Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 40. (Read 9233 times)

on their github, casey got into a discussion about charging people to flag an ordinal as having inappropriate content. luckily he doesn't control the bitcoin blockchain because it sounds like he wants to try and make money off this flagging process...imagine that. snuffing peoples content out and at the same time collecting a fee to do so. that's in the spirit of bitcoin i tell ya!

heard litecoin has a ordinals now too. not sure where to view them though: https://cryptopotato.com/not-just-bitcoin-ordinals-are-now-on-litecoin/

honored 

as with most social drama queens that use other queens of social quotes as confirmation bias

yet using stats
feb 2023 node count as stated by nutildahs use of lukes stats
53k

yet 2018 had 200k
2019 had 105k
2021 had 95k
2022 had 52k

what you notice is that people ramp up their nodes when the bitcoin price is moving the most

ordinals have been around for a month but nodes only started moving by a small percentange this week now that price is peaking above 25k ..

it has nothing to do with ordinals. its market price provoked node usage where people are mving funds around to buy or sell coin

also
although there are more taproot utxo
there is not equal growth of btc per taproot utxo
https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/taproot-statistics?orgId=1

so ordinals are not actually making people want to hoard value in taproot utxo
instead they are just abusing taproot

oh.. and the increase of taproot utxo are not also correlating with increase of LN channel openings of said utxo so no its not helping populate LN either

anyway lets translate this post into a form nutildah only understands

nutildah doesnt want to mention the large % of leaps of past events but wants to be laser focused on  a small blip

Meanwhile outside the bubble









Data kept by lukedashjr shows the Bitcoin node count is up 12.5% this year, the largest increase since Jan 2021. Wonder why that is...

nutildah its not about getting a gotcha

i have explained the flaw and holes that ordinals have. where they are not the same as NFT due to the hole/flaw in the ownership transfer weaknesses

you then started talking about ethereum purchases of contracts
you are side stepping and avoiding the obvious rather then learning

you are the one throwing out alot of "whataboutisms" to avoid conceding, by changing the arguments from ordinals to counterparty, to bitcoin to ethereum

so just accept that ordinals on bitcoin(this topic) does not show any real NFT utility of the meme dead weight due to not actually structurally and securely having a ownership claim system
(its a provenance system of receipts. not a ownership system of possession)
(where the taint/provenance can be broken in many ways)

i did try to teach you about some of your whataboutisms about general blockchain timestamps and your ethereum side track debates
but you narratives had faults in them too

sorry im not going to act like a blind sheep and just ass kiss and say your right when your wrong
but other readers prefer to see how things can work or what can go wrong. rather then read some nutters love story of having their ass kissed by blind sheep

have a nice day

If I am not wrong there are limits of data in each OP_RETURN with the need of splitting the data in multiple transactions.
Ordinals I think overcome this limitation in a more viable way.

Or you could just timestamp the hash of the document, but this implies you have to safely store the original document elsewhere (maybe on YouTube?)

because its just a timestamp, there's nothing "forged" about it. the forgery happens when attempting to recreate an NFT and pass it off as the original, which is gonna be pretty hard to do if you are using a different blockchain than the original uses.

what i was originally implying is that you cannot create old timestamps on any blockchain that anybody actually uses for anything. it can't be done because that feature is an inherent part of what gives cryptocurrency value. that's why it is un-forgeable.

franky was just looking for an "aha gotcha!" rather than have to concede, or heaven forbid learn, anything.

There is no reason to use Ordinals attack to do something like that. In Ordinals you will have to first create a new Taproot address created from the script containing the "document" then send some coins to that address (1st tx). Then you'll have to spend those coins so that you reveal the script and the document inside it on the blockchain in another transaction (2nd tx).

You could already do that using OP_RETURN as it has been done before. All it takes is one transaction with an OP_RETURN output containing the information related to the documents proving possession of the thing in real world.

I am with @franky1 on this. If a timestamp is created on another blockchain that is not considered the main blockchain how is this not a forged timestamp? If it is not then what stops people from creating unlimited blockchains and creating the same timestamp to attack the credibility of original blockchains.

In short, no.  However, you can use the blockchain to see which was inscribed first.  This seems to be the way that NFTs are valued.  For example, there's nothing stopping me from copying the entire Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection and reissuing it on the same chain.  It would actually be extremely easy to do and not take much time.  The NFTs could contain the exact same links and the images would be literally the exact same images.  However, would they still be Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs?  No.  So my assumption is that the blockchain would work the same way.  Your point is a good one though that the marketplaces should figure out.  I'd imagine some sort of search of the blockchain to make sure the metadata doesn't already exist on chain when the items are put up for sale would be a good feature to have.

you dont need to duplicate "contracts"

you simply need to show a plausible timestamp of claim of ownership of an image pre dates yours.

which can easily be forged by premining a new blockchain that contains an image in a block that appears to have existed years ago

but hey enjoy trying you fight your right in court

emphasis no need to try modifying your contract.. just create a new contract signed before yours. that then nullifies your contract in court

You cannot duplicate the contract, but you can absolutely duplicate the file. That's the piece NFT fans are usually missing. NFTs do not make it impossible to duplicate the file; only the ownership contract (if it is even legally recognized as such).
If you buy a piece of physical art, you can't duplicate the contract, nor the physical art piece. While you can counterfeit the contract, it can be verified (been done like that since forever) and it is worthless if you don't have physical access to the object. Therefore, I'd say it is more important to have sole access to your thing, even though the ownership proof is not in some blockchain, than having an NFT contract, while everyone can 1:1 copy the thing.
This is just to show that your comparison / example with real art is not correct and that NFTs are not really needed to protect your ownership rights.

They might make sense as a type of digital contract that can automatically be submitted to a supported webpage whenever someone stole your content. This would allow them to automatically take it down without having to go through a lengthy human process.
However, even this scenario would have limited utility. Since there are 'fair use' policies in place, it is possible that someone will still need to look at the complaints, unless it is a 1:1 copy.

What if I don't care about ownership and I just want the picture? I will never be able have the real Mona Lisa in my home, but I can definitely have the real (i.e. 1:1 copied, pure pristine file without any differences) BoredApe#1 as my desktop background. Sure; I don't have a little label that says I'm the official owner, but who cares about that?

---

Would you still claim this?

Hello, I am just landing on this thread.
I am interested in the ordinal protocol, not for the jpg, but for the notarization function and maybe other interesting features it might enable.

I think the ordinal protocol should be somehow moved to upper levels on the blockchain layers; ideally, it should be moved to the L2 and integrated into the Taro protocol, as the base layer space will soon be a too scarce resource to be used for this.

My question is: is there any solution o the "double spend" by the inscription write?
If I buy a "bored ape", is there a way to prevent the issuer from minting 1,000 of such inscriptions and defrauding the buyer? Each of them could have some invisible change to trick any SHA256 checks on those.

On a more serious note: any notarization effort with the Ordinal protocol can only certify the existence of certain documents in a given moment and certify the possession of that document. It cannot assess the validity of such a document or the existence of any other version of it. (I am thinking of using the possession of a certain sat as a digital representation of the possession of something in the real world, such as a car or a house).

Who cares? Its on a different blockchain. I don't need to spell it out for those who don't have an exceptionally dull axe to grind, but you know full well that nobody can create an old timestamp on Ethereum. Nobody can replicate a transaction that minted a Bored Ape from the original Bored Ape contract.


Again, that's not an ordinal. Its a Counterparty token. Do better research.

which will be seen as pre dating your time stamp. thus which one is the forgery now

also..
again..
really..? oh let me guess. the get out clause "single".. because you bought 2 of them not just 1

You're not "forging a timestamp", you're creating a timestamp on a different blockchain.

you said a time stamp cant be forged.
my post just proved someone can make a timestamped blockchain in 10 days that make it appear that it is 15 years old and has your silly image your trying to sell in 2023 inside a timestamped dated block that appears to have existed between march 2008-march 2010

your just upset how easy it was to debunk you

 

Did anybody read this and think, "franky1 brings up a very good point, looks like nutildah is wrong after all"?

He's now just arguing for the sake of arguing.

---

Again, this is according to your personally-held definition of what an NFT is, which nobody cares about.


I already told you I didn't buy a single ordinal, I don't care whether they succeed on the marketplace or not. It is highly interesting that somebody found a way to use witness data in this manner and also highly entertaining to watch libertarians and freedom absolutists cry over it.

nutildah you have no concept of non fungible tokens because you have yet to learn the lack of transfer

also using bitcoin as the bloat library to then use ethereum as a value transfer. is not helping bitcoin be a value transfer(payment system)

but it seems you have no desire of caring about bitcoin being a payment system. you just want to bloat bitcoin into a useless library network of dead data to promote ethereum as a paymetn network

shameful

as for
oh yes it can be done
heres one example

create a new blockchain. throw in the 100,000+ memes of bitcoin dead meme data into the first 100,000+ blocks of a new blockchain with super low difficulty. add a time stamp of 10min intervals per block(simple math of unix time addition per block creation)
but premining them super quick succession in seconds per block (600x speed)
repeat until say block 800,000 (it will take about 10 days)
whereby from block800,001 you then release the blockchain to then mine at normal speed of ~10min per block with real time added

thus all appearances show that this blockchain is 15 years old and started in march 2008 and all the ordinals were present in before march2010(the 100,000th block) where by it was always around, just not publicly talked about until now. but for all intense and purposes of timestamps and blockheight. it appears to be the age it implies

pre dating all provenances of 2023

---

its easy to spot the types of people that dont care about the viability/security of a payment system..
its the type of people that just pretend their new scheme they bought into is utopian dream of hope and promise to recruit other people into just so the promoter can get rich quick by scamming the sucker they recruited into handing them money so the promoter can escape the scam before it collapses.. not caring about who it leaves behind

ordinal does not have NFT status. as it does not transfer ownership the way you want to think it does..
but heck why do you care. as long as you make quick greedy profits your willing to say or believe anything as long as you can pass on the problems to other people, whilst you take their value

if you cared about value security (store of value) you would be trying to scrutinise and look for the loopholes and bugs and flaws to try and get them fixed to protect value.

Not really. You can't forge a blockchain timestamp. There is only 1 valid mint tx ID for a Bored Ape NFT, and it can only be owned by 1 Ethereum address at a time. They can only be minted by 1 Ethereum smart contract. Everything else that uses the same JPG is a forgery, including anything on other blockchains. These elements are why knowing how to spot frauds comes in handy. Once you understand this, you'll realize why its actually impossible to create duplicate NFTs (hence the term "non-fungible").


Sure, you are the original owner of a fake Bored Ape, congratulations. Go ahead and mint as many fake Bored Apes on Bitcoin as you want (wouldn't be surprised if its been done already). Let's see how much money you can get for them compared to the real deal.