Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 31. (Read 9233 times)

but when is it going to become part of bitcoin core?  


yeah but if an alien race came down to earth and looked at raw blockchain they wouldn't know who owned what unless they could get a copy of casey's github code.


this is a very valid point. what you are saying franky is something that no one else is but that doesn't make it any less true. it actually is true. whether that bothers nft people or not i guess that's up to them but i guess some of them doesn't even realize about this issue. i call it an issue but you can call it whatever you want to...

why just pictures though? what if someone uploads instructions about how to make a bomb? there's all kind of bad things people could upload that are illegal. how about top secret classified documents of a government? none of that can be stopped though. and what's with the premium fee? they just pay the normal fee like everyone else. illegal stuff doesn't cost more to upload  

maybe.
possibly. each country can make their own rules about this type of thing.
well yeah i mean if ordinals got out of hand and alot of illegal stuff started appearing on it then yeah i mean the usa government might do something like that but i don't think bitcoin has really been attacked by people doing that yet. probably at some point it will be. but we don't know that for sure.

nutildah loves it and thinks its a real NFT that has value and is trying his hardest to say it is real with his silly
"read casey, look at casey, trust casey" crap

and then you love this crap because you dont want this crap stopped (not have continual inclusion in the network) because you have been crying "censorship" alot in any topic that mentions stopping it

Then kindly go find some novelty-picture-brigade idiots who might buy this crap and be an obnoxious, relentless fuckwit in their vicinity, please.  I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of the participants in this topic know it's worthless crap.  You don't need to keep picking fights with those who already understand it's garbage.  All you're doing is pissing people off.  Again, as usual.  

Maybe you do have good intentions, but I am honestly and truly unable to tell, because the only impression I'm left with is how unbelievably overbearing and pompous you are.  If all you want to do is alienate people, keep up the good work.  You're doing great.  

But if you really want to do some good and have a real impact, focus your supposed research skills into correctly identifying the people who buy and sell this shit and go make your case to them.

---

I'd imagine anything around 0.20.1 would get you to "b)".  I'm not sure if anyone would perceive your choice to run it as a direct protest to Ordinals, though, if that's what you were aiming for.

 

point is
instead of idiots like you promoting, idolising and loving this crap for greed

people need to be informed that they might be buying this crap.. they should be informed that if they are interested in this crap, they are buying nothing at all thus wasting their funds on buying nothing that is proven as proof of possession

so yes its to make people not want to spend value on wasted faked crap. thus yes cause the demand to decrease

because at the moment too many idiots like you and nutty think that this meme crap has value

they(YOU and your buddies) need to realise these meme crap things are not:
proof of possession
or
proof of transfer
it is simply
proof of publish  (just treating bitcoin as a file storage system of dead weight)

..
heck there are ways to actually create a proof of transfer method. using a technique as old as legacy's multisig but you lot are so dumb to realise what you love right now about ordinals isnt actually a NFT system. there is no point in me saying how you lot could make it into a proof or transfer and proof of possession system to have a NFT system.
and yea i know you lot dont know how to make it work.. else you would have implemented it in the first place, so yea i want to leave you idiots in the dark in regards to how to make your crap workable. and instead inform innocent victims not like you.. to not get involved in this crap. and them not lose value by not getting involved

OMFG.

No one cares.  Do you get that?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve by constantly repeating this?  You must have some sort of goal in mind, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it's supposed to be.  I'm pretty sure no one reading this topic gives a toss.  Is the hope that someone might read it and suddenly decide to stop putting Inscriptions in?  What's the end game here?  Are you just looking for validation?  Is it vitally important to you that everyone accepts your moronic definitions for every last fucking thing?  Or are you just so desperate for attention that you're being contrary for the sake of being contrary?  What do you want?  Please tell us the grand franky1 plan, because we're all completely in the dark as to what the fuck you're trying to accomplish here.  As per usual.

Let us assume that some unsavory character decided to mint a lot of illegal pictures through the ordinals and paid a premium fee to make their transactions go through as quick as possible.
That means most of node operators would end up having those illegal information in their SSD, right?
would not that imply node operators could get arrested in their countries/state?

This idea rather turning into a good excuse for regulators and the enemies of Bitcoin to call for node banning...
Perhaps I am exaggerating, but knowing how politics works nowadays, I would not be surprised to see a proposal of Bill in the congress of the United States about Bitcoin node banning, claiming storage of unlawful material, as soon as more people of power start to get aware of this possibility.

pooya has yet to understand one basic concept

its not a simple "anyone can write a bip"

he thinks all proposal drafts, idea's and requests are in some repo

he forgets to read the guidelines(dev rules)
where people who want to make a proposal first have to go through a hurdle of other platform moderation phases of scrutiny by the core devs before they will suggest you should then send them a BIP draft to the github to add to the list. where again even in tht final stage it may never show up as a bip in the list due to another level of moderation

pooya thinks all idea's are in bips list and then removed .. nope that not how the core devs have walled off the bips
its not a add first, ask for forgiveness after
its a plead for acceptance first, plead second, plead third. then maybe added. then maybe removed

the reason there is such a lack of github comment/code/bip about a ordinal spam fix in bitcoin github. is because its all been moderated out at the other levels far before even getting a chance for it to be added

I also barely found anything which could be count as "fix" towards Ordinal spam. Recently closed PR is either spam[1], duplicate[2], rejected modification[3] or self-closed without any response[4]. And it looks like GitHub doesn't let you delete PR, unless on very specific condition[5]. Even on bitcoin-dev mailing, there's only debate[6] rather than proposal.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1409
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1426
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1297
[4] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1419
[5] https://stackoverflow.com/a/18318431
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021387.html

caseys RULES are not locked to hard data
its just code he wrote which he can change

its not dependant on hard data to prove the rule

do you get that??
by not having data that aligns/fixes to rules means the rules are not fixed to data

..
you really need to do some research on the stuff the cypherpunks were doing before bitcoin and why they kept hitting a developmental wall where by their digital money/digital property concepts didnt work .. until blockchains came about

you need to understand about proofs. yep, proofs stored in data to prove transfer and prove ownership

caseys project does not transfer proofs in blockchain data. no references transfer in hard data

if you dont have hard data proof of possession. you have no possession
#NotYourProofNotYourProperty

"It doesn't work the way it works, it works how I say it works, which is why it doesn't work!!!!" - the essence of your every argument.


They are both protocols that use a special set of rules to govern transactions. The difference is the block data isn't encoded in Ordinals as it doesn't have to be, because its actually a much simpler system. And coins aren't being transferred in Counterparty token transfers, that's the main difference.


Learn Ordinals theory. Research and understand, then respond.

https://docs.ordinals.com/overview.html

He could make a new protocol that uses other rules but everybody else who is the slightest bit financially invested in the old system will continue using that one. It also happens to make a lot of sense the way that it currently is.

Really, "What if Casey changes the rules??" is pretty weakass fud. Surely you can do better than that, or the whole "I dictate the way its supposed to work" thing.

There's honestly nothing left to discuss here with you, which is why any future response I give to you will be in the style of you.

yes "according to a special explorer"
this is chain analysis of taint
not proof of ownership in tx via references in tx


its not about actual data in a child or grandchild tx that protects the ownership in the latest owners purchase

caseys protocol can change which output taint to follow.. after the fact (swap output0 for output 1)

do you get that!!

because as you admit the ownership transfer is not referenced in the blockchain of actual data
caseys system uses (to use the buzzwords of that group) only a proof of publication via bitcoin, not proof of payment via bitcoin


so again its not a bitcoin NFT system because there is no timestamp system of blockchain to protect the transfer and make a reference locked per transfer of ownership, that cant be changed after the fact


due to no reference per transfer mentioned in said transfer tx. there is no proof of ownership
do you understand PROOFS??

casey can change who owns it in caseys 'special' explorer after the fact
because caseys protocol is not even about using block data for transfer proofs.. just meme library creation followed by idiots receiving a amount of sats but on another market paying more for said sats then the sat amount

he can change his protocol without breaking anything bitcoin related. but where he simply changes his chain analysis (explorer) to follow a different path after the fact..
meaning there is no immutable /locked/strong proof of ownership

do you get it yet

and no its not like counterparty
because counterparty actually uses (opreturn)outputs to put extra data references into transfer tx's thus its actually reading blockdata to link ownerships


where by casey does not. casey just assumes connections by (deciding off the blockchain) to follow a certain path he chooses and can change. a path thats not referenced in blockdata or opreturns to prove the path/lock the path

It doesn't need to be apparent enough for every block explorer. The idea is still very new, supporting infrastructure (such as a dedicated explorer) is being built as we speak. Blockchain.com does show the image/audio/video in the inscription transaction right now, but not the ownership history:

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532f


Precisely. Nobody (who understands how it works) ever claimed differently. However, each Ordinals transaction is a Bitcoin transaction. Counterparty works in a very similar way in that it requires a special explorer to view token balances.

that's not apparent though if you're just browsing a blockchain explorer or you have your own full node and you're investigating that particular address. all you see is it's current balance, transaction history, total amount sent and received. it doesn't say it owns any nfts or anything like that. (actually i think some blockchain explorer is actually showing the nfts but that's another story.  )


it's outside of the bitcoin protocol. something someone layered on top of bitcoin. that's all. all an address owns is a balance.

This isn't how any of this works. Once again, the only thing you demonstrated is that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You continue to mindlessly spew assertions that you _think_ are correct with no actual understanding of how inscriptions or ordinal transfers work. Its like you have no regard for reality whatsoever.

You don't need to move the "dead weight" to follow ownership of it. That is part of the protocol design. Not everything needs to have on-chain references in order for it to work, the protocol accounts for ownership through transfer of the ordinal, which is done via coin control so it is not lost, sent to a change address, miner or elsewhere.

Its clear franky isn't interested in learning anything but for everyone else, we can go back to the Bitcoin Punk example from earlier:

https://ordinals.com/inscription/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532fi0

id = b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532fi0 (inscription tx ID + "i0")
address = 1PUY4ugnZ3oFtke6YU4LqpZeJhUNjyssjM (current address of owner)

Looking at the incription tx ID, we see the bloated witness, a single input and a single output, bc1pme4...

Looking at the transfer tx, we see the regular-sized witness, a single input (bc1pme4...) and a single output, 1PUY4...

And according to the ordinals.com inscription explorer, which operates according to the rules of the protocol, the current owner of inscription ID b7a5c... is... 1PUY4...

Its not magic... there is no mystery or ambiguity in how it works. The rules are well defined and it wouldn't make any sense to change them.

For start, I played through some games that use nfts on binance smart chain before, but I don't exactly invest into nfts other than it. I feel like increasing cost of Bitcoin transfer is really bad thing. Everyone would agree on that. But I don't exactly understand why we 'should not' support Ordinals project. This can be seen as just another feature of Bitcoin's Blockchain which is not bad at all. I know some core developers hate the idea... But we can see it as side effect of technological developments. Sometimes when people suggest there should be complete sidechain(s) to use NFTs I guess I also agree with them.

tx A
has input 1 bc1pCasey              0.10000000
has output 0 bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.00000001
has output 1 bc1prandomuser   0.00199999
has output 2 bc1pCasey            0.09650000 (fee: 150000 = under 0.04satper byte)
(contains meme bloat in witness)
meme has no reference to any output in tx data

tx  B
has input (tx A output 0) bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.00000001 (but utxo has no reference to witness of prev tx)
has input bc1pnuttyuvastash   0.2000000
has output 0 bc1pdoomadbud   0.00000001
has output 1 bc1pnuttymcnutty 0.19999800

guess what happens in tx C
tx C has no txid of the meme nor does bitcoin rules or blockdata reference any linkage to tht output 0 of txB being the owner of witness bloat of tx A

nor does bitcoin rules or blockdata reference any linkage to that output 0 of txA being the owner of witness bloat of tx A

get it yet

inshort if you tried selling a dead weight meme you pretend to own from casey(TXA)
to your buddy doomad. for more then 1 sat
he and you both become fools because none of you actually moved any reference to the meme
so doomad paid too much for just a sat

yea you profited from selling 1 sat for more then its worth but you did not move any ownership of a meme
the meme is still in caseys ownership and he can change his taint analysis to be output1 as his prefered owner.. without having to change blockchain data

meaning you are seen as never owning the meme.

First of all, everything you said is once again wholly incorrect.

 - Nobody cares about your definition of what an NFT is.

 - The ownership transfer reference is the tx ID.

 - The Bitcoin protocol has no knowledge of anything because its not a living thing.

 - Nobody is making any changes to the way the protocol works as its wholly unnecessary. If you bothered to do ten minutes of research you'd realize how exceptionally simple and straight-forward it is.

Can you be a bit more specific about what version does what? a is obviously the latest, how about b? is c v12?

---

Yes i can see they found fertile lands to plunder, from their point of view its brilliant, what do they care if they collapse another blockchain as long as they can profit from it.

good honest bitcoiners are getting shafted by all this nft enthusiasts coming over to bitcoin. remember: they don't mind paying huge fees because they've been doing that forever on ethereum.   but their not even paying huge fees on bitcoin. that's why they love it. it's so cheap compared to ethereum.

doomad

users can choose to be full nodes, fool nodes or lite nodes or lite wallets

but you trying to tell people that when they choose to not upgrade
when you say pruning is X that in YOUR narrative they are still full nodes.. WHICH IS WRONG

they are downrated to fool node status and for emphasis again is downrating users to fool nodes status
because and whereby they are not doing full validation or full archiving

GET IT

there are changes that occur to the blockchain and allowing crap in, even before core even have a node release

so stop all the harping about "users have a choice to download"

but when it comes to users who want to be FULL nodes, is what my point was about
the set of users that actually want to be full nodes.

when new ruleset is implemented NOW.. what was fullnodes yesterday. does not require the full nodes to upgrade PRE ACTIVATION to trigger an activation anymore.
(security risk)

 but does cause the full nodes of even yesterday to be downrated to fool node status because NOW they are then no longer fully validating a new ruleset if implemented today(now)
...
so i am trying to get you to pick a narrative out of the three narratives you flip between and then stick to it.

becasue you are flip flopping with how you see that consensus works.

again
you previously have said things like
extreme A
there is no true consensus and never has been

b
then you said that nothing gets activated unless consensus is reached
(saying consensus exists is still hard and there was no softening)

c
then you say there was consensus but it has softened

so pick one
pick a narrative and stick to it. stop being a troll who changes narrative just to sound like an idiot, the cry when being called one

..
as for your empty cries about 6% veto and causing hardforks. you are a complete idiot
on many parts of that narrative.

but by trying to say  what you said about how YOU feel about majority consensus pre activation shows which narrative you are favouring today.. the one where you dont want consensus

firstly
soft consensus does not produce forks as that was the point of that trojan backdoor
it just downrates unready nodes to fool node status

hard consensus does not always cause forks
there are  3 main results
1. majority at any scale not reached. thus nothing activates and devs need to try a new idea
2. majority is reached and feature activates with majority readiness thus no fork
3. forced activation in minority causes a fork due to faking readiness but not having the nodes to secure network wide alignment of which blocks contain good or bad old or new rules


oh
last thing
YOU love new rules invading the network without invitation/consent
so that must make you the nazi

YOU love that their is now an army of dead weight monkeys in the network which people cant reject/evict/stop future invasions

YOU want people to just comply and accept an invading ruleset without checking if its good or bad