Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 13. (Read 9248 times)

Well, fads normally don't last only a couple of days. At least some weeks, and most of them a couple of months. But not more than half a year, normally.

BRC-20 and other small text-type transactions are already on a downward trend since at least a week, so they were probably a very short fad. The peak seems to have been May 7, with 314988 small text inscriptions. Now it went down to 200-240K per day. The reason that the total size of all inscriptions is still high seems to be that we see now a little bit more slightly bigger inscription transactions (probably NFTs) again.

But transaction fees are returning to reasonable levels again (I consider everything reasonable which lets you send BTC for less than $2-3, BTC was always bad for microtransactions, but ok for $50 txes and more). Yesterday they fell for a moment below 14 sat/vbyte, the first time in 2 weeks, that's around 50 cents for a standard Segwit transaction. I believe it will be difficult to get to 1 sat/byte again, but that fee level anyway was mostly reachable in bear markets and we're now very likely in the first phase of a bull market.

Its only a fad, it will pass on its own...



Keep waiting people...

As you have aforementioned, many threads on this topic have already been made and which indicates the interest of the people and how they think of it as like whether are they against it or in support of it. And i have replied in almost every topic. here are some:

• Bitcoin Civil War
• Why BTC Transactions Fees are Skyrocketing?--> My own topic
• Ordinals/BRC-20 Tokens
• Are you for or against ordinals?
• [WORK IN PROGRESS] How to use `ord` to make Bitcoin Ordinals--> i just do not understand this topic because he has already made a topic Bitcoin Civil War and still using the same ordinals. Maybe i misunderstood it.

The list is not small, the point is, as i have recently replied in the Civil War of BTC topic that i am against this ordinal's BRC -20 tokens because they have affected the reputation of BTC and i dislike that. If any solution is made to comprehend the transactions fee and congestion problem so that the delay could be solved on each transaction then i have no problem with BRC-20 tokens well there are nor ORC-20 and DRC-20 tokens too. Well, you might have heard that Dogecoin is also making DRC-20 Token. All of these things are base-less and really is not the main idea behind the origin of BTC. as BTC was made to provide financial freedom to the people so that they could live an independent life from centralized figures and manage their funds on their own while keeping their value of there money save and if it is growing over time then its a combo.

No wonder, these BRC-20 token have made many people rich, and BTC has been used as a way to make people rich from scratch or i would say from garbage as these NFTs/images they are inscribing in the BTC blockchain is garbage. i hope this would be solved soon and i also hope the ones who have invested their money in these shit tokens do not lose their value because money is everything and i hope in this war i stand in favor of both parties and that things go easy on both.

Hey nutildah, grow up. Our freedom is to freely spam anyone, so please provide your email address here in this thread and we'll spam the sh*t out of it. That's our freedom to do so! I swear, we'll only use the legitimate servers with PTR, DMARC, DKIM in place, so we won't be breaking any email rules to spam you! Oh yeah and btw I promise you'll even be able to use your inbox (from time to time)   

Having read a bit more, it certainly sounds encouraging. 

So yes, this is what "devs need to fix it" looks like.  Not "HuRr DuRr BaNz ThEmZ nAo PlZ!" like the censorship supporters want.  The provision off an off-chain solution is ideal for this sort of thing.  Although I'm sure franky1 will still hate it for reasons known only to him.   

Grow up.

Your personal spam attack has had zero effect on anything remotely related to resolving the issue.

Stop spamming the Bitcointalkchain.

There are nearly infinite ways to inject arbitrary data to the chain. Doing so only pushes Ordinal fans to adopt another encoding scheme, putting Bitcoin principles at risk. As I have already said, they can even represent Ordinals as indistinguishable Bitcoin transactions, and at that point you will have made things worse, because then we'll have to keep these trash outputs in the UTXO set forever.

We have never censored a type of transaction because of denial to accept it fits our Bitcoin standards.

Reusing OP_RETURN is not. Yes, you can put up to 10,000 bytes in an OP_RETURN output, if I'm not mistaken, but nothing prevents you from re-doing it, essentially injecting as much data as you want.

A protocol change is beyond standardness. Let's not kid ourselves, you want Ordinals invalid, not non-standard.

And nobody ever complained about using Bitcoin beyond as just currency. From the very early days, we had NFTs. Now, someone wants to take advantage of censorship-resistant cloud storage, who am I to tell him what to do with that money; especially when there is no manner to prevent him.

---

I haven't read it. I know how lightning works in theory, and it just doesn't make much sense but maybe it's possible.

The protocol is slightly flexible in some places where it can be used like that. For example when Satoshi inserted that text in the coinbase of Genesis block. But it is both within the rules without any exploitation and also it is very limited to 100 bytes.
You can't even begin to compare that with the Ordinals Attack that is both exploiting the protocol and injecting as much data as they can into the blocks with basically no limit apart from the block size.

They did take issue with it from day one, and by they I include Satoshi himself. For example by principle the BitDNS project was like Ordinals, storing data on bitcoin blockchain:
This is not the only time either. Ethereum was also supposed to be as part of Bitcoin and we all know how that ended up.

We also didn't sit idly by just rejecting everything anybody proposes, other better solutions were proposed. For example for BitDNS the NameCoin as a separate cryptocurrency was created. For turing complete smart contracts the Ethereum was created. Even to help these smaller projects not to have a weak security things like merge mining were invented.
And a lot more including the existing bitcoin side-chain projects.

The problem doesn't lie in the content at all. After all BitDNS idea was cool and useful too and yet it shouldn't have happened on bitcoin blockchain because the problem is that they are trying to swat a fly using a sledgehammer.

I was of the impression that Taro was designed for that sort of thing?  Admittedly I don't know too much about it yet.  But I know it would be glorious if something powered by Taproot or LN is actually the solution to a thing that franky1 is whining about.   

Don't take this personally, but didn't you know that the more usage means the more fee rate? Fees increasing sounds more like a good situation to me.

Not necessarily. Ordinals (and tokens in general) is all about proving ownership to the wide public, but lightning is all about proving ownership to your partner. You can't prove ownership of funds in lightning to the public, you can only prove ownership of channel.

I don't think it's even possible to implement a non-fungible token transfer in lightning; surely in another off-chain solution, but not that.

Bitcoin never leaves the blockchain and value never leaves the channel.  But yet, the ownership of funds within that channel can be changed and then confirmed back to the blockchain.  If the ownership of funds can be changed, so can the ownership of assets.

You just wasted a large amount of words to say "it'll work just fine and franky1 is the derpiest troll that ever derped in all of trolldom".  


//EDIT:


Wrong because franky.  Surely by the law of averages you should have got something correct by now.   

sily thing about the lemmings that love LN, they are now trying to ride the hype of "tokens".. but the LN lemmings dont even know how LN works to realise it wont work.. but hey they dont care as long as they can recruit people to syphon value from them.

value does not leave a channel. meaning no "token" moves around the route path of LN
imagine
btc1pUTXO123 (0.001) -> LNpartner123A (0.0001)
                                       LNpartner123B (0.0009)
all LN does in channel is change the value A or B has of the utxo WITHIN THAT CHANNEL

B for instance then has a DIFFERENT channel with a DIFFERENT UTXO(well not all channels have funded utxo actually)
btc1pUTXO657 (0.001) -> LNpartner657B (0.0001)
                                       LNpartner657C (0.0009)

the onion packets of LN payments along a route are not transfering bitcoin tx's. they are just msat numbers of how much each participant wants to borrow from each other along a route. which is not settled. so its a IOU system

C does not get anything from btc1pUTXO123.. he only gets value from btc1pUTXO657
nothing transfers from
btc1pUTXO123 to btc1pUTXO657 in bitcoin form

imagine channels like this

the A-B beads stay within the cream frame(channel). they never actually move to the other blue frame
the B-C beads stay within the blue frame(channel). they never actually move to the other cream frame

thus you cant transfer tokens on LN

they just re-tally who OWES who (IOU) within the cream OR blue frame where
A contracts(loan agreement) to borrow B's balance within blue channel to C where eventually A will give B balance in A's cream channel if B agrees to use his blue frame value to C

but A never touches or gives blue any A balance
C never gets cream balance

again. the funds in cream channel do not move to C. the msats of A do not go to C. nor do the utxo Sats that A might give B later. those too dont go to C
..
its really a shame that those that promote crap cant even be bothered to even learn their crap to atleast understand the crap they are promoting

so LN wont be the arbiter nor transfer of any crap. because crap never leaves a channel

now back to the "crap"
the junk of ordinals is not even using any intrinsic value or any form of proof of transfer that is true to cryptography or tagging an output to be a destination. meaning anyone even if they see something in a blockchain can use a "special explorer" to pretend to one person that person X owns it while on another explorer pretend that person Y owns it. whereby in a court. the hopeful owner has no case of ownership and the scammy seller can deny ever making a sale thus no crime committed. and try to counter sue the person that got scammed for false claim. by saying the scammed victim is actually a scammer trying to claim something thats not theirs because they thought it was.. kind of how CSW does things

I agree with you that taking away something that is already used by others is a bad idea, and is contrary to the freedom and independence idea behind crypto currencies. It took me a while to understand the concept of ordinals and still I am not convinced that they are really needed. Which doesn't mean that others can't see a great value in them. I also never bought any NFTs and found the whole idea of owning digital pictures a bit out of order. But just because it's nothing for me I don't want to decide for everybody else. My main concern is the impact of the transaction fees for bitcoin. If fees keep increasing because of the idea demand than it's a bad situation for all of us and needs to be addressed. We still need to figure out however how long lasting the whole idea is. With NFTs it was a huge initial boom that eventually quite down, maybe with ordinals it will be the same.

No one is interested in paying too much fees so why "token" holders and issuers won't use LN if it will be additionally improved for it? Best way to make someone to do something is to make it profitable and comfortable, they will use it themselves.

LN devs are developing now several things which should make token transactions easier and layer 2 transactions to demand less approving through main chain. The more usable and easy becomes LN the more users will use it and so the load on the bitcoin blockchain will be lower.

You don't have to force anyone if you can make what you want them to do attractive to them.

so they can just take peoples' normal transactions and re-route them to the Lightning Network without their permission? Just because they determine something is spam? Even if they already paid a normal fee? Sounds like censorship to me. Or maybe I just don't understand how the mechanism would work.

Considering what exactly? What power does a LN dev have over forcing someone to use Lightning Network?

how is it possible and would people with monkeys agree to it?

This is more or less what I've been trying to say for a while now, that "generic" transactions should be moved over to LN, whether that be BRC20 or low-value transactions, as both clog up the mempool and cause congestion, so it's good to hear LN devs considering this. Despite others (or one particular person) in this thread thinking it's not possible to move inscriptions over to a sidechain, it clearly is possible, and not only that would be cheaper as well as better for everyone. I'm otherwise not convinced the amount of "legit payments" will be low enough to handle on the mainnet for years to come, eventually it will become too costly.

For example it might only be around 20 sats/vB ($1) right now with a busy mempool, but that could quite easily be $10 or $100 per transaction in the near future with price increases, with or without BRC20 inscriptions. It's likely that we'll look back at 2023 and the high fees and be grateful that it kick started real development and adoption of L2 solutions that will be desperately needed in the future for Bitcoin to remain affordable. Just like we can look back at 2017 and in hindsight see how it helped the adoption of segwit due to the rising fees, otherwise it's unlikely that this adoption would have happened as quickly as it did.

This is precisely the reason why L2 solutions are in development, because ultimately Bitcoin's mainnet is un-scalable and therefore L2 solutions are a basic requirement in order to continue expansion of Bitcoin network. It's not because they are needed right now, although are or would be useful, but because it will be a necessity in the future, there is little to no question about that based on Bitcoin's utility growth. Baring in mind that the likes of segwit is not  a scaling solution, it's a one-off implementation to allow roughly twice as much data per block. That's not scaling, that's basically a plaster on the problem to buy time.

This is why overall I'm in favour of Bitcoin network facing this sort of "stress test". In computing, this helps to encourage and incentivize development in the direction that is required to resolve problems, just like in 2017. There's the old saying "If it's not broke don't fix it". This is why people feeling like Bitcoin's network is "broke" due to high fees (even if it's obviously not) is exactly what's needed to encourage future development.

This solution is being considered right now by LN devs I believe. Moving all NFT transactions to LN could potentially free up the mempool. Regular payments are not an issue - the amount of legit payments is low enough for the blockchain to handle for years to come. The issue however is to transfer all spam to L2.

What does Andreas have to say about all of this? he's a pretty smart guy and he's a huge proponent of bitcoin. we need to find out what he has to say about it.

They do actually -- or some of them, anyways. They're called on-chain NFTs. One of the most famous such projects is called Autoglyphs. One of my favorite ones is the CryptoDickbutts. I don't own any of them, but they are funny.

https://decrypt.co/resources/how-are-nfts-stored-on-chain-off-chain-and-decentralized-storage

So you want to say that it is possible to let those ones who already have "tokens" to operate them freely, to buy them and to sell them as long as they want, but not to let to create new "tokens", right? And how can be it done if to talk from the technical side? What will prevent from creating new "tokens" but let to operate the same old "tokens"?

As i understand, it is impossible. You can or let to operate "tokens" which makes possible to create new "tokens" also, or ban creating new ones, but old ones become useless, so it is an expropriation.