On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 26.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: DooMAD on April 24, 2023, 08:50:03 AM

Quote from: nutildah on April 24, 2023, 12:57:52 AM

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes. I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things. I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task. Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate.

And I see it more as a civil war.

Meanwhile, while we are wasting time arguing about what to do about Ordinals, other problems surrounding Bitcoin (which I think almost everyone here on this thread is aware about) has are not getting any solutions. So maybe, it is better to redirect our word power into fighting those things.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on April 24, 2023, 11:12:27 AM

Quote from: nutildah on April 24, 2023, 12:57:52 AM

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack."

While I do agree that NFTs should not be seen as an attack, I hope you understand Ordinals became a feature by mistake.

Is it really mistake when default verification of Taproot script (see BIP 342) intentionally remove limit (such as 10000 bytes script size limit) which exist on previous script type?

Quote from: Abiky on April 24, 2023, 09:10:04 PM

I think it would've been better for Ordinals to live on a Layer-2 scaling solution such as the Lightning Network just to avoid adding further pressure to the main Bitcoin blockchain. Maybe nodes/miners will ultimately reject transactions with Ordinals inscriptions for the good of the network itself? I really hope BTC stays cheap and fast to use (sort of) for day-to-day payments. Otherwise, it'd become completely unusable. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

But until now, NFT on LN (with protocol such as RGB and Tro), NFT on sidechain (such as RSK) or Ordinal data stored else-where (such as side-chain layer and BitTorrent) are mostly ignored by people who are NFT enthusiast and own some Bitcoin. I expect this thread will continue as long as NFT enthusiast prefer storing their data (image, audio, etc.) on-chain or there's very user-friendly to make NFT on LN/side-chain.

Abiky

legendary

Activity: 3220

Merit: 1363

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: pooya87 on April 23, 2023, 11:18:30 PM

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

The logic is similar to the withdrawal fee people pay exchanges. Normally you'd say 50k-100k satoshi fee for a bitcoin transaction is outrageously high and yet you'd pay it to withdraw your coins from the exchange simply because there is an incentive to send your coins there in first place (profit from trading) hence that amount doesn't seem that high.

That's the real issue. Thanks for highlighting that. Even though fees can increase with every NFT inscription, scammers can still profit by selling their NFTs at a high price on the market. Most people don't do their own research when investing into crypto or NFTs themselves, so they will get scammed big time.

I think it would've been better for Ordinals to live on a Layer-2 scaling solution such as the Lightning Network just to avoid adding further pressure to the main Bitcoin blockchain. Maybe nodes/miners will ultimately reject transactions with Ordinals inscriptions for the good of the network itself? I really hope BTC stays cheap and fast to use (sort of) for day-to-day payments. Otherwise, it'd become completely unusable. No one can predict the future, so we can only hope for the best. Just my opinion

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: nutildah on April 24, 2023, 12:57:52 AM

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack." You're nearly as bad as franky1 in that regard except the difference is you get paid to post b.s. and he does it out of his own free will.

whoever pooya lets pay him to post they are lucky because he contributes alot to the forum. ALOT.

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Yep, I also disapprove the way Ordinals was introduced (more on that here). However, in a decentralized P2P setting, you can't really avoid this kind of hacks.

I also think it's not really an attack, most likely simply they thought it would add a "cool" NFT feature to good ol' BTC. However, we can't be sure that it's not an move by a group which wants to take the Bitcoin network in a certain direction.

For example, it's possible that it was conceived in reality by a group of miners who want to boost transaction fees with that, creating finally the long awaited "fee market".

There are also some other groups who have advocated in the past that Bitcoin block space should be scarce, and that Bitcoin should be used as a settlement layer, for example for Lightning or sidechains adoption. It's also possible that for example a sidechain company (Stacks, Blockstream, RSK) is behind the move, although I don't really believe that. Of course, also a NFT company could be the originator of the idea.

So an attack (in the sense of "a move by a group to benefit themselves in detriment of some Bitcoin users") unfortunately can't be ruled out completely.

However, I'm generally pretty chill, as ordinal size and blockchain usage is generally on a downtrend, although there seems to have been an activity peak just yesterday.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: nutildah on April 24, 2023, 12:57:52 AM

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack."

While I do agree that NFTs should not be seen as an attack, I hope you understand Ordinals became a feature by mistake. Exploiting a part of the protocol in such manner that would make the rest introduce means of censorship to fix it later on, while genius, should not be expected to be seen by everyone as a standard state of the network. Unless you think that Ordinals would inevitably come at some point, whether that exploit was found or not.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: nutildah on April 24, 2023, 12:57:52 AM

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

My stance falls somewhere between the two extremes. I don't see it as an attack, but it is a tremendously wasteful and inefficient way to do things. I certainly wouldn't encourage the use of this exploit when there are far more suitable ways to implement it.

It's about finding the right medium for a given task. Much like how a toddler's crayon doodles can definitely go on the fridge, but displaying them in a major art gallery wouldn't be appropriate.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: pooya87 on April 23, 2023, 11:18:30 PM

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

This is about your 60th post where you've incorrectly referred to ordinals as an "attack." You're nearly as bad as franky1 in that regard except the difference is you get paid to post b.s. and he does it out of his own free will.

The word "attack" infers that someone or some entity is attempting to do harm to something. As a noun it is defined as an "aggressive and violent action", except the thing is it hasn't interrupted Bitcoin in the slightest. Bitcoin continues to do its own thing just fine. It doesn't give a shit about how you think it should or shouldn't be used, BTW.

Basically its as simple as inscribers are utilizing Bitcoin in a way that you disapprove of so you're labeling it an "attack" out of butt hurtness. The sad thing is you'll keep lying and never get over it so long as there is financial incentive for you to not (aka continuing to rack up shitposts about it being an "attack").

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: Abiky on April 23, 2023, 06:20:12 PM

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost. BTC is strong and resilient, so there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts Grin

This seems to be the most popular assumption so far although it sounds wrong. As I've said before this type of attack (unlike the previous forms) creates an incentive to spam so the attackers may not care about the cost while regular users sending bitcoin around do. That incentive is the scam market that is being built around the Ordinals Attack.

The logic is similar to the withdrawal fee people pay exchanges. Normally you'd say 50k-100k satoshi fee for a bitcoin transaction is outrageously high and yet you'd pay it to withdraw your coins from the exchange simply because there is an incentive to send your coins there in first place (profit from trading) hence that amount doesn't seem that high.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Abiky on April 23, 2023, 06:20:12 PM

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost.

i'm not sure that's a valid point of view in the sense that not all inscriptions take up huge amounts of space. maybe some of them are smaller than some non ordinals "normal" bitcoin transactions so no I don't think your point of view is really having a validity. normal users are never going to escape the transaction fee premium being caused by this new use case. if fees go way higher than of course, that impacts people using ordinals but it also affects people wanting to just do normal transactions.

Abiky

legendary

Activity: 3220

Merit: 1363

www.Crypto.Games: Multiple coins, multiple games

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 21, 2023, 06:31:15 AM

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance. But, from the technical viewpoint, Ordinals are valid transactions that follows the consensus rules. Some people could argue that it's an exploit, its supporters argue that it's a feature. Both can be right depending on the person's point of view, but from Bitcoin's point of view, they are valid.

Ordinals NFTs are just "inscriptions" on the Bitcoin blockchain. They don't contain data from the NFT itself. As long as network fees are paid, the transaction is considered valid by the Blockchain. We could say "spam attacks" are also valid transactions, even though their intentions are malicious. Eventually, fees will rise to a point where it becomes economically unfeasible for the attacker to continue spamming the network with transactions.

I believe the same will happen with Ordinals in the long run. The higher the rate of NFTs inscriptions, the higher the fees will be. Once that happens, there will be a decline in NFT inscriptions, paving the way for normal users to perform transactions at a lower cost. BTC is strong and resilient, so there should be nothing to worry about. Just my thoughts Grin

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: DooMAD on April 21, 2023, 08:02:35 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 21, 2023, 06:31:15 AM

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance.

In most cases that's true. However, Doom's predecessor, Wolfenstein 3D, was banned in Germany for a fairly significant length of time (for obvious reasons). So there may be some fringe cases where censorship resistance could be a legitimate need. But a blockchain remains an incredibly inefficient way to do it. Particularly when filesharing technology has come such a long way and is purpose-built for that task.

I'm talking about specifically the Bitcoin blockchain because it would be so inefficient. BitTorrent is a better network for that, the user can just download the files, then run the software locally.

When speaking of censorship-resistance, I believe it should solve something and make things more efficient, like for instance ransomware. Everyone sees it as something nefarious, but what Bitcoin actually did is it made a market out of insecure software, therefore making software builders release security updates/patches more often. There was a gap, a need, there that Bitcoin filled.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 21, 2023, 06:31:15 AM

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance.

In most cases that's true. However, Doom's predecessor, Wolfenstein 3D, was banned in Germany for a fairly significant length of time (for obvious reasons). So there may be some fringe cases where censorship resistance could be a legitimate need. But a blockchain remains an incredibly inefficient way to do it. Particularly when filesharing technology has come such a long way and is purpose-built for that task.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 06, 2023, 09:02:35 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I also didn't know Ordinals website can do this. I also found there's Snake game at https://ordinals.com/content/6edf80efbbae537b554340c31496439b57bef65357a57f21cbb547bc6287d7bfi0. But based on it's content type, it looks like you need to convert the game into HTML to make sure it's playable on browser unless you want to extract .exe or .com manually from ordinals transaction.

they even uploaded doom: https://decrypt.co/120459/will-it-run-doom-bitcoin

i tried it but it made my computer run too slow almost grinding it to a halt. Shocked

Using of a blockchain for gaming would be a stupid way to use it, just like dick pics and fart sounds in the Bitcoin blockchain. Nothing of those truly need censorship-resistance. But, from the technical viewpoint, Ordinals are valid transactions that follows the consensus rules. Some people could argue that it's an exploit, its supporters argue that it's a feature. Both can be right depending on the person's point of view, but from Bitcoin's point of view, they are valid.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: ?? on ??

I also didn't know Ordinals website can do this. I also found there's Snake game at https://ordinals.com/content/6edf80efbbae537b554340c31496439b57bef65357a57f21cbb547bc6287d7bfi0. But based on it's content type, it looks like you need to convert the game into HTML to make sure it's playable on browser unless you want to extract .exe or .com manually from ordinals transaction.

they even uploaded doom: https://decrypt.co/120459/will-it-run-doom-bitcoin

i tried it but it made my computer run too slow almost grinding it to a halt. Shocked

vapourminer

legendary

Activity: 4354

Merit: 3614

what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?

Quote from: ?? on ??

I also didn't know Ordinals website can do this. I also found there's Snake game at https://ordinals.com/content/6edf80efbbae537b554340c31496439b57bef65357a57f21cbb547bc6287d7bfi0. But based on it's content type, it looks like you need to convert the game into HTML to make sure it's playable on browser unless you want to extract .exe or .com manually from ordinals transaction.

i went back to the zork ordinal, seems it tries to load a font and save the gamestate to local storage.

i dont like it.

KiaKia

sr. member

Activity: 728

Merit: 388

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

I have no interest in this ordinal thing but it's cool that someone comes up with this idea, to me it's just another opportunity to make some money off this so-called utility.

I doubt if people will utilize it anyway, we already have NFT, and NFT is been utilized by business giants in the world today.

I don't see how Ordinals will take the same road when the news was out I do take advantage of Ordinal Finance, I got in early and made some profits then I sold it all, including a few NFTs, then I bought Bitcoin.

I am excited to see how far this ordinal can go, I am sure something new might come up soon but I doubt the idea will live long.

I hope it won't have a bad impact on Bitcoin itself, because it is still scary, to me.

vapourminer

legendary

Activity: 4354

Merit: 3614

what is this "brake pedal" you speak of?

i had no idea you could run actual code directly on the ordinals site.

kinda scary actually. i do not like this capability.

edit: off topic but zork was one of my 1st computer games back in the 80s. recognized it immediately lol

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Quote from: Boakse on April 05, 2023, 06:40:06 PM

ex. Can I put an old floppy game; Prince of persia -> dump the data in the BTC blockchain -> using Ordinal(s) (?) and open this data
again on any pc? Run it? use it?

Yes actually, this is Inscription #146:

https://ordinals.com/inscription/8022be710a15f03761d095ef0e6ed97cbb554fd58fa6e238ce23c2e46033bca6i0

Somebody uploaded the entire Zork text adventure game from the 80s, and the funny thing is, it works! You can play it right in the ordinals explorer. Pretty awesome if you ask me. Its a bit less than 160 kb of extra data.

LewisMachina

newbie

Activity: 17

Merit: 0

I don't like the burden that is getting loaded on full nodes as we progress into bull market, full node disk space will get more costly but I love it.

NFTs are normie magnet and Bitcoin needs normies. mETH heads discovered NFTs in 2017 later reaped the benefits in 2021. Their space filled with normie NFT chasers. Solana fully dedicated their project into NFTs and look at them their ecosystem is filled with larps and normies.

Bitcoin started with a cyber punk community and with each passing cycle it progressed into normie land. Ordinals are reversing that kicking off with normies and with each passing cycle bitcoin pilling the normies and turning them into something else. Pretty great.

Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 26. (Read 9235 times)