Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 20. (Read 9515 times)

But this way they actually encourage ordinals, by displaying the image in the first place when other blockchain explorers don't.
If the trend continues and others do the same it will just fuel the rush more and more, we saw previously spam from addresses when blockchain.info (at that time) allowed labeling, sending hundreds of transactions worth a few satoshis to most known addresses, to the biggest holders just to advertise their name.

Anyhow, money keeps flowing, they kept getting minted and services like the blockchain above keep encouraging it.


Not really the votes you imagined, isn't it? 6/6 and 2? Seems like the "we" is on its way to a minority.
Btw, I didn't vote in that poll since you simply asked the wrong questions!
I'm against banning ordinals, but this doesn't change the fact that I do believe they are some stupid monkey jpeg farts.

That's a "solution", although a laughable solution.

A silver-lining for the incentivized demand in dick picks and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain, it will solve the problem of "what would happen to the miners if all the coins are mined out", and the long term security of the network. There probably won't be users in the future who would be happy to pay high fees for a coffee-transaction, but there would be users who would be happy paying for high fees to trade their dick pics and fart sounds.

That's just a mere observation/shower thought. I'm not starting a debate.

Your arguments make no sense!

For starters the tokens created on token platforms are not the art itself. It is basically a link to a centralized platform (eg. a website) that stores that so called art. So your last argument (the last line) is like saying "I give you the word Picasso which I wrote on a piece of paper and that has utility"!
I too can write the word "Picasso" on paper and sell it to a million people but that doesn't mean millions of people are now owners of Picasso paintings. lol

Secondly when we are talking about bitcoin we are talking about abuse of a payment system so it has nothing to do with art or its utility or value.

blockchain.com is dealing with the illegal images issue by putting a "report" button next to the pictures of the nft. i guess that solves the problem. if someone reports it and they agree it is a bad image, they can just take it down. off their website anyway. maybe that's good enough.

I believe it will be like altcoins/shitcoins/NFTs, which developers built the tools for users, the investors/traders were incentivized by the development of a market to buy/sell, and the gathering of people behind each project that become "communities".

There's a high possibility that if the market for NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain can incentivize developers and traders to stay and profit as much as they can profit from NFTs in the Ethereum blockchain, then they will come back especially if it's cheaper/more reliable to use the Bitcoin blockchain.

i noticed that there seems to be a demand for inscriptions with low numbers like in the sub 5000. people doesn't even care what the picture is of. as long as the inscriptiion # is low enough they'll pay big money for it. like 0.2 bitcoin. i guess you can't really argue with that type of valuation since it is not subjective you can compare numbers and see which one is bigger and which one is smaller and if it's small enough that makes it valuable.

Yes, art has value and no utility. Mona Lisa has value in the meat world, but why would somebody want to create a digital copy and sell it? Try painting Mona Lisa and selling it as the real thing? Will be very hard to explain it to the cops... but why does everybody and his dog is selling digital copies of artworks? Ok not all NFTs are forgery but why they're trying to stick it into the blockchain? Art belongs in the museum, not on the blockchain... 

And all those kitty/monkey pics and Bitcoin chart screenshots? You call that art? They have no value whatsoever.

True.

Art is subjective.

A lot of art sucks and has no utility in the real world.

What utility does the Mona Lisa have?
What utility does Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup lithographs have?

Tell you what if I gave you a painting from Picasso it has no utility.

Considering how tokens and silly things like the Ordinals attack have never contributed to anything in the real world and have never provided any real utilities, it is obvious that nobody wants them except the gamblers who are making bets on anything they can. They might as well do it on highly volatile tokens that can see huge pumps and dumps.
If an alternative is provided to these gamblers, they won't hesitate to abandon the "Token Casino" in a blinking of an eye.

and where would the pictures of the monkeys be stored on this new layer 2 platform? you know, it's going to be really hard to educate people that have already been uploading monkeys using ordinals and loving it to settle for anything less than what they've been getting which is their monkey's stored on chain. ordinals hit the ground running and i just dont think anything could replace it especially if the monkeys are not being stored on chain...

Considering the ongoing dispute about the usefulness of NFTs, it might be more reasonable to establish a robust layer 2 smart contract platform and let people decide themselves whether they want to use it for NFTs or something else.

The nobody wanted ICOs claim is absurd, it makes think you live in a different world, those ICOs still have a huge market worth tens of billions of dollars, they did not get their value out of thin air, a dozen people wanted them, it is about time to differentiate between what you and a few forum members want vs what many others want.

And I agree, it is naive to let time fix your problems, except that I do not think Ordinals are a problem, which is why I count on time to prove if they are worthy to stay on the blockchain, if you think they cause problems  then thats on you to fix them.

True.

Without ASICs Bitcoin could have not reached thousands of dollars.

You are confusing a fix with a change. The Ordinals attack was not easy to perform before Taproot fork and the mess up by the devs implementing it. If anything there needs to be a fix to the mess left by the previous change (aka the soft fork).

I agree with the first part not the second. Take ICO scams, nobody really wants them and yet they have managed to stay alive for many years.
It is very naive to think the problems are going away on their own if we ignore them lol. It's like finding a cancerous tumor and instead of aggressively fighting the cancer and removing the tumor, you sit around and hope for it to go away!

in 2013 the network still used some gpus and a few fpgas with asics.

asics burned 10 watts for .333 gh or 30 watts for 1 gh or 30000 watts a th.

these were the first usb asic sticks.

I had 150 of them running for a while which were burning about 10 watts each.

long time ago.

the power improvements since then have been remarkable.

they are not going to happen at that level.

One could argue the watt efficiency improvements super charged price.

Stompix is correct, YOU want the change, not him, Ordinals are real, they are already in the blockchain, and no change is required to keep them there, on the other hand, a change is needed to ban them, so it's not like we are trying to convince you to let Ordinals in, they are already sitting on the couch, it's the folks who want them out of the house who are desperate for a change in the protocol, so his statement is perfectly stated.

Oh, and as for your little poll thread, please don't take that too seriously, the percentage of Bitcoin users who are going to see it rounded to a whole number will be zero, the only way to find out is to wait a few years and see, if Ordinals stay alive it means enough people wanted them - if they die, it means the opposite, simple free-market capitalism.

Change? I don't want any change. Please bring my empty mempool back!    We somehow managed to survive 14 years in Bitcoin without ordinals and now it's me wanting change? Hahaha...

I did start a poll thread, please drop by and leave your vote! 

Why don't you do it?
Cause you're the one bitching around for a change!
It's you who wants to change something based on the will of "the people", not me!


Eh, just as how they think they are the voice of the majority they also must invent adversaries to blame them for their failures, I got used to this.


Sorry but almost nobody cares about anything else than the price per tx in $, the same the "we" whoever they are don't care even about the sat/b fee, all they know is that to send money they need to pay x $ and it's a pretty normal thing, just throwing random numbers here do you think a 500 million RON house is expensive or that paying 1 million Vietnamese dongs for a burger is cheap? Without checking how much that is in your local currency of course you won't know it! All those users who bitch about fees want to pay $0.00025 as the are fees now over the meme coin while the cheapest one in BTC in last block is $0.24, nothing else.

And if we bring security and stuff in the equation then we're back to what Phil said and which probably too many ignored:


So, to make things clear and show a better picture, you will have a network worth the GDP of EU, USA and China combined, protected by gear worth the budget of Charlotte. Yeah, the price keeps the reward up by negating the halving, but you have more and more value pilling up with the same protection, and hash rate alone as in exahash or petahash doesn't mean a thing when you don't factor in how much it cost!
Because if now at 300exh it cost 5 billion to attack it then obviously at 150Th/s in 2013 you could attack it for $2500? Oh wait!

Note that even if you count everything in dollars, then still, the price of your altcoins can change, so you will see very low on-chain fees, but you will pay a hidden fee, because your coins could be worth less. And even if you will pay with fiat directly, then those coins can be inflated ad infinitum, so paying a high on-chain fee can be a better deal than you think, if you count everything, including all hidden costs.

Bigger blocks does not necessarily mean cheaper transactions, if you want to count them in dollars, including all costs. As an experiment, you can compare for example BTC (where mempool congestion can happen) with BCH (where hard-fork can always increase the maximum block size, so you can pay one satoshi per byte, and get it confirmed). Then, you can look at on-chain fees, it will turn out that BTC is more expensive to transact on-chain. And then, you can compare the price of both coins in dollars. You will see that the price change is more costly than transaction fees, and it is very unlikely to find a case, where you pick some starting date and amount, you pick some frequency of transactions (for example, one transaction per day), and in some long period of time you will end up with a higher amount in dollars for BCH than BTC.

And the same is true for many altcoins: the cost of converting your BTC into other coins once, and using those other coins with cheaper fees, can be higher than using BTC directly.