Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 4. (Read 9532 times)

looks like 35-40 sats would work okay so down a bit





 last 10 blocks fees average under 0.5 btc

used blockchain.com and pull the info I wanted to show

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/blocks

'818,968 0.37BTC

818,967 0.41BTC

818,966 0.43BTC

818,965 0.58BTC

818,964 0.50BTC

818,963 0.33BTC

818,962 0.56BTC

818,961 0.46BTC

818,960 0BTC

818,959 0 .53'

agree here, it does not look as a good solution for Ordinals
if it front-runs them with higher fees, that will just introduce positive loop in the market, where Ordinals users will try with higher fees, and bot will up it again


maybe this is a use case, run in by days to lower Ordinals number, but I don't think this could be long-term solution, just having fun by some days, but on a high price

Fees reaching 2018 bubble times, mempool.space site is useful to see this in graphical form. To me this seems like it will be used by Blackrock et al to push another hard fork war that's supported by fiat gateways, this is quite predictable actually, it's the only reason they would allow an ETF to begin with, TPTB wouldn't allow it if it wasn't to control it or at least attempt at doing so.

As far as Ordinals, I don't even know what are those but from what I've read is "NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain", that was enough for me to not read any further.

It would be nice to see it be fired up as it would be a huge fee saver if it works. I suspect it does not work since the cost to run it was very small and why wouldn't someone cut a deal with its creator to run it.

From what I heard and read in the article, it doesn't just front-run the brc-20 in the mempool, it changes also the mint amount to 1 which spoil the whole transaction. (Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

From the article: "The Sophon was activated on October 3, and text-based inscriptions plummeted 72% to 13,700 from 49,000 the day before..."

Yes, the bot pays higher fees at the moment brc-20 get detected, but creates disruption for inscriptions hence overall fees lessen.

it says in the article that the bot lacked funds to operate around october 23rd which is when the inscriptions fees rose exponentially again.

So in theory it is not running right now. Not saying this bot is a gamechanger but it could be a fun little tool to spoil the token minting / inscriptions on Bitcoin...

Front-run them? By paying higher on-chain fees? That would absolutely make the fees higher and the network more congested, no? He's not making the situation better for the users in general in my opinion.


Is it currently running? Because it could also be the reason why we're having record-breaking fees. Perhaps it was better to let users use the blockchain?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fricking Ordinals causing trx fee so high even at the weekend 
This is not "begin your own bank" looks like 
I have been wait the whole week to transfer my btc, but if I do %20 of the amount will go to fee.
Stupid NFTers go FUS 

 It is not miners. It users that insist on thinking that it is okay to move small amounts of btc.

1)Ban all btc sends under 0.0001 btc = foolish users not miners
2)ban all zero fee white listed trans actions = pool owners = very rich people that may or may not mine commerically
3)make 0.0001 the smallest fee possible

If you do the three above things would change, but scrypt's 12x blocks per hour edge will still exist so small fee small value sends will always work better with scrypt.

You asked specifically about block explorers, so you got an answer related to that. But yes, you can run some full node, or SPV node, and not use any block explorer, and it will work fine.

Congratulations, you just noticed, that Ordinals are not about ownership at all. They are all about cloud storage, and pushing data on-chain. No ownership is enforced. If you upload the Bitcoin whitepaper, it doesn't mean that you "own" it. And if you take some existing image, owned by someone else, and change one pixel, or even upload a copy, without changing anything, then you are still not "an owner" of this image.

Yes, but note that if you are a miner, then you don't need to run a full node. Which means, that miners in centralized pools, just receive 80-byte headers, and they simply hash it, without thinking how big the real blocks are, and what is inside. Because guess what: in centralized pools, miners cannot change the blocks they mine, because they have to produce it in a way, enforced by pool operators.

I need to go to ordiscan.com for that? Immutability right? So in other words, there are no actual proofs of ownership, because I could as well launch my own digscan.com and show people their imaginary "super special" sats.

I congratulate you guys for being so smart, but no complements for miners, they are just eating their own tail like a hungry snake, not realizing it's their own body.

As I said, I couldn't care less about (physical or digital) art, but yeah, that's a possible solution.

https://ordiscan.com/

Did you forget about my other question? How can my friends verify my show off claims of having special sats? Can they see my address on block explorers with ordinals attached to it?

Nobody can kill BTC. It's just too big and decentralized. I wouldn't worry that much...

Sure, it's inconvenient to have high TX fees, but I consider ORDI a temporary fad. It will last a few weeks/months at most.

ps: I don't give a shit about Ordinal NFTs, just like I don't give a shit about Mona Lisa (physical NFT). I don't care about "art".

Other people do care though and they're willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money. To each their own.

Alright, of course you can't find such a fat host to milk it for so long, that's the whole point of being a parasite. Now that we are talking about immutability, tell me can we see the addresses owning ordinals on blockchain explorers, worldwide? I mean how can I show off my special sats to my friends if they wanted to verify my claim?

What's the best solution in this case? What do you think? If I remember it well, you have never answered a question of mine: Why is not increasing block size solution to bitcoin transaction fee problems? I simply can't understand what's wrong with this. It's simple math, block size limits number of transactions included in each block and on average, 1 block is mined every 10 minutes. So, when we create more transactions, fee is going up because there is a high demand but not enough supply. If we increase the block size up to 4MB for example, it will be a good deal. It's not 2009 anymore, as technology progresses, I think minimum requirements should progress too.

By the way, why do people join pools that don't share tx fees with its customers? Why should I join Antpool if another pool offers me to share collected transaction fees with me? Why do people still join top mining pools? If these pools can flood mempool, then there is no simple solution and it's very bad for Bitcoin's future, this will make other altcoins more attractive.
Let's imagine there is a guy who wants to pay with bitcoins right now. Fees are stupidly high, so what will this person do? He/She will start looking for altcoins with low transaction fees or just will stick with fiat, you know. Bitcoin shouldn't kill itself! Maybe it looks different from your standpoint but that's what I think majority will do if we keep in mind the human psychology.

Because then, nobody would care. The goal of those spammers, is not to push Bitcoin development forward. The only thing they want is just P2P cloud storage.

If you create your own network, then you have to run your own full nodes. But if you misuse existing Bitcoin network, then you are a free rider, who can reuse existing resources, to handle your traffic, and to process your cloud storage features, instead of processing regular payments.

Well, there was quite long discussion between developers. On mailing lists, on GitHub, and in some other places. The conclusion was quite simple: they let Ordinals exist, because engaging in a regular war between P2P payment network, and P2P cloud storage, would only bring us some UTXO flood, and other, even worse things, which are not yet disclosed.

I think developers will focus on standard payments first, and if they succeed, then Ordinals will die naturally. Because imagine that OP_CAT could allow a lot of things, including decentralized sidechains, and in general, it would be possible to sign any message with just OP_CHECKSIG. Which means, it could be possible to make commitments, and batch payments, while leaving on-chain Ordinals unbatched, and forcing them to switch into spend-by-key from spend-by-TapScript. I hope they will do that at some point in the future, if they will be forced to process their commitments off-chain, when pushing them on-chain will be too expensive for them to continue that practice.

I have been wondering lately, generally I do a lot of wondering.
Why don't you ordinal spammers create your own blockchain and enjoy trillions of different types of data being added to your blockchain?
I don't think parasites could understand or even be capable of finding a food source of their own, that's why they attach themselves to a host, and if the host doesn't fight back, they will destroy the host and move to the next one.

Lets have it for core developers, for their outstanding protection of the host. 👏👏👏  (sarcasm).

They should switch from HTLC to PTLC.

They should switch to TapScript, and reveal only one branch, instead of all conditions. Also, in this case, if everyone agrees, then people can spend by key in most cases, and spend by TapScript only when there is some disagreement. But in general, the disagreement is expensive, and it is also a feature, not a bug, to encourage people to play by the rules, or pay for breaking them.

Edit: Guess what: Ordinals always use spend by TapScript. Imagine, how better they could be, if users would always spend their coins by key, and reveal their Ordinals in a separate network. Imagine, how cheaper could it be. Imagine, how it would be possible to upload 1 GB, or even 1 TB, as a single Ordinal, without pushing it on-chain. But no, they spend by TapScript, so they use the most expensive way for no reason.

Arbitrary data can't be compressed/merged that way, so i know it can't be helped. Although i also refer to other usage such as HTLC used by LN and P2SH/P2WSH which reveal full script/all possible spend condition.