Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 8. (Read 9163 times)

Yeah, the more time goes by the clearer it becomes this is an abrupt halt, even if it were a bubble going off or finally the hype dying it wouldn't have happened just like that.


To be honest I don't plan to dig deeper and waste time on something that I'm not sure I want to know or have knowledge of but my initial thought on this decline was to blame it on something like that
- a large ordinal minting service going either offline or having troubles
- as you said, this whole activity might be actually faked by some groups who as you said are in control and faking both auction and trading activity to trick buyers into it and those who have taken a break, are probably not worth it anymore.

More than thinking his tweets and position have started this slowdown in minting one might have to ask if he and his business friends were not actually responsible for the entire activity, so rather than him making others stop it was just him deciding to stop.

I've noticed that too, as I've also created a related query dashboard

Apart of the community "turmoil" mentioned by nutildah above, maybe the "Runes" proposal by Casey Rodarmor has to do something with that. See the proposal here. I've not looked really at it still, at a very first glance it looks like ... coloured coins with another name?

On the other hand, Ordi token is doing relatively well, it has lost 85% of its value from ATH but has stabilized already some weeks ago and even had a bounce. AFAIK this is one of the most popular Ordinals/BRC-20 tokens.

So I'm currently quite clueless, but your suspicion about most of the Ordinals activity being maintained by a few centralized actors (regardless of their intentions) could be true actually.

Looks like during the entire minting timespan, there were 800k uncommon,  369 rare and 3 epic sats created (I'm willing to bet the one mythic is some kind of genesis transaction so it doesn't count).

It also seems that people are getting impatient with minting though, because the mempool size has been steadily deflating.

It is a way of creating "artificial scarcity" for the sake of assigning extra value to individual sats... Although there is some logic involved in the way the system has been created, most people don't recognize this value and they'd need to be onboarded -- similar to the way they are onboarded into NFTs or other collectibles, I suppose. Its just that the value proposition is particularly ridiculous because it didn't even exist a year ago.

Maybe if this type of Ordinals numbering system for satoshis sticks around in its current form for a decade, then it will be taken a bit more seriously... But its highly doubtful.

While @nutildah already clarify what Casey said, i'd like to point out Ordinals community doesn't have to follow changes made by him either. In fact, supporting new rule require code change and software update.


Don't forget Ordinal handbook mention 6 type of satoshi rarity. I expect people who like lucky/good number also find it's important.

Has something happened these days that led to this drop in BRC-20 tx?
https://dune.com/queries/2432736/3996424
I checked to see if it's an error but no, the mempool keeps going down so definitely there is a pause in those, in terms of raw volume yesterday was the 6th lowest from April!!

Doesn't look like the fad ending so abruptly so maybe a large service related to those experiencing issues?
Is this the result virtual monkey zoo going offline or whatever the congregation point of those decentralized assets is?

Ser, I asked for ELI-5. Haha.

Thanks for the well-illustrated explanation. Yeah, Ordinals is merely a made-up numbering system from the mind of Casey Rodarmor, which from the viewpoint of the blockchain the numbering/indexing is fluid that needs to resequenced? Did I get it right?


Are the numbers supposed to be so important? Isn't the ART, and having to proof that you own it, that's supposed to be the most important?

Except that's not what happened, or was even being discussed.

https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1706440775998062655


What happened was a self-described "Ordinals Influencer" is using his clout on social media to make sure any changes that are made will help the value of his own bag of Ordinals.

I definitely believe the entire thing could have been better thought-out before being executed, but one thing that's not happening is Rodarmor trying to change the numbering system.

It is quite simple: the main goal of Ordinals was to push data on-chain. And it was 100% delivered. You have that famous, almost 4 MB block, as one of the first inscriptions. It is like the Genesis Block, but for Ordinals: it shows you exactly, what this system is really about.

And then, on top of that, you have a fee-like ownership system, that was artificially added, just before release. Because well, if your only goal is to just push some data, then you don't need any proper ownership at all! But then, you realize that people will want some kind of ownership, if your protocol will evolve over time.

So, you have a perfect cloud-storage-like system, with no ownership enforced. How to solve that? Well, you can look at transaction fees, as your inspiration. You can easily note, that miners don't need to explicitly be listed as one of the recipients of transaction fees. Everything is counted implicitly. So, maybe you can enforce ownership, if you just count single satoshis, and assign ownership to each of them?

And that's how Ordinals ended up with the system we know today. The main idea behind ownership, was to just map each satoshi to its owner. But because an earlier version was cloud-storage-only, there was no ownership. Old signatures didn't contain any information about ownership. The creator had no idea about sighashes, and thought that the whole transaction is always signed. Also, the creator thought that all amounts will be non-zero, maybe because of the dust limit (that is a standardness rule, but not a consensus rule).

Then, the first version of the code was created. It just counted all satoshis on your inputs, and all satoshis on your outputs. And the whole idea behind tracing satoshis is very simple: if you have any transaction, you can sum all amounts in all inputs, this is your entry value. Then, you sum all amounts in all outputs, this is your exit value. If your outputs are smaller than your inputs, then you have some fee, so you place it at the end. Then, you have this picture:
And then, you can try to map the ownership. If Alice owns some satoshi with index "0", then it goes to Daniel. However, because signatures are not checked at all, then what if all inputs used SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY? Or if some wallet will sort your inputs differently? Then, this thing can happen:
Then, guess what, your precious satoshi with index "0" is no longer owned by Alice, but by Bob instead! The situation is even worse than that: if you assume that all of those satoshis are indexed from "0" to "13,68,000,000" (exclusive, like zero-indexed arrays), then you can own satoshi number "13,67,999,999", if you index things from zero. And what happens then? Of course, this particular satoshi is then sent as fees, to some random miner, and then it can fly between a lot of different addresses, if people are unaware, that they "own" some Ordinals!

And there is more: imagine that people decided to include some message to their transaction:
What happens then with the precious satoshi with index "0"? Well, the first input is OP_RETURN with zero amount. And then, if you code it in a wrong way, this transaction may mess up your global satoshi counter, when you start from "0", and you plan to end with something around 21 millions.

I believe part of the issue is the debate about Casey Rodarmor's proposal to change the numbering system of inscriptions. I'll not pretend that I understood everything technically to have a strong opinion, and I would welcome anyone who understands to post an ELI-5. BUT, I hate admitting this, franky1 is right. Because Casey Rodarmor invented the arbitrary numbering system that isn't truly backed by anything, he can also "change the rules" arbitrarily.

You are wanting to go back to the ever-repeated BIG blocker arguments that became popular in 2016 and maybe still lingering - a kind of expectation that everyone should be able to have free or close to free transactions on the main chain?

Certainly, I am not suggesting that everyone can wait, but surely there are ways to attempt to be somewhat strategic with figuring out how much of a rush you are in with regards to your transactions and what kinds of transactions are worth paying the higher fees..

So it seems that the last couple of weeks we had a bout of congestion in which:

1)  10 to 20 sats per vbyte (30¢ to 60¢ as long as it was coming from ONLY 1 address) had chances to confirm within several days to maybe even a week, but could take longer (maybe even a month on the lower end of the range),

2) 20-30 sats per vbyte (60¢ to 90¢) had chances to confirm within an hour but could take a 1-3 days, especially on the lower end of the price range,   

3) 30-60 sats per vbyte (90¢ to $1.80) had pretty decent chances to confirm within ten minutes to an hour, and of course, the higher up on the scale the more likely that your transaction would end up getting into the next block.

Even if we presume someone does not have time to wait, those are not outrageous fees for anyone sending $100 or more, yet of course with smaller value transactions they might become less economical for those who want to get their transactions to go through quickly. 

Sure, we can reasonably presume that several of these kinds of fees are going to become more costly with increased traffic times, yet we can still calculate how much BTC are we moving in order to decide how much it might cost to pay, and it does not seem unreasonable for the fees to go up even 10x during busy periods, and still there would be choices regarding how much value are we sending?  If the fees are up 10x from the ones of the last week, then surely we might choose to increase our lower limits in transactions, so instead of ONLY sending transactions of $100 or more, we might choose to ONLY transact on chain when the transactions are valued at least $1k or more.  We can decide for ourselves based on fees (and what we see as mempool congestion levels - or wallets might be showing/suggesting).

Lightning network does seem to be another plausible release valve for the lower transaction values during those kinds of higher fee times.. even though we have been finding lighting network to not always be very reliable.. so we seem to be in fairly early days for both seeing how the lightning options perform and also verifying that people have lightning options available to them - of course, the more self-autonomous concerned bitcoiners are going to want to make sure that self-custody options are available, but if we are merely talking about saving fees on lower transactions, there might not be any kinds of existential threats to sovereignty if some custodial solutions are being utilized during high congestion periods and if many people still might keep their main bitcoin stashes in various on chain private locations.. so maybe many less rich people might have bitcoin savings that are "ONLY" $1K to $50k in value, so they still would have a lot of sovereignty, even if onchain fees have periods of being high.. and maybe instead of sending their value around on chain every time it reaches $100, they might wait until it is more than $1k before sending it from off-chain (such as lightning network) to onchain locations.. in order to attempt to better strategize the fee situation. 

No idea, I actually tried to at least find out what they are at all storing in the chain, as the example just shows the hash of the used block but, I assume it's nothing on the size of ordinals as it would make little sense since you have to store all of them in a limited time frame as the polls close, so under 1 hour for all polling sections.

Here is how it looks:
https://verify.simpleproof.com/TSE/P-000024/5eb5f203667489b8c6e045fc3ee2205b5e500557821cd770f5c696e2594bc434
a lot of my VPNs got blocked on it, just letting you know.


Everyone trying to get a small amount from Binance when they were charging 0.001 BTC for a withdrawal at a time that was close to $30. 

yeah lets be honest. who among us here hasn't had a bit of coin on an exchange and said to themself "nah, i think i'll just use litecoin since the fees are way cheaper!" ? its sad that bitcoin can't actually be usable with very low fees but as this thread shows, you got people waiting weeks for their txn to confirm. who can afford to pay a fee AND wait weeks? not me!

so the monkeys got obliterated off the face of the blockchain by these BRC20s. i guess the bitcoin nft hype is over.

bitcoin power user here ^^^^  

that's ironic for sure. he's the one that started it all.

by the way i wonder where franky is. this is an ordinals thread so franky would naturally gravitate here to explain why they are not real nfts. neglecting that the entire nft market has kind of become worthless not just bitcoin ones.  

Once again there are other chains

LTC and Doge which are well protected by lots of asic gear.

I know every one get pissed when I write these posts but scrypt algo does 2x the ltc blocks and 10x the doge blocks.

Moves value cheap and easy and fast.

Plus it is not going away.

Also both Doge investors and Ltc investors have an interest in clogging the btc blockchain.  thus keeping there chains in action

I know no one like me to point it out, but

BTC 144 blocks x 6.25 x 26,500 = 23,850,000 usd a day

LTC 288 blocks x 6.25 x 65 = 117,000 usd

DOGE 1440 blocks x 10,000 x .06 = 864,000 usd

so 24 million vs 1 million daily in mining income

and the ½ will lower BTC mining income while keeping scrypt the same.

Seems to me a lot of pressure on the BTC mem pool will continue.

LN has yet to alleviate it.

the 2024 ½ ing will be fun.

I imagine if there are 470k transactions pending, then I am going to try to adjust my fee setting to the amount that I think that the transaction will clear in the amount of time that I would like the transaction to go through. 

There are probably several levels of confidence, and if I can try to figure out how the fee system works in bitcoin, then I would try to set my fees in order to attempt to accomplish the level of satisfaction that I would like to get without necessarily pissing off people with whom I am transaction or losing any of my credibility if there either might be a relationship that I am trying to maintain or that I am not trying to unduly cause tarnish on my own reputation.

Of course, with some strangers, I might not give any shits about my reputation - and so then the receiver has to make sure that s/he is protected and does not give over the good or service without some kind of guarantee that the payment has gone through or will go through.

If I am dealing with a complete stranger and there is a timeline for the payment to be received, then likely I am going to set my fees at some percentage above the fees that had been clearing 20% to 50% higher should be good, unless the fee rate is moving around erratically.  Of course, some wallets are better than others at predicting reasonable fees, and surely more and more wallets are allowing the ability to customly set fees.

In my response to this post, I went to look at my 13 sats per vbyte transaction from nearly a week ago, and it is appears that it has cleared within the last 5 hours.. and there looks like there was a bit of a spike down in the pending transactions around the time that mine for 13 sats per vbyte cleared.. so yeah, that one took nearly a week to clear. but there wasn't any rush on it.. and maybe I would not have started to get worried until about mid-October, if it had not yet cleared by that time.

And right below that:


You pay 50 cents extra and you're in the first block, it doesn't matter how many tx are in the mempool it matters how much they are willing to pay and for ordinals high fees are not economically feasible.

I'm not using any website actually, my wallet software reports this. I'd prefer to not disclose the name for opsec reasons. Btw, i tried to send some more coins yesterday and the fee suggested by the wallet software was even higher (something like 50-60sat/byte). Crazy times...


Hahaha! The spammer encourages to spam other spammers! Let him have a gulp of his own medicine. 

Its mainly BRC20 these days, which are small inscriptions denoting the transfer of Bitcoin-native tokens. 336k BRC20 transactions just yesterday:

https://dune.com/cryptokoryo/brc20

According to one of the graphs in the above link, BRC20 transactions now account for 55% - 60% of all Bitcoin transactions. Pretty nuts. But I am certain they will eventually die down. Still, it is annoying and super expensive for me to do my own non-standard transactions with Counterparty, lol.

There's been some strife and turmoil within the Ordinals community recently. Turns out Rodarmor hates BRC20 and is looking for ways to sabotage them.

https://twitter.com/rodarmor/status/1705369258426036526

probably has something to do with this:

Bitcoin Network Faces Congestion with Over 470,000 Pending Transactions
https://cryptopotato.com/bitcoin-network-faces-congestion-with-over-470000-pending-transactions/

I wonder if it's bitcoin nfts causing it. imagine needing to pay someone but there's almost half a million transactions ahead of you. and it can only do 7 transactions per second. 

You are not exactly wrong in terms of the point that you are making which we can see that since about the first few days of September, the mem pools have not really been clearing transactions in the lower 10s.. sats per vbyte, and largely staying above 20 sats per vbyte.. so surely it sometimes might even take a while to clear those in the 20s and 30sats per vbyte unless some of the transactions can get cleared out.  I might have to start to get worried in a couple of weeks if my transaction has not yet cleared.. at least in terms of considering if I might want to try to do something about it or to even send another transaction with a higher fee in order to serve in the place of the one that I had sent but did not have a rush in terms of it reaching its destination.

I tend to get my mempool historical information from here.  https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,3m,weight

And, I will also look at what various wallets are suggesting for the high, medium and low fees.

PS.  By the way, @serveriawhich website are you using to figure out how far your pending transaction is from the tip?