Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 2. (Read 9163 times)

Why do you think so? What about Lightning Network? What about casinos? What about exchanges? They don't have to mine new coins to get them.

It depends on sighashes. And if mempools will be permanently flooded, then batching will be needed, and there will be services, which will batch transactions, and grab some fees for doing that. But yes, users have to agree on that, by constructing a transaction in a different way. And if you have a choice: create your transaction alone, and have 1 GB of other pending transactions before it will be confirmed, or batch it, and get it confirmed faster, then it is not that hard to imagine, that many people will choose batching, if that option will be available.

he said something like block explorers (non-miners) would have to charge a fee. the problem is that's not how bitcoin is setup. non-mining nodes have no way of making money in the bitcoin ecosystem. so if they don't like running their node then they can turn it off. but they can't inject themself into a transaction.

No you simply don't understand the economics involved here.

foundry (biggest pool) does not need nfts.

they own 33% of the hashrate.


Forgot now think April block reward is 3.125 coins. fees are ?


Look at last 2 days of fees below




foundry in May can simply down clock all its gear and not mine 48 blocks a day.

Say they mine 30 blocks a day for 4 days.  that clogs the mempool fees go to 3 or 4 coins

crank the gear back up and mine 48 blocks a day


So for 4 days they lose 72 blocks of say 4 coins with the fees or 288 coins OMG

then for 10 days they mine 48 block with boosted fees of say 1 goes to 4

that is 10 x 48 = 480 blocks with 2 or 3 extra coins or 960 to 1440 more coins

and they have a drop in power expense


I am not making this up it is real math.  It is why 2023 has been the highest fee years every in sats and in cash value.

but 2024 will be higher.

I'm enjoying the talking, learning a lot from you guys

It doesn't have to be. But if you brought Linux distros as an example, then note one thing: each main package is usually taken from the same source, and only slightly tweaked here and there by every distro. And if you compare cryptocurrencies with distros, then you note that sidechains are needed, if you want to reflect the same situation.

Also, if you use Debian, it doesn't mean you cannot use Ubuntu on the same device. And note that you can have a hybrid system, where some packages are in a common repo, and used by both systems simultaneously, with the same source code, and binaries. If you have ELF executables and libraries, you can make it in a way, where for a lot of software, it will be cross-platform, when it comes to different distros.

And again: if you have any installation instructions, then they are often identical for a lot of packages. You have a Windows version, a Linux version, and maybe also others, like MacOS version, or Android/iOS version. But in general, if you have Linux version, then it works everywhere, if you can run ELF files. If you download Bitcoin Core, you don't have separate packages for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and so on. You can have them, and many distros provide them, but if you grab it from official Bitcoin Core page, then there is one version for Linux, and it works in most distros.

Of course I saw them. And in the same way, I saw such debates, when it comes to spaces versus tabs, or when it comes to programming languages, or text editors. But my opinion on that matter is quite simple: use whatever works, and it will be fine. If you provide a package, you just provide one Linux version, and you don't think, what distro is needed. You can write it in a portable way.

Also, addressing other topics: I prefer tabs, but spaces already won the battle. And we don't have Elastic Tabstops widely deployed, because they are somewhat incompatible with ASCII-art, and all console outputs assume fixed-width font.

When it comes to programming languages, then you can pick whatever you want, but good, old, C language, is what you can call "portable assembly", because it will probably work on every possible architecture (and it is one of the first things to be ported, if any new architecture is invented).

About text editors: use whatever you want, as long as your text is unformatted. If it is, then you can grep it. And also, sticking to ASCII or UTF-8 is the best choice. New lines can be chosen at will, because you have "\r\n" or "\n", and most editors can deal with that. And if you use Git, then it can automatically convert files between those two. I usually prefer "\n", but I can handle "\r\n" when needed.

Standardization is good. You already have Windows Subsystem for Linux, you have Wine, and if you want portability, then you have to end up with a browser, because it works on every device. I guess in the future, there will be more bridges between different coins. And if some proposals will be merged, then you will even have decentralized bridges between all major coins.

You're right, but I was just wondering why LTC/DOGE can have merged mining, while BTC/BCH/BSV cannot do the same (which makes BCH/BSV prone to 51% attacks):

https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/

I'm not talking about merged mining, ser. I'm asking if BCash and BCash SV miners will actually STOP mining in those chains, and start pointing their hashing power to mine Bitcoin.

The point why I'm asking is, because of the high fees, then would it be more profitable for miners to, probably temporarily, start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin.

In the Linux space you won't find the absolute, perfect Linux distro that does everything. Have you ever seen Linux distro wars/heated debates?

Why should Bitcoin be the absolute, perfect cryptocurrency that does everything?

That's why multiple cryptocurrencies exist. People should make peace with that fact.

Of course that doesn't mean that every altcoin has a purpose. 99,99% of alts are scams. But some long-standing alts (like XMR, LTC, DOGE) are here to stay, I think that's obvious.

yeah, i think we all realize there's some altcoins with tiny fees. but to some people that kind of makes them feel like a traitor to bitcoin. they thought they could use bitcoin for all their banking needs. well, if you're willing to pay then i guess you can! but lesson #1 is the blockchain doesn't care about how expensive it is for people to make a transaction it really couldn't care less. otherwise it would have been designed such that the fee could never be more than a certain amount in US dollars. I realize that doing that would require an oracle of some kind and people would be against that though...

With bitcoin the way it is right now, that doesn't seem logistically possible to do, aka, micropayments. Unless you as the node operator accept Litecoin. or some other altcoin with low fees. but that would be like encouraging people to use Litecoin instead of bitcoin...

you can't developers did not set it up that way.

For me I see a simple economic issue

scrypt  does 12 blocks LTC+Doge
sha-256 does 1 block

No matter what btc does to scale ltc+ doge can copy it and move 12 the tx's

the natural order is

 BTC move big wealth
LTC + doge move small wealth

I think you got it backwards, it should be written this way >>> sh*t + garbage + Gold, then the question arises, why would anyone trying to mine Gold (BTC), should go through sh*t and garbage? Even in actual gold mines there are no such garbage and human wastes involved.😉

---

Even though I disagree with censorship, but I loved it to see how garbage fans were panicking over Luke's new version that censors garbage, but still if people want to take a dump on Bitcoin's blockchain, they should pay a very high fee and we shouldn't just disallow them like that, after all, this is a decentralized economy, restrictions will only open the door for more restrictions.

Ps, sorry for the language, I couldn't find any better examples. (synonyms). 😂

I guess it's not possible to do merged mining (BTC + BCH + BSV) with SHA-256 ASICs? (like Scrypt ASICs can do merged mining -> LTC + DOGE)

But technically in an exchange it's not actual Bitcoin that you're buying, but mere numbers in their ledger. It only become actual Bitcoin if those units are transferred in a public address with a private key that's under your custody.

In the subject of Ordinals and transaction fees, have we seen the network maintain such high fees that users are willing to pay more than one month? I believe not, but if it does, wouldn't it make Bitcoin more profitable to mine that BCH and BSV miners would start pointing hashing power to Bitcoin?

depends if he buys at an exchange.  coinbase won't charge high fee to buy it.

they will charge a high fee to move it off the exchange.

Really? Tell that to a person willing to buy $10 worth of BTC. According to you, he now has to pay like what? $50 in fees?   No, we're not pushing anyone out, never.    And to "make blockchain space as much valuable as possible" is the ultimate goal for miners not for all bitcoiners or market in general...

If the path taken is to maintain decentralization, network security/not risk it more attack vectors, and have Bitcoin to continue be robust, then yes, smaller blocks are better. Because if you're merely talking about increasing transaction-throughput but sacrificing decentralization, then that's not real scaling. Real scaling means increasing transaction-throughput without sacrificing decentralization.

Plus I believe I'm not the only person who thinks it's the right path. Check the network transaction volume, number of holders, and the market value. Plus all of those forked blockchains claiming to be the "Real Bitcoin" are treated like the Flat-Earthers of the community.

Why do you think only one side can be right? I think payment channels could exist even if you have big blocks. The only controversial part is "routing". But if you have two unidirectional channels, without routing, then it is impossible to publish the old channel state, because it would give the attacker less money than it could have, just by following the rules.

Well, just ask users, why they still open new channels, and why they still use Segwit addresses (and even Taproot). Now, it cannot be banned, it can be only discouraged, but then, you need a working alternative. You cannot beat something with nothing. If you convince users to switch back into legacy addresses, then you would also need to convince them to pay more fees, and to use only 1 MB, or convince them to use some altcoin. Because if you want a hard-fork, then you need a lot of support from the network, something like 90% or 95%, maybe even 99%. Even P2SH was a soft-fork.

Why do you think they would ever create any hard-fork, if they would not be forced to do so? Block size increase can be done by just another soft-fork. And as long as blocks don't have 4 MB, counted in raw bytes, they have no reason to do so. Extreme soft-fork example: https://petertodd.org/2016/forced-soft-forks

I think batching is better. Having million users behind a single on-chain transaction, paying 0.01 BTC, is cheaper to process in the long term, than million separate transactions, with a single satoshi fee, from million separate users. After all, you don't need those transactions later (and if you need, then their existence can be proved by commitments). After many years, it doesn't matter, if there was a single transaction paying 0.01 BTC, or a million transactions, paying a single satoshi each. And what is easier to download and verify, if you start a new node, and if those transactions are set in stone?

If you think SPV is so good, then why the whole network is not SPV-based, and why blocks are not simply dropped, after they have enough confirmations?

Edit: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Where is it implemented? If you think SPV is so good, then it should be implemented in each full node, and only unspent transaction outputs should be stored on consensus level. For everything else, only the proof of being spent should be kept. Right?

Well , segwit and LN was the path according to core , do you consider it the right path if satoshi was wrong ? How many more years for the btc community to understand that both models were failed ?
LN devs admit that LN has many problems and can't work . Segwit din't provide any meaningful solution ( see mempool and fees ) .
If core goes to a hardfork and increase blocksize would you consider them the authority you should follow or you should reconsider if following core was a bad choice ? Because the way i see it a hardfork is imminent .   


Things are not the same as with btc . To run a node you have to invest , so , that node has to have something to offer and provide a return for that service . Or run a node as an expensive hobby . Of course it's a hustle compared to running a node on a rapspi .
Block explorers will be compensated in the future . With fees of a thousandth of a cent per tx , it will be nothing for a user that wants to check his tx to pay 0.01 $ per check .
The difference in projects is that there will be created a new economy not just by speculating on price but on building apps and services . Will it work ? Time will tell .
But for sure ( to me ) that's what electronic cash is .
And a suggestion , try it as a user ( SPV ) and let me know if it doesn't work .
 

Clearly posting video files in TapScript is not intended behavior, but tokens are not going away.

I think the solution is clear: OP_BN128_ADD, OP_BN128_MUL, OP_BN128_CHECKPAIRING
If there was an easy, efficient way to verify zero knowlege proofs on BTC, the ordinals can migrate to zk-powered layer 2s which still have the full effective security of Bitcoin (instead of transactions being directly verified on bitcoin, the transactions are proved, and then the proof is verified on Bitcoin, so by induction...).

There are efficient, secure SNARKs with constant size proofs of ~100bytes meaning that verifying 100,000 BRC-20 token transactions could be bundled into a single transaction on BTC which has the footprint of a single multisig uxto.


In the meantime, a shameless plug-- L2Ordinals is trying to get projects to adopt using zkp ordinals to decrease the footprint of ordinal based tokens on Bitcoin (bring the footprint down from lots of txs to a few ZKP txs of a hundred bytes each).

Supporting succinct zero knowlege proofs in the long term is the only way I see this ending without alienating a large group of the community/increased drama.

Here's what I consider an anathema:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/08/04/bsv-suffers-51-attack-report/
https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2019/05/24/bitcoin-cash-miners-undo-attackers-transactions-with-51-attack/