockchain, with its inefficiencies, and inconveniences for NFTs and their BRC-20 tokens. Tokens which are also forced to be NOT truly fungible, NOT divisible, and NOT trustless because Bitcoin itself is very limited for what they want to build. UNLESS, Ordinals is being used as an attack vector.

The name Casey Rodarmor will always be remembered everytime Ordinals is being used as an attack vector. The unlucky guy to have discovered and introduce the Taproot feature.

after further researching this issue, it looks like the guy putting up the $1 million dollars is an ex coinbase dude

https://azcoinnews.com/ex-coinbase-cto-balaji-srinivasan-puts-down-1-million-bet-on-bitcoins-price-by-june.html

so many people wanted to take his action but of course he could only let just a couple people "get down". so you were right. i was a bit off in my interpretation didn't think it was possible for someone to be as dumb as balaji but there you go.  

he will certainly be losing that cool 1 million. but maybe it represents a small part of his overall portfolio so he'll be ok anyway...