Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 42. (Read 9233 times)

@frank

you don't get it.

nobody cares about franky1's NFT system. nobody cares about your standards or the way you think NFTs should work. that is irrelevant to this discussion.

we're talking about how the ordinals NFT system actually works, which you clearly don't care to understand because you keep repeating the same misinformed nonsense.

you continue to shift the argument because you can't bear to ever admit - not even once - that you were wrong about something.


this is meaningless because you have decided yourself as the sole arbiter of not only what an NFT is but how they move. Counterparty has been doing it for years and it doesn't even require the transaction of any bitcoin, other than to pay for tx fees... its all done via protocol that interprets nonstandard data according to a set of rules, which is what ordinals is also doing.

@nutilda
i get what casey says about his system
but his system FAILS at being an NFT

im not going to go through all the reasons again. .. actually i think it should. seems you have not got it thus far

to be a successful true NFT with great provenance(chain of custody)
the file or hash of file needs to transfer per user.
so the new owner has content in a tx destined for him with data destinged for him. thus he receives said data. to claim true ownership of it

the blockdata at binary level of the .. lets say grandchild tx.. would contain no binary data, hex data, or human readable data. that shows association to the tx that had the meme in it

emphasis
the grandchild tx would have different txid to the grandfather tx.. due to it having the parent txid in the childs tx

thus the grandchild does not hold the so called ~{NFT}~ they only hold a provenance record. not the actual token/meme itself
its like saying the NFT will forever be held in some ancestor vault. but the record of ownership changes of who can view the gold in the ancestor vault

the bank of england keeps the gold but changes who is the current owner
(it only lasts until the bank of england changes "the gold standard"
where casey(no longer associates the great great great grandchilds ledger to the great great great grandfathers gold vault)


a true NFT would be where the NFT is actually moved.

bitcoin cant do this because bitcoin does not use output hashes as inputs. it uses utxo's of a txid, which change per decendant

thus has to use some lame outside explorer to try to taint them together using provenance viewer

its like
having grandpa hold some gold. and he buried it somewhere.
but then in his Will he said "my son jimmy can have it, if he can find it"
jimmy doesnt find it but uses the Will to say he owns gold
jimmy passes that to his son in his Will

but jimmys son, doesnt have gold in his hands. just a chain of Wills that says he has gold

..
this is why bitcoin when moving coin. doesnt just have txid(utxo) and output(destination)

itinsteadn ahs the value field included and a protocol to destroy a UTXO out of a UTXO set and add the output as a new uxto
where the value is seen per tx as moving.. rather than remaining in the coinbase value field

because the actual moving of value is important to the ownership claim of said value

.. this is why i said for there to be a NFT on bitcoin without bloat. it would require dressing up a hash of file as a output. and move that output with the destined owners output which he sign for where he puts said output(nft hash) beside who he wishes to give ownership to

so that it shows true ownership change

.
caseys separate taint explorer. is just reading of the wills of ancestry. not actually being a property mover

No. This is incorrect. I don't know why you keep repeating this misinformation. I pleaded with you to actually look at a bitcoin transaction where one ordinal (inscribed ordinal) was sent from the minting address to another address. You obviously didn't do it because if you had you would realize that the transaction does not contain the bloated witness data associated with the inscription. This is because it is not necessary for the protocol to function.

The inscribing process only happens once. The inscription is forever associated with the resulting ordinal output, which is tracked by the protocol from owner to owner. It does not need to be "moved" or "recreated" upon each transfer of the ordinal.

Let's pull a new example at random.

This is a Bitcoin Punk for sale on OpenSea via Emblem Vault (an Ethereum wrapper for bitcoin assets):

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/17050183900261431

Looking at the bottom of the NFT description we see two block explorer links:



Pulling up the BTC Explorer link first we see two transactions. The older transaction is not related to the ordinal, but the newer one is, which is:

https://mempool.space/tx/5bff0c943a04f4320bdc1cd6d55407ce6e952bcb4c2be6866eb159c0c85a3536

(I like to use this explorer b/c it contains detailed info about witness data)

Its a 153 byte transaction from

bc1pme4kpyy7cmzz9gd5f6wdpsxlxk5qqwz3zx8mj7wjrsukcdpljggsxal4xz to
1PUY4ugnZ3oFtke6YU4LqpZeJhUNjyssjM, which is the address that currently holds the inscribed ordinal.

The witness data in this transaction is normal-sized.



Going backward to bc1pme... we see 2 transactions: a send and a receive. Looking at the receive transaction,

https://mempool.space/tx/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532f

we see a much bigger size:



This is because the inscription happened in this transaction.

Putting the above tx ID into the ordinals explorer (+ "i0" per ordinal ID standard) yields the following:

https://ordinals.com/inscription/b7a5cffd28b6c2db37880ac0321b18b4985c2ae4d75584a264d1334320ef532fi0

You can see the ordinals explorer recognizes 1PUY4ugnZ3oFtke6YU4LqpZeJhUNjyssjM as the current owner of the Bitcoin Punk.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the witness data of the minting transaction and first send transaction:



Ergo, the inscription data attached to an ordinal does not need to be re-inscribed upon each transfer.

---

Except that's not what happens regardless of what franky has to say about it. Anyone who is capable of logically following what I demonstrated above will realize this.

separate some concepts

A. meme junk data (ordinal content) / spam
b. NFT

if you can imagine a [better] NFT system as a 256bit hash of a file (not the junk meme itself, but a hash of it)
that 32byte hash(256bit) is then prefixed with a txformat and given a checksum suffix. thus appearing as a public segwit address (pure raw data binary only needs the prefix couple bytes and the 32byte hash)

and then put as position 2 tx output list where position 1 is the real bitcoin address that is using some protocol code locking position 2 to be associated with position1 to allow position 1 to move/spend position 2.

then that would be a NFT system where someone can spend and change ownership of a NFT
however bitcoin does not work like that
because bitcoin was never designed to be an NFT protocol

.....

this ordinal BS is not even a hash of a meme.. its actually putting the meme into a tx that then goes into the blockchain. and because you dont normally copy (due to bitcoin protocol) the signature/witness data from one tx to the next because each TX is unique, you will have to move the meme into each TX to show its current owner.
also it takes up space AGAIN due to lack of using just hashes of a meme instead of full meme data
...
also the nft and meme and ordinal crap dont work as a effective ownership claims on subnetworks without blockchains. because ending its chain of custody/ancestry with one tx output...[shuffling around in a non-blockchain subnetwork via routing] and popping up on a completely different tx onchain.. is not showing the chain of custody/provenance proof of ownership lineage on the main net thus ownership claim is lost on the mainnet due to lack of provenance lineage pathway (taint) on the main net due to use of a subnetwork without a blockchain

so those trying now to take this new highly discussed topic of ordinals to promote a flawed subnetwork that has no blockchain. is just them trying to abuse a discussion to name drop their flawed subnetwork pretending their subnetwork has relevance/purpose. but wont be at all of help even for those that adore such junk or NFT function

very inefficient. and i dont see them as true NFT. its just bloat of a tx.
and with the 4mb limit. if that 4mb is filled per block then the blockchain will grow by 210gb a year
comparing to the average 68gb a year (1.3mb blocks) pre ordinal/meme-junk  season

who would want an nft on ethereum anymore? bitcoin is where it's at. that's the honest truth as far as i'm concerned. so yeah i mean maybe the worst part in terms of fees and network conjestion is yet to come. but remember this whole thing is just a loophole never meant to happen. the fact that it did happen doesn't change that. anyhow...

so tell me something franky, is it really true that if someone sells their bitcoin nft to another person then all that junk data gets duplicated on the blockchain so now there's essentially 2 copies instead of 1? everytime a bitcoin nft gets sold another copy of that same jpeg or whatever content it is gets duplicated. how inefficient!  peoples' hard drives are gonna fill up real fast if that's the case.

I can't think of any existing functionality or [useful] utility that would be damaged by such a limit. Besides if there is a need for a bigger limit, it could be raised in a future consensus rule such as a new witness program version.

basing bitcoin on the ethos of a financial payment system

name one real utility where

a single input or output deserves 3.99mb of bloat
a single input or output deserves 10kb of bloat

You're of course partly right, and I've already written that I would support a reduction of the byte limit for data in Taproot. Although I'm still hoping for this fad to wane "on its own", because I'm not sure what functionality you would cripple if you lower that limit.

But regarding illegal data, I'd be much more afraid of a "destructive" attack of a group which uses standard transactions (not technically "standard", as Taproot tx are also standard, but those who look like financial ones) with illegal data, building a protocol around that, just to drive the price of Bitcoin down. A short seller attack, or a government attack. Thus no, we can't rely on nobody doing that ever, with or without ordinals. What we must fight for is for legislation equiparing Bitcoin explicitly with ISPs in this aspect (everybody in his jurisdiction).


There is at least this Reddit thread and this one (see answers from manicminer5 and from BrugelNauszmazcer, which would work even if tx_extra is eliminated, like some developers seem to plan, although it needs a "cooperative" uploader sharing a view key). You're partially right that data on Monero can be stored privately so it's difficult to retrieve for an observer without additional information, but you can broadcast the needed keys in another P2P network (as for this you don't need double spend protection). The "destructive approach" would thus also work there.

(PS: just read tromp's answer in the other thread, so you don't need even another P2P network for the keys. Yes, Grin seems to almost solve that, but it still seems possible even there.)

I'm afraid that no modern cryptography can solve that problem - if somebody is able to read the data, even the uploader himself, then he can make them accessible for others, too, if this is his intent.

In my opinion, we should increase the difficulty of some hack like that and not facilitate it. It's as if you had an insecure front door lock, so as a consequence you remove it completely or leave it as is. Instead of upgrading it, when you realize it has always been very insecure.

Do you have some proof to back this up if you are 'sure' about the possibility?

You clearly haven't had a glance at Monero yet. There are no addresses, transactions and amounts viewable to the public. So I doubt your above proof ('I am also sure') highly, just from this misinformation alone.

Since when is Bitcoin an absolutely free cloud data storage platform? I thought it was an absolutely free 'peer-to-peer electronic cash system'.

If something bad has 'been done before', do you think it is a really good justification to keep doing it?

Why is that impossible? Look at Monero, for instance. Or other privacy coins. Since they hide most information, you kind of get 'payments only' as a side effect. 'Modern' cryptography still allows you to verify transactions before mining them / adding them to your node, without knowing everything about them.

Both mere subjective opinions, without data to back them up.

"ranking sats" cannot be stopped as they are not spamming blocks
its just some guys numerical counting system
(the old purpose of historic brand "ordinals")

but recent change of brand purpose (the memes)
adding memes to certain tx can be stopped by reducing the room they have been given to put memes into tx witness

no one for a decade cared about ranking sats. ranking sats was not a problem..
its the meme spam thats advertised under the brand "ordinals" which is what people can stop

no single input or output deserves 3.99mb
no single input or output deserves 10kb

No need, it finally confirmed but it took a week instead of the usual couple of hours before this spam. Of course this was simply an experiment which proves what is going on. Maybe i was lucky, hoping certain pool didn't find any blocks...

IMO Ordinals doesn't care as long as they can profit. It is everybody else who is affected from their spam, after all. They are essentially hijacking Bitcoin. but we are yet to see the worst part, when more join the spamming...

PSA

We first have to determine whether the widespread negative reaction to Ordinals is emotional and personal opinion or if it is because Ordinals is against the very purpose of bitcoin.

It is one thing to complain about for example people still using P2PKH instead of P2WPH and demanding a protocol change for that and complaining about someone using bitcoin aka a payment system for file storage.

there's no denying that ordinals has exploded in popularity. everybody is talking about it, including youtubers. that brings more interest to bitcoin. maybe the price goes up. but yeah i guess if you're wanting to get rid of the ordinals "feature" you could technically do it. as you have pointed out how. i guess it's up to the bitcoin devs but i have a feeling that if they tried to do that then there would be an imminent fork of bitcoin.  you could call the new fork bitcoin-ord.

actually having code that actually verifies the data it handles.. not this soft crap that has been in play for several years that allowed crap in without majority if nodes needing to update to be ready to verify everything

its what the whole point of consensus was 2009-2016
my previous posts in this topic have given out some idea's
if i go too into detail of such idea's i get the preacher brigade crying that i must be some totalitarian by making it sound too much like a proposal and too specific of detail.

but the idea is there, if you care to read it.

EG if a op code meant to suggest and promise that its witness will only be a 1 signature length that validates against the tx data.. then its allowed. if its just random crap unrelated to the transactions purpose of the payment. then its junk and should be rejected

how? how do they do that franky? lets hear your protocol for how they do that.


sounds like you might have to bump up the fee because i don't see this ordinals activity slowing down any time soon. if anything, more people are going to be releasing 10,000 item collections...and then you still have the mom and pop people like the person that can't stop uploading the bitcoin logo.

they should somehow make it so that people submitting an ordinals transactions have to pay the fee for someone else's normal transaction. that would get you taken care of, buddy.   

They reported making 19 BTC from selling this spam. So they have both incentive and means to push whatever tx fee price they see fit.

In the meantime, my actual transaction destined to pay bills and food, is still waiting since the 11th. Well there are still days left before the end of the month. But this is clearly showing what it is to come.

The next time a real fee increase surges, from some exchange moving stuff around, + these wealthy spammers...

current nodes allow upto 3.99mb of witness bloat when using a certain opcode

hardening consensus where that certain opcode is only "one signature length" like that tx formats promise was
does not cause a fork (altcoin).

simply saying after block 7XX,XXX consensus is hardened for that opcode to be one signature length is still accepted by old nodes that allow the <3.99mb weight thing. because a 1signature length is also <3.99mb so no harm or deviation of the exploited rules
its just a tightening of the rules

where by blocks containing transactions that go above the tightening. get rejected
all it requires** in this is the mining pools and some economic nodes to add utility incentive pressure for the mining pools([masf+nya style]), coming to consensus of doing the tightening of consensus rules at the certain blockheight

there are other ways to harden consensus again.
**but we might aswell use the method of a trick that have been done before which certain people adored
its funny how those same people are now saying "lets not change things" when they adored changing things done by this method
so we might aswell use their prefered tricks, thus they cant object

It's not that we "need" it.  It's that someone found an exploit and people are using it to do something that wasn't anticipated.  So naturally people are now asking whether it's right to change the protocol to make that more difficult for them.  It sounds like you've already made your mind up, but consider taking a moment to ponder the consequences.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and abuse?  It's a really big question and the answer may not be as simple as you might think.



I'd rather see it on shitcoins too.  But my concern is that the response needs to be considered carefully.  If we set a precedent that the protocol needs to change every time someone makes an emotional response to something they personally disapprove of, where does it end?  What if you happen to be using Bitcoin for something that I might personally disapprove of?  Do I then get to argue that we should change the protocol to stop you doing what you want to do? 

So Why do we need this? Its creating more division, junk, porn, illegal materials and possibly weaknesses well?... Say sending images or something else becomes very popular and actual Bitcoin transactions just ends up in the background and never gets processed, impossible?
Give me one good clear advantage of allowing this please? What's wrong with keeping this on the shitcoins? Why does it have to be on Bitcoin?
I hope for a fork and things like this is considered spam