Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 18. (Read 9515 times)

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

You are correct, I missed a dozen of them in the list, payment gateways, wallets, and whatnot, some people seem to think that a change in bitcoin can and must happen just because they wrote about it, look at all the changes we had in the past couple years, taproot was proposed around 2019 IIRC, took a lot of lobbying, emails, debates, and testing for it to come to existence, now some folks want to go back and do another change which they call a "fix" and they expect to happen tomorrow and all they do is write about it in this topic where 99% of those who have the means to do it don't even know about the existence of this topic.




NFTs raise demand on block space, anything that raises demand increases the price of that said service, if everyone is paying 1 sat and blocks are full, someone will pay 2 sat, it's either an NFT transactions or a normal transaction, it doesn't matter, the number/size of the transactions is all that matters.

Block fees are the highest they have ever been since July 2021, it's all because of those useless NFTs, wether that's a good or a bad thing the fact is, as a pool operator and a miner you will extract more "value" with NFTs on the blockchain than without.

Not at all.

If the mempool is empty then the fees with NFTs will be crap for full 4M blocks.

You can already see this in the blockchain of blocks with low fees containing NFTs.

NFTs don't have to pay better than the highest fee txn in a block, they just need to produce a fee just higher than the txns they displace. But if they aren't displacing txns, then they can effectively be zero fee.

Blocks don't have to have any transactions in them except the coinbase.
If no transactions are available, then you get what's commonly called an empty block.

Aside: however, the empty blocks you see every so often are caused by all the large pools not verifying transactions.
True empty blocks due to lack of transactions are exceptionally rare.

I felt like I needed to start a new post.

My last one was starting to get a wee bit long-ish.. and then I am adding this new responsive content... and with this, I am caught up to all the thread contents (yeah!!!!).. not that I understood much of anything that I read herein... hahahaha


To the extent that I follow these various arguments, for sure, I am seeing a kind of thread in which some members, including you pooya87, consider ordinals/inscriptions as a kind of "attack on bitcoin" because there was an "exploitation" of a vulnerable area in which such "fun" could be slipped into bitcoin, and surely I am having difficulties understanding and appreciating such characterization as these ordinals/inscriptions as attacks, including that you are suggesting that it is "similar to 2017's attack," and truly I do consider the late 2017/early 2018 as a spam attack because the ONLY purpose seemed to be to clog the bitcoin blockchain to make some various shitcoins to look better and to continue to propagate shitcoin talking points, even if we cannot really be sure exactly who was funding the late 2017/early 2018 spam attack, but there was likely little to no economic purpose beyond pumping their own crap and to make bitcoin look bad, but at some point even that ongoing spam attack seemed to have had not really been working in terms of how much it was costing to continue to carry out.

Sure, there might be some folks who might be using ordinals/inscriptions as a way to "attack bitcoin," but really I have my doubts.  To me, it just seems to be a use case in which many members do not really agree or see any value in it, and even though historically, I have not participated in shitcoins, NFTs, or even astrology or numerology, I can appreciate that people can do whatever the fuck they want... even if it is not valuable, and if they want to put their dickbutt farting monkey on the chain and they are willing to pay for it, then so be it.. let them bid for the space, and clog however with their various uses of the blockchain.. 

The market is likely to sort it out... and sure every piece of crap from the various shitcoins, may well end up getting pegged in one way or another to bitcoins 2.1 quadrillion satoshis that had been "clean" prior to this infiltration.. and then now, little by little they are getting crap attached to them, so in the future, when I go to spend a few of my satoshis, then I will find out that I had a dickbuttfarting monkey attached to one of them, and is it more/less valuable/fungable?   Did I get tricked into taking something?  I doubt that it is more or less valuable than the satoshis, and whatever value that is attached to the thing that is attached would be a side valuation.  I don't know if I will have to send those satoshis through an expunger/purger prior to being able to use them.. We can cross that bridge when we get there.. if we get there and if it matters, but personally, I still do not consider this attaching of other information to satoshis and putting them in order (with labels) to be an attack on bitcoin... Maybe I am missing something?

The fees will sort themselves out too.. They seem to go up and they go down and over the years, the fees are somewhat of a moving target and it seems to be a good thing that there are more and more fee demands, and surely there may also continue to be alternatives that are developed to lessen fees.. of course, we have lightning network, but we are still ONLY a bit more than 14 years into bitcoin having had gone live and lightning network only went live (on a seemingly expedited basis in response to the then spam attacks that had been referenced) in early 2018. 

I also don't claim to be any kind of expert in regards to spending options, but the assertion that $1.30 fees to send $70 transaction seems to be a choice, and if it is the ONLY option, then that is the price that needs to be paid.  Of course, we likely should realize that on chain is priced by weight and lightning network is priced by amount sent.. so coin control can help in which that $1.30 might be the same to send $5 or to send $5 billion.... and of course, it makes a difference if we are sending coins in a known parties situation (or to oneself) versus in various scenarios between strangers that might take place, and some of those relations will be more/less trusted than others.


You sound like Roger Ver with a nonsense talking-point like that..whining because you cannot buy coffee onchain anymore... It sounds something like this: "there have been so many efforts and history and legacy to keep fees low by a lot of parties, and some dickbutt monkey farters come in and ruin it for the rest of us.  We could fix this.. blah blah blah." (nothing personal but still.. hahahahaha).


Whoaza!!!!

zeuner said this part better than me... ..

I will just add that there can be some value in pretty fucking stupid-shit, and I doubt that it is the place for developers to try to figure that out in order to change the code in terms of what they consider to be more valuable or not.... and yeah there would be choices to run such software or not.. and hardforks do not come easy, either.. right?

Another thing is that node operators (or even miners) may also be pressured to either not route certain transactions or to be pressured into not carrying/storing certain content, and as a node operator (or a miner), I could give less than two shits about the contents contained therein (I am not proclaiming to be a miner... and barely know anything about being a node operator at this point.. but I am planning to at least increase some of my dabblings and knowledge in that direction.. since it seems to becoming easier and easier to run nodes.. and potentially powerful nodes, too.. and it seems to be becoming more and more important to perhaps have some nodes.. including maybe getting involved in nostr too.. )... .. and then someone points it out and says, "hey, look... you have blah blah blah blah content on your node (or what you had been mining)"  I give few shits about the content.. and continue to run (or mine)... which surely is likely to become the prevailing way forward in terms of being content neutral... Some will choose to get distracted into baloney concerns about which information is valuable and which is not and to prune or purge or not to carry/route certain content.. and it seems to me that they will likely be disadvantaged for such choices to get worried or worked up in judging the value of content.


I usually would agree with any proclamation to eliminate shitcoin talk, but in this case (thread), the discussion is about technical implementations on bitcoin and even some members believing that shitcoins are coming to bitcoin through the adoption/use of ordinals/inscriptions.  It seems relevant to figure the boundaries.... and options and also one of the cardinal sins in regards to discussing shitcoins in bitcoin threads is that there is a slippery-slope tendency to either pump the shitcoins or to denigrate bitcoin, and I don't see that either pumping of shitcoins or denigration of bitcoin is taking place merely by engaging in compare contrast of ordinal/inscription practices on other coins.

I am still in the middle of catching up with this thread.. but I could not resist to respond to this "holy shit Phil" .. again?  I gotta credit you for being persistent (or is it called stubborn) with some of this thinking and attempting to back up why you continue to believe that bitcoin is broken into the future.

Maybe this is part of your ongoing flawed thinking?.. Of course, in the past, you were wrong because you did not believe bitcoin was sufficiently valuable so you ongoingly cashed out all of your mined coins for fiat and did not keep side stash of cornz, and now, in recent times (perhaps the last few years), you are finding some value in actually holding some bitcoin (even though you are in love with doggie coin and LTC..like a numbskull.. hahahahaha), but you are discounting BTC's future valuation based on too many speculative points that would have to come true in order for bitcoin to be broken in 2056.. like adaptation, difficulty adjustment, the various ways that adoptions and price can grow with the passage of time.

Maybe think about the matter a bit more without locking yourself in so much in regards to things that you do not know and none of us know, no?  Or maybe it is is that you are discounting some things that we do know, which is the difficulty adjustment.. but we also have ongoing adoption that is not exactly guaranteed, but there is no real reason to conclude that it is going to stagnate, even if there are various battles along the way.. BTC was built for battles, and there is no real evidence to suggest that BTC is not up to the task of being able to be resilient in the face of current battles and even expected battles.

Accordingly, if BTC is currently not broken, and so far the incentives in bitcoin's system have adjusted to continue to allow for (and even facilitate) the many bitcoin networking effects (think of Trace Mayers 7 networking effects as a framework), then why would we either want to presume that the incentives are not going to continue to work in bitcoin and/or that various kinds of developments and adaptations are going to be able to happen in order to tweak to any extent that might be necessary to attempt to realign such incentives if they do not seem to be playing out sufficiently naturally within the system as it continues to grow over the next 33 years-ish? 

1st layer and second layer (and probably other layers) play off of each other, but still BTC remains the most valuable in which a lot of value is going to continue to flow, even from places that currently are not in BTC.. which is also going to bring me back to several of my issues in regards to how some of the ordinals/inscription discussion is taking place.. Yeah.. subjectively there is a whole hell of a lot of crap involved with ordinals and inscriptions and even various attempts to commercialize and create scarcity.. (or create the impression of scarcity)... and some smart guys here are proclaiming that ordinals and inscriptions are not intended to be part of bitcoin because they do not fit in the definition of money and blah blah blah that's not what Satoshi intended bitcoin to be money blah blah blah.

Bitcoin is not that narrow and has never been that narrow, even if satoshi might have wrongly made certain word choices in regards to peer to peer cash.. and even if he said that, bitcoin is not that narrow, has never been that narrow, and value can be transmitted over it, even if the value is not agreed upon by others not in the transaction and may not even be agreed upon at the time of the transaction.  Also, I am thinking that if the whole BTC blockchain.. every single satoshi ends up getting a inscription attached to it, there are probably ways to unattach those inscriptions (or to throw away the inscription part) by doing another transaction that purifies the satoshis contained in the transaction.. if that is what the market ends up facilitating - such as the value of clean satoshis to be higher than those that have inscriptions attached.


It seems to me that the concept of "majority" in bitcoin hardly means anything, so there is a kind of stickiness in which if anyone wants to make a change, there is a need for overwhelming consensus in order to make any such desired change... and there is a need to convince those running nodes to actually update to the version (or feature) that is desired to be included..


So, even mikeywith's (below-referenced) listing of who needs to be convinced seems to leave out an important fact in regards to those running the nodes, might just say.. fuck off, we are not changing.. and they don't even necessarily coordinate or whatever, they just choose not to change from the "sticky" status quo, even if there might be a majority (or even an overwhelming 80% or more majority) or even attempts at domination from several of the members of the groups that mikeywith listed.



Many of us likely realize that miners are not a monolith, either.  They may have quite a few similar factors that motivate them in terms of trying to reduce their costs and to increase their hashpower, but as you seem to be suggesting BlackHatCoiner, there also is going to be variation in terms of how they set up their business (partnerships, consumption of energy consideration, equipment, personnel, even variation in kinds of coins that they mine or other ways that they might generate capital in terms of other operations that they might have or even if they might produce their own power or make their own equipment), the extent to which they choose to hold BTC (as part of their business treasury), the extent to which they use debt and perhaps several other matters, not necessarily excluding political/ideological considerations that they might include into their business practices.


Hahahahahaha

Good one.

I am not even saying that I don't believe you.

(By the way, I am reading this thread in the order that the posts are made, and it may take me a bit more time to catch up to responding to anyone who might respond to any parts of this post of mine..and I also recognize that some of my points may well have already been addressed.. and so if I need to respond again or to acknowledge that, then I will decide whether to do so when I come across such potentially responsive posts.. not that I claim to understand everything that is posted).

Well, aggressive wording doesn't make your point more true. It may just - together with the fact of the more relevant parts of the posts remaining unanswered - lead to being ignored.

Storing data on the blockchain being abusive is an opinion. Even a widespread opinion. But still a mere opinion. I do even agree to some extent, and I am sceptical about "ordinal theory" being a useful concept with respect to NFT storage. I was just saying that the concept may have other, less obvious uses.

In the end, the community decides. As long as miners accept the transactions into blocks, and regular users accept the coins mined by these miners, there is something like a consensus, and no one seems to find it bad enough to act. This might of course change. Until then, I suggest to lean back and relax.

1. Look at your calendar.
2. Read this topic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-captcha-now-required-before-posting-5447077
3. Keep calm, everyone has this message.

"This user is a suspected spammer!"

 

it seems to me that in the short term, miners want to maximize their transaction fee income so they want ordinals so they would not be willing to make any changes to the core code themself to filter them out but in the longrun, that might hurt them if people stop using bitcoin as a money transfer method and then all you got left is nft folks that end up moving on to something else leaving the miners without anyone to pay their bills. 

His point is that bitcoin core never relayed SegWit transactions using uncompressed keys and miners needed to manually modify the core code to make it happen whereas in Ordinals Attack core is already relaying such transactions so adding the standard rule now wouldn't be as effective.

you do have a point there  but there is a distinction though. someone using an uncompressed segwit is not hogging up transactions making other peoples transactions have to pay a higher fee. lets just be honest. about the affects of each.

To me it just gives greater fool vibes.

Sure, but they can just run an older version of the client which treats them as standard. I don't think your argument that miners are afraid of such transactions holds true now, because comparably to just one uncompressed Segwit transaction (which would require pool owners to get involved seriously with the case), Ordinals as we speak hold a steady income in case there is an empty mempool. Also, it's worth to note that an uncompressed Segwit transaction was always non-standard, it didn't switch from standard to non-standard.

You are just playing with words and bending the truths. The abuse of the system is not an arbitrary opinion. In fact the Ordinals abusive behavior is pretty clear since it is turning bitcoin (aka a payment system) and its blockchain (aka a ledger to store monetary transactions) into a cloud storage. As abuses go, it doesn't get any clearer than this!

As for the protocol, it is left "loose" in some places so that it can be extended but always within the same utility category that Bitcoin is supposed to offer, not to turn Bitcoin into something else like cloud storage!

Their alternative would be setting up a website that would publicly accept transactions that majority of full nodes rejected. Apart from the fact that it would make them pariahs, the miners aren't known for doing such things, they are too scared of producing an invalid block and losing money. Look at how long it took to mine a simple non-standard transaction that was using uncompressed public key in its version 0 witness program, just because they were scared of losing revenue.

Because saying it, and convincing everyone that it's "truly a fact", is wrong. It's not an actual fact, it's merely an opinion taken from another viewpoint, and at the very least saying it as a "fact" = debatable. The Ordinals users could also argue that "the definition of what Bitcoin truly is keeps moving after each discovery of the network's capabilities".

Having that said, but an actual attack CAN be built through the use of Ordinals, maybe to keep spamming the network to price out onchain financial transactions from the blockchain, or to attack Bitcoin's fungibility.

NFT type stuff gives me huge ponzi scheme vibes, I know not all are scams but it seems to me the ultimate "pass your debt onto the next guy" scheme and I am not even an experienced cryptocurrency user and I am too disgusted to try and sell those to people.

I also find it better, because the developers have better priorities in my opinion. Grin devs prioritize decentralization, while Beam devs user experience.

Honestly, do you think this is going to work? Whether we like it or not, Ordinals form an economy-- a small one for the time being, but an economy. Even if the majority of Bitcoin users disagree with this idea of "abusing nodes' storage to store arbitrary data instead of transacting peer-to-peer", and make Ordinals non-standard, do you think the miners will follow? Whatever follows the consensus rules is clearly in favor of the Bitcoin network, and with the necessary demand it will find its way to get in-- as long as Bitcoin is censorship resistant.

It's surprising the idea to limit size of or remove tx_extra field seems to be well received on Monero community. Meanwhile suggestion to make OP_PUSH or Taproot script size bigger than X bytes become non-standard has more mixed response on Bitcoin community.


And even if it's implemented, it'll require opt-in from user to preserve some backward compatibility which doesn't solve spam/arbitrary data problem.

Guys, enough of this shitcoin talk here in this thread. There's a nice altcoin forum part where you can share opinions on your beloved shitcoins and discuss all the news, including NFTs on your blockchain etc. This thread is for Bitcoin and ordinals. 

Grin is a better implementation than Beam imo