Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 41. (Read 9233 times)

i still laugh at the people that for X years have been saying
"do not let tx scaling occur becasue it wil bloat up the blocks"
are now saying
"do not let tx scaling occur bloat up the blocks with memes"

they do not care about mining pools total tx fee balance award
they jsut want individual users to pay extra fee's so that bitcoin becomes annoyingly expensive to use

yep they dont want cheap fee's or fee mechanisms that make it good to use boitcoin. they want people to pay more.

its all a game to get people to stop using bitcoin and start using other networks for payments.

those types of people are not bitcoiners. nor even care for bitcoin security
they promote pruning and softer rules to not be verified.

they are shameful and malicious

that got me thinking since the data doesn't follow along with the next tx outputs then you could just arbitrarily modify the code to stop it at any point along the inheritance path of that satoshi you could even say the original address that satoshi belonged to was now the true owner and so everyone that bought and sold it after that they are erased like chalk from a chalkboard.   the only hope those people would have is that "most" people use the original ordinals software so agree on their version of how it is supposed to work. doesn't sound like a very solid foundation to me but that's what you get when you use loophole to build something.

good example. and you are certainly correct. don't forget too you can upload that 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original onto bitcoin right now and it might be the first time it appeared on bitcoin. so as far as bitcoin is concerned you are the original owner. since your inscription # is lowest.  

here is the thing about those saying scripts need to be dropped to kill ordinals
this is not true

for each input/output when defining a sigopcode/opcode each input/output should know its byte limit due to which sigopcode/opcode is used for each input/output respectively for the appending script of a tx
EG if it was a multisig of 15of 15 then thats a 72byte(signature) x15
meaning 1.1kb~

or where using taproot multisig the promise was 1 signature length

there is no need for an input to need 10kb or 3.99mb per sigop
there is no need for whole tx to need 3.99mb

things can be strengthened.
EG max sigops per tx. max inputs per tx, max outputs per tx
there is no need for a tx to have
and then defining how many bytes each type of sigops requires EG 1xsigop length to 15xsigop lengths
and none of the "take upto 3.99mb if you want it"

---

as to caseys impementation. its not a true NFT due to its mechanisms not actually pegging-tethering the appended meme bloat data to actual inpots which follow the output into a new tx. it says in a valuted creatin tx. thus can be de-pegged/ untethered with just a couple lines of code and not requiring altering or re-orging block data. thus easy to de-peg. thus not a true secure NFT system nor a good way of proving ownership due to the ease of changing which output casey decides should be linked to appended data

EG human readable and translated form of a tx
-start of tx-
bc1ccoinbasereward (6.25) -> bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput1 (2.00000001)
                                             bc1poutput2 (4.23999697) 300sat fee
                                             bc1poutput3 (0.00000001)
                signed: bc1ccoinbasereward signature
                meme data
-end of tx-
where caseys algo say memedata is associated with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
the memedata does not in data form move with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
it stays in that creation tx
again for emphasis
caseys algo say memedata is associated with bc1poutput0 (0.00000001)
but thats just known in caseys algo
and he can without changing the tx data, without changing block data. one day say
but caseys law is not in the bitcoin protocol. its caseys "law" saying he now delays its no longer "first sat" bit instead last sat of a block reward (aka bc1poutput3 (0.00000001))

Here is one: A file that I right-click save to my disk is a 1:1 byte-to-byte identical copy of the original. My downloaded 'fake Bored Ape' is indeed not fake, it is the exact same picture, it is an immaculately perfect, pristine copy of the entire digital file, without mistakes, differences or flaws.
Meanwhile it is impossible to recreate a physical painting. Even the original creator cannot duplicate every single brushstroke, the exact color mixes, details and imperfections.

The difference lies in the difference of stealing digital files vs. stealing real objects. When you steal a file, you create a copy and the original owner still keeps his copy. In fact, it is impossible to know whether any of your files is guaranteed not to have been copied somewhere else. Meanwhile a physical object is either there or it's not. There is no way to duplicate it, you can only try to recreate it, but it will never be the exact same, identical 'thing'.

When you buy an NFT, you do buy the rights to a file, but you could do that just as easily without a blockchain. You can have a written contract from the artist / invoice proving you bought the ownership rights to it. If someone copies it and uses it e.g. on their website, the blockchain won't help you against the 'theft', but you will need to sue the person. You can do that if you own the rights of digital media, and you could do that long before NFTs.
The bottom line is, NFTs don't - and, in fact, can't - solve a real problem. That is why many people deem them unnecessary.

ISPs don't store the data, and especially don't store it in cleartext. Darknet forums reside on the Tor network and thus if an ISP routes a Tor packet, never has access to the cleartext data inside. Meanwhile here, we talk about storing and serving cleartext illegal data.
It is beyond me how these things are remotely comparable.
(1) Route some encrypted data
(2) Store and seed completely cleartext data

Do consider that ISPs sometimes actually refuse to route certain data, e.g. blocking certain websites that are illegal to view in that country. It probably has something to do with that temporary cache storage you brought up.

That's true, I considered that too. I believe that we will need to keep scripts, and I'm not sure how to get closer to a Grin-type of 'equation' without inhibiting them. One option would be to specifically 'whitelist' payment channel creation scripts, without allowing to just use any arbitrary script. New Bitcoin features realized through special scripts, like submarine or cross-chain swaps would need to be specifically added via a BIP process or something like that, so that everyone agrees on it first and people don't just go and throw weird stuff onto mainnet.

as bitcoin "nfts" become more mainstream, i guess this distinction won't matter as much because there will be marketplaces similar to opensea where people use as the "interface" to the bitcoin ecosystem but if someone is just using the ordinals explorer then everything looks the same. the only thing you can go by is which one came first. the one with the lower inscription # is assumed to be the "original". that could be problematic in certain situations. don't you think?

i don't know about that. show me any image on the internet and i think it's possible to download it and inscribe it onto bitcoin and it will be an exact duplicate. as long as whatever service you use is not doing any image compression or something.

i'm not arguing against the utility of nfts. i understand they do have various use cases. the one use case though that i think is becoming a bit suspect is "owning" a picture. especially now that you can upload anything you want to to bitcoin. as many times as you want to and the original owner might not even be first. i'm sure you would say "no one owns a picture they just own the digital rights to it" well whatever! not even sure what that means...

you make some really good points franky. i am probably 100 percent sure that people that are using this ordinals have no idea about all those issues and don't even care at all. that's just how end users are. hopefully it won't bite them in their rear end oneday!

They're not 100% the same as Bitcoin. But they do distribute illegal content as a "side effect" of their normal operation.

Let's say we have server A with classified military information (to not always use the same example). In some darknet forum B, user C (customer of ISP D) reads the onion address to download the material, and proceeds to do so. While the "intent" comes from C, D is the one facilitating the file transfer from server A to user C (at least for the last mile). Normally they (afaik) even store the packages composing the content for a short time. ISP D is obviously (normally) not "willing" to do that with illegal material, but due to the structure of Internet as such it's the entity who "delivers" the cuestionable object. (The only way ISP D can prevent this is some kind of content filter but that can be easily circunvented.) But normally, those which can be sued are not D but A, B (if it acts with "intent" to provide information about illegal data) and C.

In the case of Bitcoin it's not 100% the same, as the data is stored permanently, but similar. If a node operator distributes illegal material, it's a side effect of his normal operation. If the node isn't the originator, then he should also not be legally responsible. And my interpretation is that this is what this Princeton guy meant in the 2018 article.


I personally would have no problem with attempting to improve the "financial transaction data to arbitrary data" equation. However, there is some functionality which while it's financial in nature, can also be used for other purposes, and I wouldn't like to be crippled. An example is Lightning Network, which depends on scripting. Scripting will always have the side effect of permitting to store some arbitrary data.

My fear is that if Bitcoin advances in the direction of Grin due to fears of legal trouble for node operators, a discussion could arise which aims to make such extreme anti-arbitrary-data-measures mandatory for "legal" blockchains. IMO this would cripple the whole blockchain/crypto space too much. I don't care about NFTs (at least not for the "data stored on chain" model) but I like some smart contracting abilities, like decentralized options, LN, atomic swaps, discreet log contracts, etc. and if they become impossible then the openness of the crypto ecosystem is seriously harmed, I think.

So the fight should go into another direction: highlighting the similarities of Bitcoin, ISPs, Freenet, IXP operators and other entities/protocols which can sometimes distribute illegal data as a side effect of their normal operation.

This can be accompanied by technical measures to lower the data possible to be stored per transaction/output, but imo this is another discussion, aimed more at improving blockchain efficiency for financial txes.

And again, the "destructive attack" of someone wanting to cause harm inserting illegal data is even possible with Grin-like "spam resistance". The more market cap Bitcoin gets, more likely (due to immense profit possibilities) is someone wanting to short the BTC price down almost to 0, and such an entity could thus afford lots of fees.

having provenance of a "lower #" is one thing. but thats just receipts. thats just chain of provenance.

take real world art
if you went to an auction house not with the art in your hand. but just a box of receipts that show a chain of purchases that predates someone elses receipts..

but can you truly say you actually hold the art and want to sell the art if you are not also actually holding the art and only holding the receipts

this is why nft need to bring the file or file hash forward into the tx data of the recipient. where the recipient can control where it next moves which destroys the previous parents control

as oppose to keeping the art vaulted up at some origin point where casey can simply change his algo(de-peg) and declare new owners by saying "instead of first sat, i now declare last sat owns the association to witness bloat of the vault"
where by no chain re-orgs happen. but suddenly owners change overnight and the provenance has changed.

a true nft system truly spends the nft out of origin control by actually passing the property/value to the new owner. where you can actually see who is the unspent owner that actually has the property/value in their tx

this is why i have been saying that casey idea is not a NFT. because it would need to move the property forward.. and caseys idea doesnt.

he says/promotes/words it, that the witness is linked to output0 and whoever has output0 owned it.
but that can be de-pegged easily by changing his algo to say all outputs 1 own the association
and in a n instant his analysis of provenance follows a different taint path from origin to different descendant(it does not require re-orging the blockchain to break caseys provenance idea)

however if the file hash was included in each tx. THEN it would be impossible to de-peg and thus securing ownership to the current file hash holder in the active unspent tx where the data in the original creation tx is deemed as spent and changing a taint algo isnt able to just declare a different output as owner

..
once you read passed the illusion of "what casey says is..."
and actually look at the code and data and use real world scenarios based on the actual data that is on the blockchain.
emphasis think outside the box of casey quotes.
you will see that ordinals are not NFT system and can easily de-peg. thus ordinals are not a feature of NFT and thus not something we should support while it is being abused to reduce bitcoins real utility(payment network of actual value thet does and should move per tx)

This has always been the case with every NFT on every blockchain. Nothing is stopping you from creating a fake Bored Ape, just like nothing is stopping you from painting a fake Picasso. People who know how to read the blockchain or look for signs of forgery in paintings will be able to spot the difference between real and fake pretty easily, however.

Have yet to hear a single argument against NFTs that either

- doesn't also apply to the physical counterparts they are emulating, or
- doesn't also apply to bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.

That's the inherent flaw of tokens in general. They all can be counterfeited. Specially the so called "art" related tokens where the "art" is stored in a centralized website accessible to anyone who doesn't even have to own the token to access and download it! All you have to do is create a duplicate of the "art" and make your own token from it.

thanks nutildah, i was a bit confused on how it exactly works but i know you mentioned once and now twice that it doesn't get transferred to each new transaction. i wasn't quite sure what franky was saying but now i think i understand what both of you are saying. but imma have to look into the details myself to get a better understanding so thanks for pointing them out.  

i'll have to look into this aspect of it franky but one thing i can say for sure is it's very easy to counterfeit an ordinal. just mint the content in a new bitcoin transaction and now you own a bored ape or whatever other "nft" you wanted! seems so easy right? the only thing that proves yours is not the real one is if someone else's has a lower inscription #. you could make 1000 bored apes if you wanted to and no one can stop you! 

ISPs are not storing and distributing illegal material, though, right? Such as copyrighted movies or much, much worse..?

Should we not aim to make it as hard as e.g. Grin is making it (or maybe even doing better than that) to abuse the system and put Bitcoin nodes at risk of legal trouble, just because it is still possible there, at a much lesser extent?

i was trying to simply explain it fails the NFT test of ownership due to lack of transfering the meme or a hash of meme per tx

shame it takes the adoration brigade/blind devotee's several posts of explaining things before they realise what they got suckered into.

but yes. this junk is junk and not even a NFT thing. as its not a solid method of ownership control.
thus has no purpose. thus something we shouldnt let keep being added to bitcoin, as even NFT is not a purpose of bitcoin "ethos"

This topic is getting far from what really matters by arguing about details of this attack! Whether the garbage is injected into the blockchain once or injected on each transfer (first one is correct BTW) doesn't change anything about the fact that they ARE injecting garbage into the blockchain and they ARE abusing the system and it IS harmful to bitcoin if this continues and grows...

no, there isn't a single one that reflects an actual grasp of how the protocol works. you did not DYOR, or if you did it was pretty poor R.

we're done here for now.

i did. there are many posts
where i said about it

seems you are just angry that i am showing you how these ordinals are not actual ownerships of the memes YOU BOUGHT and you are suckered into buying something thats not actually transfered to you. but still locked up in caseys vault
where he can later do a protocol change and boom. you own nothing

..
remember
he has told you "stuff in witness of tx. is associated to output 0"
where he sold you small value of output zero for more then that output 0 value

however. nothing in bitcoin associates that witness with output 0
nothing in your child tx contains the actual meme

he could EASILY change his protocol and say.. hmm actually output 1 owns the witness

so again show me the child (receiver) tx. and where in that child receiver TX does it contain any direct info/data of the property(meme)

responding to below
how casey describes things is deceptive.
so no i wont just pander and repeat how he says his system works. i instead look passed the illusion and explain how it really works

EG there is no meme in the "value" data field of a tx where sats sit
although idiots think thats where the meme sits due to reading caseys promotional material

i am not going to pander to caseys wording . because caseys wording is not 'as described' of what actually happens

i hope you did not pay too much more for the sats he sent you. but i guess you need to learn the hard way that you got screwed over

..
take the instant adoration away.
and think of the situation the same as how banks vaulted up gold and handed people promissory notes. and try reading the detail of what the promissory(bank note) actually says and how it does not mention gold or anything on it
where its simply a presumption that if bank has gold and you have paper that it somehow means you own gold.. (but reality is not the same as presumption=ownership)

shouting but this bank note prove i got it from...
is meaningless it does not mean you own gold
there is no gold in your possession, no reference to gold in your possession.

read your TX. is there a ordinal in your TX. no.. then you dont own a ordinal

Don't be a squirrel. Just answer the question.


Why didn't you correct him on how the system actually functions?

firstly witness data does not move to the next tx...

secondly if your not moving the value per tx.. your recipient is not getting the value
they are getting a promise of chain of custody but not the actual property
where that promise only holds if using caseys taint analysis

anyways
do you still believe that if you hand over a bank note to someone without moving the gold out of the national reserve... that you ever owned the gold. and that you moved the gold and gave it to a new owner??
or can you see the trick the national reserve banks done on citizens many decades ago

imagine your transfers you speak of which you think is true solid proven holding and ownership

now imagine there has been 3 transfers down a lineage.
now tell me in that child transaction. show me whats inside the data of THE CHILD transaction

that is (no taint analysis crap stuff your dying to mention) actual identifying of the property

Do you still believe this to be true?

The debate over the Ordinals protocol and its potential impact on Bitcoin bring us back to the old same dylemma, faced in uncountable situations, between the need for innovation and experimentation in the blockchain ecosystem and the importance of preserving the core principles and properties that make Bitcoin valuable and relevant.

Persoally am concerned about the impact of such a feature on the blockchain's security, scalability, and fungibility: Bitcoin was designed to prioritize security and decentralization therefore attaching non-financial data to Bitcoin transactions could make it harder to verify the authenticity and integrity of the blockchain's transaction history, which could ultimately compromise its value as a store of value and medium of exchange.

oh your talking about caseys NFT system
and what you are not realising is

i was too. and comparing it to how proper ownership works


i know casey game. and yes im calling it a game
where its vaulted up in some ancestor vault and people just trade claims.. not actually OWN an nft.. though casey and his fanbase want to think its a real NFT thing

yea i get it.
but like i said many many many posts ago and repeated a few times. its not actually owning a property. its just changing registry.

i have said many times to separate your minds of caseys games and caseys words. and actually think about real hard data. and real legal and practical methods of real world ownership

you dont own the gold in your hand because the tx/promissory note you receive contains no property in it.
you are relying on a chain of custody analysis

this same problem occured over a century ago.. gold sits in a bank and doesnt move, but here is a bank note that says you own it
.. and we know how that went
(it only works. until the real vault owner changes the gold standard and keeps the gold)

if your not able to move the gold from your hand to someone elses hand and it remains in a ancestor vault. then you dont own it. because you are not moving it

there is good reason why bitcoin included the value field and not just had public addresses as input ans outputs
there is good reason why part of the verification is to remove utxo(as spent) add in a new utxo as unspent where the value is seen to move per transaction

but i dont think you are grasping these deeper details.