Topic: NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory - page 9. (Read 9532 times)

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?

My transaction cleared minutes after I published this post. It went up from 150mb from tip to the very top immediately. Perhaps a bug in my wallet software or something as I found no evidence Ordinals or any other NFT spam intensifying.   

I have a transaction that I set at around 13 sats per vbyte within the last few days, and so I already have an understanding that it could take several days and maybe weeks to clear.

A few months ago, I had some others that took a while to go through when I set them at the lower end of the range of what had been being cleared, and surely I can see that there remains a bit of a gap between my transaction and the ones that are currently clearing in the 20-ish sats per vbyte, as you mentioned.

Wen clear?


hahahahaha

I don't really care that much.. I set my fees in that kind of way  just to watch it, but if I was transacting with a stranger, probably there would be a need to set it in the 30-50 sats per vbyte range in order to NOT piss anyone off or to risk losing reputation/credibility.

Not sure Ordinals or something else but my transaction is currently showing at around 150MB from tip. The fee is ~23sat/byte which is by now means small. What could be the reason for this?

That's true, and I'm only giving credit to where credit is due. But the compliment given is more for Bitcoin's permissionless nature, than for the initiative to start building Ordinals by its developer Casey Rodarmor.

Plus from the rest of your reply, TIL. Thanks for the well-written post.

Yes, it all started from this huge, non-standard, almost 4 MB block. If the main goal for Ordinals would be something different, then they would start from something else. Not to mention that if you want to test edge cases like that, then it is way easier to do so on testnet3, signet, or even your own regtest, than to ask some pool like Luxor. And because there are a lot of non-Ordinals cloud-storage cases on testnet3, then they could focus on encouraging those users to use Ordinals first, or even just trace their "non-Ordinals inscriptions" (also because testnet3 allows non-standard scripts, so you can do more things with Ordinals on testnet3 than on mainnet).

Ordinals don't use those properties. A lot of wallets can change the order of your inputs or outputs, and boom, it breaks Ordinals. Also, because Ordinals don't care about sighashes, they are wide open if you don't use SIGHASH_ALL.

There is a difference between "permissionless" and "testless". Ordinals were "testless", because they didn't write many tests they should, before going into mainnet. And that's why ownership is not enforced (nobody tested that), that's why zero satoshis can break things (nobody tested that), and that's why sighashes are not used (nobody tested that). Not to mention things like CoinJoin (also nobody tested that). Also, there are probably even more bugs in mimetypes or recursion, but they will explode later, because it is the same situation (nobody tested that).

In case of Lightning Network, it was tested, at least partially, before touching mainnet.

Didn't care, cloud storage? But aren't all sats in your wallet, which can only be moved if you control the keys, already represent actual ownership of the "property".


My personal opinon. If there's anything to like about Ordinals "as a project", it's because they didn't ask for permission to start building. They just built it, just like how the Lightning Network developers built their network.


That's precisely why we might just be scratching the surface. Developers nor users still hasn't seen Bitcoin's "final form". Or there might not be a "final form", it might evolve continuously. Although some parts of the network might have ossified.

No, just the creators of software for Ordinals didn't care about implementing ownership properly. All they did, was just "Bitcoin as a cloud storage". They made a lot of mistakes, for example skipped testnet3 entirely (or any other test network). We are not "early", there were protocols that enforced ownership, just Ordinals is not one of them, because it was not the main goal, it was a side effect.

Not really, because people still don't know, how many things are possible. And we can still enjoy quite empty mempool, compared to what it could be if more people would know about it.

This person lost his entire Ordinals collection but he's "tracking" them.


He continued with,


Obviously now some sats are more valuable than others, subjectively. It might either be good or bad, depending on the person, but what it probably adds is another psychological market-dynamic for pricing Bitcoin down to the lowest accounting unit, the Satoshi.

In your opinion, are we still very early in our Bitcoin journey? Are we just starting to scratch the surface?

i thought bitcoin transactions could have as many utxo inputs as they wanted to. so why couldn't someone use 10 utxos to pay for their monkey and then that would be reducing the utxo set by 10-2=8 utxos. the only time the utxo set count would increase is if someone used only 1 utxo to pay for their entire monkey. but if i had to guess, i'd imagine the average bitcoin transaction uses at least 2 utxos.

Ordinal data indeed isn't stored on UTXO set. But,
1. There are so many new Ordinal inscription created.
2. When you create new inscription, Ordinal create 2 TX. 2nd TX usually have 1 input and 2 output. 1 input refer to "monkey" (arbitrary data) and 2 output which rerepsent change address and new UTXO which represent ownership of that Ordinals.

i'm not going to disagree with that. i think it's probably true! at least there's an upper limit to how many ordinals could exist. 21 million times 100 million. that's enough for every man, woman and child on the face of the planet to own around a million or at least half a million monkeys 

When someone makes a monkey on bitcoin ordinals, does that increase the size of the utxo set though? I didn't think the monkey got stored in the utxo set...

It's also worth to mention pace of UTXO growth remain unchanged since Ordinal-based token become popular[1]. Few months ago i mentioned massive UTXO growth at ~102.5 million UTXO[2], but now we're looking at 119.9 million UTXO[1].

[1] https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&from=now%2Fy&to=now
[2] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62363628

Obviously not, and the Ordinals users/"advocates" themselves wouldn't give a direct answer which NFT/BRC-20 token they suggest you to HODL WITH conviction. Probably Udi will say it's his Onchain Wizards NFT, but we can't truly trust a troll, and a project that might also be built for trolling the Bitcoin community. Perhaps Udi has gone Taleb on us.

But I truly want to know. Ordinals fans, which NFT/BRC-20 token do you honestly believe will have long term success?

Sure who wants to follow all of the nitty-gritty drama, but it still seems to me that Udi is not dumb or anything, while at the same time, it seems that his ego has gotten too big.

He can do whatever he wants in his little made-up battles against so called bitcoin maximalists as he defines them, but it seems likely that he is not going to be on the right side of history when he has let himself become so emotional and ego-driven.

I have serious doubts about this.
I don’t indulge into shit ornery very much, but after months of this Ordinals saga, I haven’t seen a clear winner in the space. There isn’t a BAYC equivalent for ordinals, and while I understand that minting is different than trading, I doubt this relentless minting activity will be ever be beneficial for prices.

OK, I have a theory. But it's already very obvious.

- Because Ordinals users have been carving their own niche within the Bitcoin community/organizing their own conferences/having their own "heroes" with Casey Rodarmor and Erin Redwing, I believe that during the next bull cycle some of those BRC-20 tokens and NFTs will DEFINITELY surge MORE than Bitcoin. If I wanted to do some shitcoining, frankly not my first time, which BRC-20 token should I gamble?

I think there is a tiny difference between minting and transactions and the price those things fetch on the market.
While Bitcoin maxis would have little interest on how much a monkey is valued in some fake auction, what most here are concerned is the amount of "spam" those things do, and if you look at the statistics:

% of BTC Transactions
https://dune.com/queries/2432967/3996835


Number of BRC-20 Inscription Minted
https://dune.com/queries/2433706/3998316


Not that much has changed, one might say it's even worse.

But from the point of view of those more technically intelligent collectors, there would probably be more value in NFTs inscribed in the most secure Blockchain in the world than those merely minted in an off-chain layer. I might be the stupid one, but if I wanted to collect dick pics, I would only want them inscribed on-chain, in the Bitcoin blockchain.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯