Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 22. (Read 9532 times)

i really don't care what the bitcoin "price" is. but i do care how much transaction fees cost in real us dollars. $200 would mean bitcoin is broken. good luck with convincing anyone to use it even if bitcoin was worth 1 billion. if higher bitcoin price means higher transaction fees then something is wrong with bitcoin and something else will step in and replace it. maybe it already has. and we just don't know about it yet.

ideally they shouldn't have to know any of that to avoid being taken advantage of by the network though.

but i don't think satoshi would have wanted jpeg monkeys taking up space that was really meant for transactions, real transactions like buying a cup of coffee. you can argue they should be using lightning network but i disagree. i don't trust layer 2 networks. i want my transactions on layer 1. so LN is out.

I would like to make it clear that I don't worry about higher fees; as long as my transaction gets processed eventually. I do worry about congestion / overloading the network. The issue though is that if you get over ~10 tx per second (not sure about the exact number right now) on average for an extended period of time, it is technically impossible to process all transactions. The mountain would never 'clear', i.e. some transactions will be stuck forever.
If more transactions will be added than are mined, I call it 'mempool congestion'. No amount of fee bumping will make Bitcoin process more transactions on average. It can prioritize your transaction, but if everyone set the fee to the same (maximum maybe?) amount, it just becomes a lottery.

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

It has.

It may not, in case it was mathematically proven to be a bad idea. I'm not sure about the result of those discussions myself right now, but as someone proposing that idea again, it should be your task to look that up.

I may agree with storing encrypted data, that's a different story from a legal & moral standpoint. But NFT people aren't interested in that since then nobody would be able to see the JPEGs besides them.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Lightning here. Want to discuss it elsewhere (since off-topic) or do you know that this statement was wrong?

Speaking of what the "majority" is for BTC, it seems like many people are still stuck in the mailing list era or when only 200 folks knew about BTC, back then one could just scroll through the 20 comments and arrive at a conclusion about what he majority wants, as of today, it's extremely difficult to guess.

To me, from what I see and based on my own judgment, the majority of BTC users want to see it grow in value more than anything else, I know if I ask 10 BTC hodlers if they want to BTC at 200k vs no NFT, they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k or no Segwit,  they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k and transaction fees at 200$ or free transactions and BTC at 20k, they will again chose the same 200k BTC.

I also think most people who are in BTC don't even know wether they are using a legacy or segwit address, they don't even know how to google/check mempool status or estimate fees, they don't know what full node is, what miners actually do, they probably don't even know what is block size and why sometimes they pay 2$ to send BTC when their friend sent the same amount paying only 50 cents.

So who makes the majority or at least, who represents the majority needed to fork BTC to ban Ordinals?

- Mining pools.
- Exchanges.
- Core devs.
- The rich folks who fund Core devs or/and control the media.

Any major change you want to make to Bitcoin has to get the blessing of those listed above, for certain changes you can bypass some of the above, while some of them are a must for any change.

What you notice in the list is the majority of those folks have a lot at stake, too much to lose and nothing much to win, which is why major changes are hard to happen, most people follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule, do you want to implement a new change that would add any value to the network without any risks involved? start lobbying and prepare a ton of money and time to hopefully succeed in your campaign, is your proposal going to put the blockchain at 2% risk? forget it.

A change to the protocol that would block Oridnlas is going to be somehow big, you will have a very difficult time trying to convince the above list to do it, unless, strong evidence is presented that shows how Ordinals are going to affect BTC's value negatively, things like "oh, this is not what Satoshi wanted, it's useless data on the blockchain" won't cut it.



 

OK, transaction fees will not be reduced. Ever. They will keep increasing.

The rally stopped for one reason: lockdowns ended in April 2021.

During lockdowns people were willing to invest stimmy checks. Have you forgotten that? FED printed 10 trillion $ out of thin air.

When lockdowns ended, people wanted to enjoy real life and spend their money, not invest them...

Mark my words: we will have lockdowns (and QE) again in 2025. Not for COVID, but for climate change mitigation measures.

I don't mind NFTs or even smart contracts. BTC can and should overtake ETH (especially now that it's PoS).

Its not transactions its fees .

look below

Latest Block:   780336  (15 minutes ago)
Current Pace:   122.4480%  (145 / 118.42 expected, 26.58 ahead)
Previous Difficulty:   43053844193928.45                           
Current Difficulty:   43551722213590.37                           
Next Difficulty:   between 44707200160869 and 53527864052814
Next Difficulty Change:   between +2.6531% and +22.9064%
Previous Retarget:   Yesterday at 4:43 PM  (+1.1564%)
Next Retarget (earliest):   March 22, 2023 at 4:07 AM  (in 10d 14h 39m 57s)
Next Retarget (latest):   March 24, 2023 at 9:11 AM  (in 12d 19h 43m 17s)
Projected Epoch Length:   between 11d 10h 24m 7s and 13d 15h 27m 28s
Copy stats to clipboard


Mathamatically

this huge jump in hash could mean
a) un real good luck variance of +22.5%
b) more gear turned on and set up
c) testing of excess gear for future hashrate manipulation
d) an unknown


to think the network could be neg 28% in a 100 block span last jump
and then be plus 22% this jump. is nex to mathematically impossible.

to say b yeah maybe
to say d yeah maybe

to say c is possible based on last two beginnings of difficulty is not impossble.

To think a large company such as bitmain has

excess L7 miners
excess S19 miners

is likely.

to think they don’t see what I am writing and have drawn the same conclusions I have is some what possible.


remember they build s19s and L7s for under 1000 dollars.

they can easily be thinking long term 2056 as  I listed and do some wild manipulating down the road.

we all remember the spring 2021 rally getting chopped off at the knees by the shut down of 50% of the hashrate.

So I am like encouraging mining everywhere and if NFTs make better fees for btc good.

To all BTC maxers that is not going to be what happens.

Diversity in mining will not go by by.

Monero is no longer GPU-friendly, you need a beefy CPU with 2MB of cache per thread.

Hyperbitcoinization will happen much sooner, so I wouldn't worry.

NFTs, smart contracts, the Bitcoin network will try to assimilate everything.

Hell, it might even give Monero a run for their money if BOLT12 becomes a Lightning standard...

Even with just Lightning we will need over 18 years to open LN channels for 8 billion people.

The network will never run out of transactions...

 and when it is worth 3.2 million in 2056 the marketcap will be 40 trillion

and the network of hashing need not expand as I illustrated above.

in 2056 if fees do not grow and efficiency doubles we can have 640 eh hashrate mining .

the value of the vault and guards protecting the 40 trillion cap will be the same 6-13 billion that protects the network now.

That is an issue that Nfts and ordinals may solve if allowed to try.

What I'm saying is that you seem to suffer from the same thing a delusion of being the voice of many, and worse than that is manifesting the same commie behavior of judging one who doesn't agree with you as an enemy. The most important thing is, how do you know what the majority wants? Maybe as extrapolating from the views here the majority doesn't like ordinals but they hate censorship more, which for every single individual or bitcoin "user" would be normal behavior.

But if you're that sure the majority are against it, why don't you fork it already?
Cause all I see here are 4-5 users bitching on a forum about and 200k ordinals being burned already, so who decided this "majority" and who counts the votes of this so called majority? I hope it's not Stalin!


Unless it succumbs to the terror attack of the Jpeg monkeys! 

I mentioned still owning gpus and being able to mine with them vs scrypt vs btc asics

and that dollar per watt works for the miner.

there is grin asic
there is kda asic

I have close to 265kwatts

I have L7 and L3
I have s19 pro and lessor sha miners
I have gpus
I have kda asic
I have grin asic

My goal would be to be able to mine
all 265 kwatts in sha 256 btc using a mix of whatsminer m50s and s19s
65 kwatts in L7
35 kwatt in gpus
 5 kwatts in lessor asics

Sub-million?

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of dollars in 20+ years from now.

Feel free to bookmark/screenshot my post for future reference.

I believe that Phill meant here is to stretch the halving periods, in other words, to slow down the supply cut until BTC has matured enough and grown large enough in market value, this solution will just delay the inevitable event of when mining rewards will depend more the fees than the block reward itself.




The 100 years is just a theory on paper, the actual time of when shit could hit the fan is "unknown", let's do some simple math.


As of right now, the amount of money that miners can extract every 10 mins or so is 6.25 + fees * $20,000 = $125,000 assuming no fees, so it's fine now, that much value is enough to keep 350EH worth of hashrate securing the network.

A year later, the halving happens, BTC MUST be worth $40,000 for the blockchain to be as secured as it is today, or fees need to be 3.125BTC to offset that.

There is a good chance that the halving hits, while BTC is even lower than $20,000, so now it's only 62.5k to be extracted, this won't keep 350EH securing the network, a huge chunk of it will need to shut down.

4 years later, with just 1.56BTC rewards, if we are still at 20k, it will hardly keep 20-30% of that 350EH and you will have a ton of ready-to-be-used hashrate that can attack the weak blockchain.

Now 8 years from now and BTC at 20k is obviously unlikely, but it could happen, it could be the year 2036 when block fees are just 0.7812500, where you need BTC to be trading at 160,000$ to maintain that 350EH, and suddenly some economic turmoil and BTC drops to 60k making it very unsecured with all the hashrate that leaves it.

We don't know at what stage fees will be critical, a sure thing, not 100 years, in just 13 years the block rewards will be BELOW 1 BTC a block, in 21 years the rewards will be LESS than a quarter of BTC, if BTC isn't in the sub million zone, things are going to look pretty mad without large fees feeding the miners.

That link ranks by market cap, which is not so relevant.

Relevant to this discussion is the daily energy spent on mining as approximated by the dollar value of the daily mined coins.
You can find this ranking at [1] under column PoW Produced (24h).
It shows Monero down in place 9, while Doge and Litecoin are in 2nd and 3rd place respectively.

In the long term, coins without a tail emission will slowly drift down this ranking as their mining subsidy dwindles to insignificance. In which case Monero could end up in 4th place behind DOGE, ETC, and Nervos...

[1] https://www.f2pool.com/coins

While i see appeal of fixed/lower-bound mining reward, i doubt it'll happen when it violate principle of Bitcoin[1].


Unlikely to happen since censorship violate principle of Bitcoin[1]. At most Bitcoiner only can push to make Ordinal transaction with data bigger than X bytes become non-standard.


I believe it's just matter of time before we'll see increase of maximum block size when people realize other scaling solution isn't enough.


What does "partial PoW" even mean?


Technically possible. But i doubt there'll be middle ground about how should "stale unclaimed" coins is re-distributed.


This would break expected behavior of bitcoin transaction/address which use block height as it's timelock, including LN.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Principles_of_Bitcoin

What about Monero?

Strange that you never mention it... it's #4 in PoW coins.

I'm not quite sure the reason. I don't believe it's this. I think finding the coordination with the proper components is the big problem. It is a very big project now more, and infringing backwards compatibility means you expect the overwhelming majority to coordinate and find consensus on a brand new Bitcoin, when at the same time, the overwhelming majority is seemingly in favor of monetary conservatism, so it pretty much leaves you with little chances of success.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of NFTs. Pretty much the opposite, especially when I see friends getting involved with them, with fridge empty.

But I'm respecting the freedom of users to consider it as they like more than I completely disagree with that idea. If we start taking your path, which I agree is the path of good intentions, it won't take long until we start quarrel on whether Bitcoin should be a store of value, or a short-term investment, besides a peer-to-peer cash system as envisioned first.

I'm just saying that the purpose of Bitcointalk is decided by a few groups of people, like admins, mods; that's it basically. It doesn't matter what you think this forum is, you can propose whatever you want, but in the end you are not part of the group that makes changes. This is not the same with the Bitcoin network; you're an economic unit.

There's a difference between supporting Ordinals and supporting the freedom to choose Ordinals.

Or my bank pays the most interest and has the best rates.

but they keep the cash in the janitorial closet in order to save on a vault and a guard.

So by saving that way the fees are low and the perks are high.

To deny the issue that low fees will chase the miners to better coins with better fees and to think that helps bitcoin in the long run is nuts.

To cherry pick the 100 year number and to ignore

that by 2056 blocks will be

3.125        2028
1.562500   2032
0.7812500   2036
0.3906250  2040
0.1953125  2044. in 20 years coins need to be 400k
0.0976562. 2048. in. 24  years coins need to be 800k
0.0488281 2052 in   28 years coins need to be 1.6 mil
0.0244140 2056 in 32 years coins need to be 3.2 mil

for miners to barely get by with todays difficulty.

and btw a 1 sat fee for a 3.2 million coin is high in terms of fiat

thats a short 32 year span well 33 year as i counted from 2024 next having not 2023.

I figure like getting mileage from a gallon of gas you reach a max amount

Like getting hash cost down to 21 watts a th from 2 million watts a th back in 2012

so the problem with a 3.2 million dollar coin in 2056 is the market cap will be 40 trillion dollars

lets say for the sake of argument we drop power cost 50% over next 33 years.

you will have 200th s23s that burn 3000 watts and while price went up 160x

hashrate and difficulty are 2x. since the fees did not expand and the reward shrank.

net work now is 3.3 million 100 th s19s

at 2000 a machine that is 6.6 billion

my sustainability example above means 3.3 million 200th s23s at 2000 even 4000 a machine means

6.6 to 13.2 billion in gear to protect a 40 trillion marketcap.

and now we have 6.6 billion to protect a 320 billion which was a 1 trillion marketcap

only 33 years for that to be true.


meanwhile scrypt with a blend aproach still has the same 10000 a block doge and of course shrunken ltc

thats only 33 years.

So my issue is BTC is fucked without addressing this in only 33 years.

So No NFT + Ordinals to make up for this issue in the next 33 years. Okay
And no larger blocks to generate more fees. Okay
and LN that reduces fees and makes btc a partial POW. Okay
No recovery of stale unclaimed coins to keep rewards higher. okay
No stretching block time to six years a ½ ing then 8 years a ½ ing . okay

You end up with real issues in 2056.

Now lets argue we go the pure route. What good could happen?

BTC price stops growing and market cap never goes much over 2 trillion.

BTC becomes flat near 100k hashrate stablized to support that. More like gold or silver in stability.

I could see that as the adjustment if and here it comes scrypt did not exist but it does

So LTC+Doge still would loom as a threat in the case of a pure stable flat 100k BTC in 2056

It always comes down to being a bit younger to live long enough to see this in 2056 at 99 years old by than I won’t care much about which algo wins out.

Or if the two largest algos end up being a dual reality.

So I mine both and sit the gpus. Time will tell what is best.

Muahahahaha... so you're trying to say that in fact the majority of Bitcoin users support ordinals? That's like the funniest stuff I've heard this year.  

I don't think there's much sense in this discussion when your opposition is coming up with bozo claims like this...

Is it nonsense to say Ordinals is an attack on bitcoin today or is it nonsense to say "eventual disappearance of block subsidy that takes place in 100 years from now should be addressed now by spamming the blockchain today"?!

I disagree. It was actually a perfect example if you ignore the details of the differences.
The point is that every system has a purpose and to ensure those we have to have rules. When rules are broken someone has to intervene and enforce those rules or fix them if they are loose or flawed.

Bitcointalk's purpose is for discussion, so while a movie is not "garbage" but when it is posted on bitcointalk it becomes garbage and is considered an abuse of the system which has to be prevented.
What people store in bitcoin blockchain may not be garbage either but when people use bitcoin's blockchain which is a ledger for monetary transfers to store arbitrary data, that becomes garbage and it has to be prevented.

My power price is ½ the coins mined.

So if the machine does not break it eventually pays off.

Then at that point I simply get half the coins.

So the L7s and L3s are all paid off.

They are still bread and butter gear . They just rake in profit.

The gpus are shut off. But they are paid off.

The s19s and s17s make money but less.

In 5 months the LTC does a ½ ing the scrypt will make a lot less for six months and I will add some L7 at a low price.

Its a grind ,but I am a gear head first always was since the 1960s.

if doge can do it so can bitcoin. course, that would mean there is no max cap anymore but who's counting? 


that must mean your power price is free.


if they all used the same mining algorithm then there's no way that difference would exist. not even sure why the difference exists anyway.  i guess because scrypt mining hardware is more of a novelty item and more expensive... just a guess though.


of course, you can't hold onto something that will have an infinite supply expecting it to go up in price.



you go on youtube and try to find people talking about mining and invariably it's these guys showing off their gpu mining rigs, at least before ethereum went to POS. no one ever talked much about mining bitcoin. it's not for the "little guy".


thanks for the insights. was interesting.