Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 17. (Read 9195 times)

According to who is 0.00000227 BTC the smallest possible payment?

This is unbelievably speculated. First of all, nobody knows for certain that the "tiny" transactions will be 2000 per block. Secondly, you don't know what the cost will be. Maybe it stays as is with minimum drop, or maybe it gets increasingly cheap as decades pass. Thirdly, if bitcoin reaches $2.8M, then transaction count skyrocketing is a safe assumption to make.

Maybe.  but pretend it is 2.8 million in 2056 100x what it is today.

so 0.00000227 x 2,800,000 = $6.35 usd for the smallest possible payment

no ordinals  or nfts all banned.

So if all block is filled with 2000 tiny transaction of $6.35 or say 0.00000227 you could have as little as 0.00454 btc plus 0.0122 reward or blocks as low as 0.01674 BTC at 2.8 million and that means just 46,872 Usd a block no-one will mine so 100 x .5 trillion = 50 trillion in value with less gear than now

even if average fee is 10 sats  a byte  you go to 0.0454 in fees .

Now we know average fee per tx  at the moment is not 0.00000227 it is more like 0.00015  or 0.15 for the block with ordinals and with NFTs boosting fees

so 0.15 + 0.0122 = 0.1622 btc a block or  454160 usd a block vs 175,000 only  2.5952 the earnings for a miners with price going up 100x

so with ordinals and NFTS's doing what they do btc still has issues when it comes to supporting 2.8 billion price.

You can't expect miners earnings to increase 2.59 x 1 when price coins up 100 to 1.

which is the case of projecting out to 2056 and keeping ordinals and NFTs.

never mind dumping them.  Well I will be 99 so why care.  but if you are 30 you will be 63 younger than I am now. So you should care.

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of $$$ by 2056.

Look it boils down to this watts per dollar.  Or as satoshi says energy into value.


since Sept 1 2020 to now scrypt algo has generated more dollars per watt.

Why is that simple doge does not half it slowly lowers its inflation rate every year it mints.

year 1 = 1x coins
year 2 = 2x coins or 100 percent inflation

but year 100 = 100 x coins grand total minted
and year 101 = 101 x coins or an inflation rate of 1%

and of course ltc will be ½ ed downwards till almost nothing.


Meanwhile in 100 years BTC will be ½ to next to nothing.

So in the long run the reward fee issue for mining appears to be okay for scrypt

while the reward fee issue is up in the air for BTC say 256 algo.


Myself I was born in 1957 all my kids are dead so I don't look past 2056 I will be 99 if I am around
very likely I will be gone. So it is easy for me to say fuck ordinals fuck nfts fuck confiscating frozen coins and feeding them back to the rewards. No no NO no.

I don't say that as I see a huge problem by 2056.

I do no tis it solved. BTW a 500k coin with .3877 in fees and .0122 in rewards means 2056 blocks are worth 250K

they are worth 196k now

so 500/28 = about 18x the market cap

and only 250/196 = 1.27 the infrastructure to protect that.

makes an attack more effective.

even at 1 mill. a coin

1000/28 = 36 x the market cap

500/196 = 2.57 the infrastructure to protect that and fees will be pretty high

387000 usd a block would mean at the least 387,000/2000 = 193 usd a transaction

and if the block has 1000 transactions 383 usd a transaction

many blocks are filled with 200 to 400 transactions. which means 1000 to 2000 a move for a very basic transaction

it will not work well with out a thriving market in something to be worth moved. (ordinals and NFTs)

LN would become a freaking beast for the system to hold true.

BTW other ideas may come up that will help I just don't see them.

Yes.. but I was not really attempting to make any point about barter, even though sometimes we can do that, and there can be a lot of advantages with various kinds of circular economy, even local trades of bitcoin... but really I was attempting to make points about how subjective value likely differs between people when they are deciding to do any kind of trade, and that is part of what incentivizes anyone to actually engage in a trade - it's largely because they personally perceive that they are getting more value out of doing the trade than they would get if they had not gotten in the trade, and a lot of times they will feel that they got surplus value out of the trade in a way that they may well have been willing to pay more for whatever thing that they got.  If parties were completely neutral and did not feel that they were getting some surplus value, they may well easily be dissuaded from going through with the trade.. If they feel somewhat neutral about the value that they are getting in their trade, then any kind of obstacle will cause them to say fuck it and abandon going through with the trade.


It is quite likely that I am not technologically sophisticated enough to understand what is going on, and perhaps I will change my mind later, but I am not quite willing to go along with your characterization of the current use of that extra space that is allowed in each transaction as "spam," merely because there might be some other more preferable ways to do it, but I think that I kind of understand what you are saying, and you are not the ONLY one saying similar things - but I am still finding it difficult to consider how what I believe to be going on right now as problematic, even though surely in the past couple of months the BTC on-chain transaction fees have been going up because the mempool has mostly been staying full in these recent times, but the transactions that go through are still being paid for - even if you seem to be of the belief that the usage of the space in those kinds of ways is getting that extra space for too cheap (which then would seem to better fit into the definition of spam)..

...but I am still not quite willing to go there.. especially if we might be saying that they are ONLY having to currently pay between 5-6 sats per vbyte for the lowest of priority transactions... or sure if they want their transactions to go through more quickly, currently they are still paying 20 sats or more per vbyte. .and so far all of the 1-2 sats per vbyte transactions are still not clearing for several weeks now... but we still are not seeing the transaction costs going straight up as many had been speculating to be occurring (or going to occur).. and what is going on currently does not really seem to fit my ideas of what I might consider spam since parties are seeming to pay for stuff that they subjectively perceive to have either current value or potentially future value, even if some others may well disagree about that value or potential value.. which again, does not seem like spam to me.. not the same kind of spam as we had in late 2017 and January 2018 in which there seemed to have had been purposeful attempts to block the BTC transactions from going through, to cause frustration with BTC transactions, to pump shitcoins and essentially seeming to engage in a kind of purposeful sabotage of the BTC blockchain in order to push bitcoin is broken narratives rather than really trying to push through transactions, which does not seem to currently be the objective with the placement of dickbuttfarts and seemingly other materials that many others do not perceive as valuable on the BTC blockchain. 

I will concede that we cannot really get into the heads of the transactors to figure out their purposes and reasons for their transactions, but I don't think that we really see any evidence that this is currently an attack on bitcoin, like you and some others are framing it to be... and perhaps from my perspective, it would be an attack to try to fix it with something that causes overly attempts at stopping what to me seems to be valid transactions within the current rules of bitcoin, even if I personally am not buying any of that crap and/or wanting to buy that crap (not saying that I might not change my mind in the future, but I am not very excited about buying shitcoins or even speculative bullshit, even though others may value it, and perhaps I may decide to change my mind later, even though I currently am more of an observer of the nonsense valuations and even the some of the attempts to rush in and to get in early with the ideas that the earlier inscribed transactions might have more value than later inscribed transactions).

funny Topic
Bitcoin and NFT 
its like Bullseye with Shotgun

BTC to slow & expensive
--> just in tecnical its possible

just as example it could work like that:   (read the tecnical, not the funny price)
https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x2953399124f0cbb46d2cbacd8a89cf0599974963/57142501887968388235837267819324166518146487844381338937837070524380981755905

The term "inscription to each satoshi" is used to distract the public opinion from the spam that is taking place. Otherwise they are not actually "inscribing" anything least of all satoshis, the junk they inject is in the input and it is in one transaction that has nothing to do with the satoshis being sent to the new address(es).

Besides if they wanted to "inscribe satoshis" they could have used the outputs, like limiting it to 2 output the first being the satoshis being sent to an address and second output being an OP_RETURN containing the "inscription". But since the main goal is to spam the chain they use inputs instead or more specifically they exploit Taproot script's lack of size limitation to inject junk into the chain.

i guess if the us dollar ever devalued too much people could always just do away with fiat altogether and even bitcoin and just go back to bartering. nothing wrong with that. currencies are really just a convenience. i guess... i'll need to brush up on my networking skills though 

If you have attached something (such as an inscription) to your various satoshis that have a nominal value of 0.5 BTC or even you have accumulate a bunch of cardinal satoshis into a 0.5 BTC UTXO, and you have stated that you will sell that 0.5 BTC for 1 BTC or even for 50 BTC, and you are able to find a buyer, then I don't really have a problem with that... I am not necessarily going to buy it, but if I believe that I can buy the 0.5 BTC for 1 BTC, and then I will be able to sell it to someone else for 10 BTC, then why would I not do it?  I need more information that might cause me to be dissuaded.. if it is merely a valuation or a false valuation, then who am I to say, except maybe I might know that granny who is buying it from me is not able to afford it and is not going to be able to sell it for higher as she believes that she is going to be able to, then maybe perhaps I might hesitate if I happen to know the vulnerability of the buyer.. perhaps? 

I have used this example before, but let me just repeat it for the sake of the dilemma that can sometimes present to ourselves.. I recall that some time around 2017, I had a guy who had been referred to me, and he wanted to buy bitcoin in order that he could buy Onecoin with it.  I found out about this because when I asked him for his BTC address so that I could send BTC to him, he showed me some kind of a onecoin account or he gave me some kind of an indication that he was sending it to an account that his friend or cousin had told him about.  I told him that one coin is a scam, and I said that I am not responsible for any of the bullshit that might be involved in terms of whether he receives the coins that I send to the address, but once he gives me that money (the physical dollars), I am ONLY responsible for sending the amount of BTC that we had agreed the dollars to be worth.  He said o.k., and I sent the BTC to the address that he had given me.  He came back to me several times, and most of the transactions were not very large, but they seemed to be increasing each time, and each time he came I told him that One coin is a scam, yet since he was an adult (like in his late 20s or early 30s) and he seemed to be able to make decisions for himself, each time I sent the coins to the address that he gave me and that he told me that it was some kind of a one coin address.

I had some other examples in which I had guys referred to me, and I told them that I would sell them BTC, but I would not go over a certain amount on the first transaction, and I likely would not go over some other certain amounts, even if we get to know each other or even if they pay me really high transaction fees (such as greater than 20%)... I refused to engage in the transaction, but those were mostly red flags for me in terms of my own safety and even my uncertainties about what kinds of connections that those guys had in order to be engaging in such large transactions and willing to pay such high amounts to me in order to get me to go above limits that I had already communicated to them.

We likely have some personal discretion in terms of what we are going to do when we are faced with various kinds of ways in which we might be able to make money, and surely the mere fact that someone places a different (or a higher) subjective value on an item is not any kind of deter (and should not be).  The market works upon incentives and differences in subjective value.  Let's say that if I repair cars and you raise cows and larry_vw_1955 installs and troubleshoots networking services, and surely we might be able to earn more by trading our goods and services rather than just sticking with our own product/service, so if I want some beef and to have my internet installed, I might be better off to trade with either you or larry_vw_1955 rather than trying to do the same myself because you guys are better at what you do, and you can produce those matters cheaper than me, so I value those items higher so I am willing to repair your cars in order to get that beef from you and to have my network installed/fixed by larry_vw_1955... Surely sometimes people will either have wrong assessments of value or they might believe that they can get higher prices from someone else, and surely it could be true that the grandma buying the 0.5 BTC (worth of satoshis) from me for 1 BTC or even for 10 BTC might be able to sell them for higher amounts currently or at a later date, and that is her own speculation or perhaps we have asymmetric information in regards to the subject matter regarding the value of those satoshis... I don't necessarily have any kind of duty to figure out why I am getting paid more or maybe I should be selling them for higher than I am, and many times, any of us are incentivized to sell products services for as much as we can without necessarily engaging in illegal or immoral practices.. which also are not necessarily always clear or agreed upon.

you must be aware that in a free market you may value something one way and someone else will value it differently, would you buy .5 bitcoin for 1 bitcoin? It really just looks like a doubling scam IMO.

Does it even matter what these various things related to ordinals/inscriptions are called, except to try to make sure that we are understanding what we are talking about when we provide a reference. 

Forgive me if some of my technical explanations are lacking, yet let's say for example that ordinals are assigning numbers to each and every satoshi, and there is some level of marketing to attempt to claim that some of the assigned numbers have higher values than others based on some kind of a historical reference to that satoshi or that group of satoshis, and so the software that particularizes the ability to assign numbers to each of those satoshis, then allows the astrology-like valuations of some of the satoshis to the extent that anyone might buy into such a framework that this satoshi is more valuable than that satoshi because of its number or some aspect of its history and the assignment of  the number(and the software that allows the ability of continuously track the movement of the satoshi's based on their numbers) provides those abilities to even proclaim that each and every satoshi has a unique number and some of those are "more special" than others so long as others are willing to agree to that higher valuation... so then certain satoshis will have their value as a satoshi, but also will potentially have value based on their framework.. but that would not necessarily stop anyone from only valuing the satoshis based on their mere (and base) satoshi value without recognizing their number/history.

The creation of a system to number each satoshi, then seems to allow for the attachment of inscriptions to each satoshi and then to follow it around or to keep the inscription assigned to the certain satoshis that have been assigned/associated with the inscription(s).  We can choose to ignore it or we can choose to assign higher or lower value to such satoshis.. and maybe like I mentioned further, there could be ways to purge the satoshis from their earlier attached inscriptions in order to free them from their earlier attached inscriptions.. or would that merely be a fiction because let's say for example that on March 23, 2023 an inscription is attached to satoshi number 1,092,367,439,881, but then July 18, 2027 I receive that satoshi, and I realize that it has an inscription assigned to it, and I don't agree with that inscription, so I want to purge that inscription from that particular satoshi.  If I purge the satoshi on that same date that I received it, the satoshi still would have a history of having had been attached to the inscription between March 23, 2023 and July 18, 2027, no?  Since the bitcoin blockchain is permanent, maybe I only purge the satoshi of its inscription from the date that I do so rather than being able to remove any history from it, and maybe there would be a cost to purge some information from some satoshi's even if that would potentially be a valid way of attempting to re-evaluate some value that had historically been attached to some satoshis? 

I concede that I might have devolved into babbling... what else is new?

IDK what he is trying to say, but in my personal opinion ordinals and anything else that is not optimized expensive and useless is of no value whether or not one considers it an NFT.

well all get that but he said that minting fees would be higher on bitcoin. so if that was the case why would bitcoin "NFTs" represent a "game changer" as he put it?  who wants to pay MORE?

ordinals are not NFTs on bitcoin they are a completely auxiliary protocol that uses Bitcoin as an expensive peer to peer layer theres no support for it in bitcoin core. A Bitcoin NFT would likely be supported by core if such a thing really ever existed and I would not count on any being in the base layer.

But isn't that kind of contradictory to say that fees will be higher than ethereum but you still have high hopes for it? maybe you meant to say lower fees than ethereum but i'm not even sure that's the case.

In my opinion it is not that mining power has NO effect on the price, it is more that the correlation between mining power and price has become heavily out of parity in favor of miner speculation and not network security based on hashrate robustness. There needs to be a consolidation of large miners who lose profit before this parity can come back into view and even the latest crash did not pull most of the largest miners out of profit which is honestly amazing.

(I know there were huge losses to several miners but the hashrate has gone upwards since representing an overall resilience to the market effect.)

Also the decentralization of pools seems to be a major factor in this parity, if pool decentralization was even synthetically improved (ie through large operations mindfully spreading out hashrate) I believe this would reintroduce a parity between mining hash power and long term price action / mempool fee activity which is whats relevant here I suppose.

The attack is obvious as I already explained, and nothing to do with off chain.
It reduces the number BTC transfers fitting in each block, leading to mempool bloat, and also increased blockchain storage cost.
Effect is people going to scamcoins ... as has already happened due to block size limits over the years.

Aside: mining power has no effect on price.
This is blatantly obvious with the fact that with massive continuous growth in mining,
the price dropped from the ATH of approx $65k (about 160EH) to the current less than $30k (about 335EH)

So by this logic all exchanges that do off chain trades are an attack on BTC.

For instance. I have 1 btc at coinbase I buy 10000 doge for 80 bucks.

If it was done on chain there would be a tx on the btc chain convert to cash and then a tx on the Doge chain.


Coinbase does not do it that way.  This means no-one should use or have anything on an exchange because they lower fees on all internal transactions by doing them off book.

I can be pretty sure that coinbase does millions of internal trades off the chains so they ruin the fees.

in fact all exchanges do internal off chain trades. This is certainly far worse than ordinals and NFTs

Back to BTC reward and fee structure.

if it is 2056 and block rewards are 0.012207xx   fees are 0.877 total 1 btc a block BTC price needs to be

6.3 times todays price or 168,000 a coin.

difficulty doubles
efficiency doubles.   
The power use is the same
the gear value is in this case presented around 4 billion

20.5 coins x 168000 a coin means 3.24 trillion value protected by only 4 billion

and fees are not terrible as   a 6 sat fee per byte is about  0.000017 or  $2.85 so in theory you could pay as low as 1/6 of that or 47 cents



So a quick look seems not so bad.. 

except for today 4-5 billion in mining  gear protects 540 billion in value
 and in 2056 the same 4-5 billion in mining gear protects 3.24 trillion in value.

The fail I see is right there for 2056

0.012207 in rewards needs 0.877 in fees  for us to simply thread water.

and so far every move I see does not support that much in fees.
so no mining growth
and not enough protection for a 3.24 trillion cap.

Well that's the problem. Bitcoin is not a decentralized cloud storage service. It never was and it should not be in the future either. And why do you say "dickbutt farting monkey"? I'd say "cure for cancer". It still is abuse of the system because once again bitcoin is not a cloud storage service...

That's what I don't see happening that easily. You see, there is incentive to create this type of nonsense. People could sell 500 satoshis for a million dollar (and even launder money that way). That means the market is a lot more complicated than thinking some idiots are selling monkey pics that would die off in a couple of weeks.

Here is another way of looking at The Ordinals Shenanigan which is using another way for it which is using a side-chain. Let me put it this way:
On one hand
- They claim they want to create "NFT" on Bitcoin but they can't and aren't.
- The bitcoin smart contracts are very limited (for good reasons too) and it is nearly impossible to make a significant change to the protocol adding new OP codes to allow them (this was discussed many years ago and rejected and led to creation of Ethereum).
- You want to be able to transfer the ownership of a "token" or whatever junk you insert in the blockchain which is not possible in Bitcoin since you can't create a token in first place or transfer the ownership of the content you injected into the chain!
- Bitcoin transactions can be expensive which is not desirable for the "token market"
- The blocks are also limited to disallow spam and the current Ordinals shenanigan is already angering a lot of people

On another hand
- By using a side-chain you will not have ANY of those limitations, it will literary open up a world of possibilities since it is 100% flexible to what the new protocol needs
- The smart contracts in a side-chain could be as complex as you want and need by having all kinds of new OP codes and even an entirely new script language
- You can create any kind of token on a side-chain without limitation
- Everything you create there can be pegged to bitcoin and benefiting from its high security.
- You won't have any issue with transferring ownership of these tokens
- You won't store that junk (or even cure for cancer ) in a ledger that is meant for financial transfers (ie. bitcoin blockchain) anymore
- You won't create fee spikes in bitcoin hence you won't have to pay a lot of money to transfer those tokens yourself either. The fees on the side-chain can be kept low too.
- You won't anger a lot of bitcoin users.

But of course those insisting that Ordinals is "valuable" don't want to hear any of that, instead they want to continue insisting on the persistent spam of the main chain! Ergo I continue insisting that this is a malicious attack.

Sorry guys a few days have passed since the release of this article, but I think no one reported it here.

Which is the most common ordinals marketplace?



According to this graph and the following article, this “New Eden” marketplace seems the most liquid nowadays

Magic Eden’s New Bitcoin NFT Marketplace Dominates Ordinals Market