Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 25. (Read 9195 times)

Not to be a dictionary person here, but a "terrorist attack" is supposed to involve terror (force, violence, etc.)

I haven't synced the ordinals program for days since it's taking too long doing absolutely nothing. But once something is created, it is almost impossible to make it go away, as in - more programs for this will appear.

Should we though, at this point? It will just make average people think that Bitcoin is ran by a bunch of dicks and then they will lose faith in it (for reasons that have nothing to do with Bitcoin's fundamentals itself).

---

Side note:

This only took off after the Bitcoin developers made a protocol upgrade for completely unrelated purposes (Taproot).

So it might be possible that other advancements are unlocked after future protocol upgrades - as in, layer 2 networks.

The legacy addresses (starting with 1 or 3) and their transactions are the same as they ever were, nothing has changed and nothing is being "penalized". In other words SegWit transactions being cheaper doesn't mean the legacy transactions became more expensive!

lol it's funny that you never complained about blocking all other forms of spam transactions in the past decade like rejecting a transaction containing an OP_RETURN that is bigger than 80 bytes, but all of a sudden you are so worried about rejecting this new type of spam!!!

Apples and oranges...

doubtful. ethereum has had really high gas fees in the past. did that stop people from making nft collections? or buying them? no it didnt.

I mean most of the NFT type people are the ones that think Bitcoin is "old tech" and "out of date" and they prefer ethereum and random altcoins and don't understand what bitcoin and hard money is all about. So yes I'm surprised these people are actually coming over from ethereum nfts to bitcoin. Hopefully this just fails to take off and the bored ape people and everyone decide its more profitable to do this stuff on ethereum.

that's old news but what did you expect would happen? them to not participate?

apparently if something has a low inscription # then it is valuable. who woulda thought? 


that's how you teach the devs a lesson. show them what they did wrong by example. so they can see it in action right? if they don't take any action then that means everything is ok. the devs wouldn't let bitcoin die right? or would they?
and that's where you go wrong in making an assumption. why would i trust a single organization to archive my data "forever"? single point of trust equals single point of failure....

So much for the topic of selfishness / selflessness..
But you do realize that if you leech off a system in a non-intended, harmful way, especially if done coordinated with a large number of people, you can destroy said system?

Making negative assumptions like that without prior web search looks pretty silly to anyone who does know something about the topic.
For reference:
I agree! Their only goal is trying to sell JPEGs. I've been saying it all along.

It was made possible through Taproot, but it wasn't the intended use case for it. It's like a Windows update that contains an exploitable bug in the code. Should we argue that writing a computer virus that leverages this bug is not 'misusing' the OS, because it was the update that made that exploit possible?

You are making a definitive statement. Anything to back it up? Tromp's post doesn't back it up, either. I'm asking whether anyone is using Ordinals as 'cloud backup storage' for important files or whether it's just used to sell worthless JPEGs to misguided people (i.e. scamming them)? I'm pretty sure that it is way too expensive to realistically upload lots of important files for archival storage.

You're talking about partial corruption of the disk? Of course I am oversimplifying because this is not a thread about data backups. Once your drive gets to a certain age (especially SSDs with limited R/W cycles per cell), you want to replace it. But then again, you also want local redundancy through RAID and preferably multiple off-site backups, too.
If something is so valuable that you think you need to put it on the blockchain, it's probably worth it just throwing a ton of tried & tested, 'normal' backup methods at it, like every company on the world is doing (especially the top 500 and such).

Ok I wasn't worried about ordinals cuz who would even want to do this on Bitcoin and all the NFTs on it are crap so I figured it'd be gone soon as a quick fad. But I just saw the Bored Ape company is putting an NFT collection on bitcoin now. Since they seem to be the most popular NFT company now I'm a bit worried the NFT crowd might actually start using Bitcoin and actually clogging it up for more than a few weeks.

I'm not super clear on exactly how ordinals work, but from what I can gather taproot stopped checking the size of signatures or something and ordinals cram their data into that, so it is just an unintended consequence of taproot that the developers didn't think through. Is that right? If so, can't it just be fixed and NFTs killed off with an update to the protocol that puts back in that check on size and limits it? Again, not clear on this so just wondering. If its possible to do an easy fix like this I would think this would be a top priority so that NFTs don't crowd out actual bitcoin usage and the devs would get this fix in fairly quickly. Nobody wants a bitcoin blockchain that is clogged with NFT transactions rather than monetary transactions.

Here's a problem though: You don't know where your hard drive dies, in comparison with a cloud service, where they will simply send you a message.

Unfortunately or not, it is. But don't fall in that trap. It's the same as saying that it seems odd that the only argument repeated is that "Bitcoin is cash", meanwhile most Bitcoin users don't really care about that, and are in for the profit solely. I believe there might be a few who don't only see profit in Ordinals.

No, you're mixing apples and oranges. Bitcoin shouldn't have censorship but at the same time it has to defend itself from terrorist attacks (like ordinals crap). Easier said than done, I realize that.

"Misusing", but those who use Ordinals could argue that it's a feature made possible through Taproot. I believe you're mixing up opinion, both sides, from what actually is the network, which currently and obviously, Ordinals has opened a debate. Bitcoin is a network, an immutable, decentralized ledger, which is permissionless. I don't like dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain, but the point is how can we stop censorship-resistance and permissionlessness? If you believe we could, then that will start a very dangerous premise for state attackers to take advantage.


That would be hard as tromp already posted, miners would be blocked from a good source of profit, and it starts a bad precedent. Should we tell nodes to reject transactions from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China as well?

Sorry I shouldn't ask leading questions, it would seem that's not allowed on this forum.
I'll remove the ? key from my keyboard.

Yep I have no idea about how the 4/1 witness weight code worked coz I've never read it.
Though my question clearly showed I didn't know

So, looking for it now ... ...
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#transaction-size-calculations

OK so only the '1' addresses are penalised 4x, but the witness data gets through at the same 1/4 cost as non '1' addresses.

Well, pretty bad

ok so maybe bitcoin node operators are no so selfless as we thought. but i want to ram my data into their hard drive just the same if the protocol allows it. that way they can help me store data that is important to ME.

who decides what is "important" or not though? what if i say my data is important and they don't agree? does that mean they can drop it?

yes that is quite a leap of logic i don't understand how someone can make that type of leap of logic. its obviously flawed.

i dont understand why someone would buy stuff like this: https://ordswap.io/collections/tradifilines
it's just junk right? 

I'm not trying to fight anything, this IS how we have been fighting spam all along. The same arguments you made about miners being able to include non-standard transactions could have been made about literary any other form of injecting garbage into the blockchain (eg. placing ~1 MB garbage entirely in your scriptpub).

Witness parts of transaction contribute less to the transaction weight, hence they are cheaper not "completely free".
To be honest I'm not sure if you are trolling since it is very surprising to see one of the oldest forum members and the owner of one of the oldest mining pools has no idea how Bitcoin works!

So.. you just contradicted yourself?
'no one does something for free' [...] 'except for noble bitcoin node operators that just want to support the network'

You do remark that we gain non-monetary benefit from running nodes, like better privacy for our own usage. Likewise, The Internet Archive folks and donators gain something non-monetary as well: archiving of webpages and other important data.

I find it crazy that people go from 'Bitcoin prevents censorship of monetary transactions' / 'Bitcoin allows anyone to send anyone money' basically to 'Bitcoin is the next cloud storage provider because of a bug in the code because freedom'.
Next up, we call it censorship if operating system developers fix kernel bugs, because those fixes block malware to 'freely' access affected servers? I'm joking but I hope you understand what I mean.

everyone SAYS they are non-profit but we all know no one does something for free and people are getting paid and siphoning off money for playing golf and expensive cars, etc. show me one non-profit that is not corrupt. i doubt one exists. except for noble bitcoin node operators that just want to support the network and maybe have a bit more privacy for their own transactions...

i can't believe we're having to revert back to this discussion.  i thought everyone agreed on this as a matter of principal but bitcoin got so screwed up now because of this nft thing. crazy!

And Bitcoin node operators do so without profit, too... We gain nothing from storing other people's JPEG's. Sounds like a double standard to me.

I'd argue that you want a combination of the two. On-site hard, physical backup and off-site secondary backup. As soon as one fails, you replace it from either live data or the other backup. Since it is extremely unlikely that your local NAS and the cloud storage provider die at the same exact moment, your data will be secure enough with double or triple redundancy. It's not much different than seed word storage. You want multiple ones in a few locations, too.
If you can't handle 2-3 data backups, you probably can't handle 2-3 seed phrase backups and if you don't have that, you may find yourself in a pretty bad situation in the future.

That works with Torrents over Tor, as well. In fact, Torrents have been used to bypass censorship for a while now...

Pure gold. Thanks; satoshi basically wrote his position on Ordinals here:


You are mixing up 'misusing the Bitcoin blockchain because it is technically possible' and 'censorship of monetary transactions'. We want Bitcoin to be censorship-free in the sense that anyone can send any amount of BTC to anyone on the world at any time. Filling the mempool and the blockchain with JPEGs though, inhibits this goal and should be regarded as an attack. Attacking Bitcoin is pretty surely not in line with 'the philosophy Bitcoin was built on'.

---

It seems odd to me that the only real argument repeated over and over again here is that 'Bitcoin could be used as censorship-resistant forever storage of data', meanwhile NFT people don't really care about any of that and are just out to sell JPEGs for profit?
You are basically defending 'JPEGs' with 'cloud backup storage'.

Hang on, isn't witness data completely free coz core decided it should be, when they implemented segwit, and thus punish people using '1' addresses?

So if these super large NFTs are in the segwit witness data, then they don't cost anything extra for the transaction?

These are transactions that miners *want* to include because they still pay competitive feerates.

So users will find a way to relay them directly to willing miners (as ordinals.com already does), and if not relayed normally, the mempool will show a distorted view of the fee market.

You're trying to fight basic economics in a permission-less system.


Bitcoin is by design a transaction storage system, since the entire tx history must be verifiable.
Bitcoin also cannot effectively distinguish between financial scripts and data storage scripts (note that a less efficient data storage in fake P2PK outputs is possible as well).

No, we should call on nodes to reject spam transactions that are abusing the system and never relay such transactions. This is in accordance with the principles of bitcoin, the peer-to-peer electronic cash system and is against the principles of bitcoin, the permit anything file storage system.

Because it is permissionless, you have your right to an opinion on what the network should be used for, but a "feature" was found so it can be used for something other than intended, what right do we truly have to say  "no" in a censorship-resistant, permissionless system?

Are you proposing that the community should call on the miners to censor those transactions? That would be against the philosophy Bitcoin was built on.