Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 45. (Read 9235 times)

There's been several thousand sales and transfers of them already, so its far more than 1%. The motivation was he did it because he could -- there needn't be any further explanation. He is playing within the rules of the system, as is everybody who is doing inscriptions.


Not at all. The inscriptions that are already there cannot be removed, they will always be there (except locally through node pruning). If a change was made that prevented new ones from being made, it will only make the pre-existing ordinals that use them all the more valuable.


Like storing any type of data that one wants to render immutable in the world's most secure blockchain.

not sure they have any control over that, franky. you expect miners to open up the jpegs of a transaction to see if it has any nudes? while they're doing that, someone else might have found a hash that met the difficulty requirement.

reason there should not be nasty illicit material on the blockchain
a. the mining pool collating data into a blocktemplate become legally liable for the content they allowed into their block
b. if they did, the mining pool owner then becomes a criminal for mass distributing illegal content
c. the onus of what ordinals are put into the blockchain is on the mining pools

until we bring the byte per input witness/output witness down to purposeful amounts

what a full node needs to do is reject blocks including such nasty material
this currently due to lack of a red button in core to manually reject a block individuals spot as illicit. requires quick communications of the economic nodes and mining nodes to monitor the content and tell each other to do it in their special (tweaked nodes) to reject blocks and re-org in the first few freshblocks to ensure bad content does not get included and made immutable by reaching a confirm threshold that makes it impossible to remove blocks

at this precise moment we have only the hope that a mining pool is just not stupid enough to want to become criminals by adding such nasty content

the large pools are easily identifiable so risk of nasty content is low. but it would only take a immoral pool with some easy methods to hide which pool mined it(not going to say how, dont want to promote the possibility of them doing it) to slip something nasty into a block

---

also subnetworks that are not blockchains have no timestamp logs of ownership transfer nor timestamp NFT creation..  thus are the wrong type of network for NFT ownership transfers/births

so to the group that love such silly flawed network. i know you want to grab onto whatever popular fad, viral buzzword and feature you can to hope it can hype up utility on your silly network.. again your silly network has failed another "fit for purpose" test for any hope or dream of having a wide use-case purpose

NFT will be on a side chain not a smart contract network

I have kept an eye on the mempool data and I must say things are looking dire to any transaction below 5 sat/vB.
If your transactions becomes urgent as days pass, you would consider to increase the fee, it could be weeks before we go back to 1 sat/vB levels.


At the time being the protocol does not have an equivalence to a guard or museum curator who would control the inflow of Master Pieces mixed with the bulk of garbage. Still waiting on the good news, though...

I'm all about experimentation and pushing boundaries, but why deploy on mainnet if you care about Bitcoin at all?

141GB extra storage per year for random pictures isn't as bad as I expected, but I'm also worried about people storing illegal and highly immoral material in the blockchain, which was the main reason for myself not pursuing the idea of spinning up a BSV node, for instance..

Likewise, it could be the reason for people to shut down their Bitcoin nodes. I'm being honest: I will not store such materials on any system under my control. If it ends up in the Bitcoin blockchain, I will stop storing the blockchain, i.e. shutting down my nodes. Sad but harsh truth.

We should seriously consider whether we agree with committing to storing any (yes, any...) data on our own machines (that we're liable for), without possibility to delete or deny storing that information unless we stop running the software. If this was a separate program from Bitcoin core with a separate database, it would be one thing. But attempting such an experiment on the blockchain is the most questionable choice in the room here, in my opinion.
If you want to host a 'maximally free decentralized, redundant data storage' program, go ahead. Worst-case, you just shut it down. But we are talking about putting the one real Bitcoin we have, at risk, for that, because we are mixing concerns.

Right on, mate!

Yup, more people should at the very least read the headline of the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Hint, for anyone who didn't get the memo. It is a payment system, mostly for online payments.
As for promotion: RGB is not promoted a lot, from what I can tell, but Lightning Labs (as always) are pretty vocal about their work (in this case, Taro). Regarding wallets; I highly doubt that most people's daily on-chain Bitcoin wallet supports Ordinals and NFTs. So they will have to download something new, anyway.

Can't you do that with Taro or RGB, without risking destabilizing Bitcoin L1?

disagree. look at some of the crap people are storing there. there's no money motivation for i'd say 99% of them so far. as far as Mr. Rodarmor, i'm not even sure he even cares or considered the impact of his "invention" on the blockchain.

well i mean if that happens then ordinals would be a dead project and their images would too. so it would kind of be like they wasted their money.

like what? being the largest warehouse of junk gifs in the universe? i'll give it that  should be hitting 100,000 junk nfts soon. at some point 1 million and at some point bitcoin will be the largest warehouse of junk gifs in existence.  

I look forward to watching development and infrastructure grow for Ordinals.  It would be great if this was the way to finally have some of the functionality from other chains.  For example, what if Ordinals were used as a way to decentralize organizations like NastyFans?  What if you could easily issue payments to be split amongst all the holders of a collection of Ordinals?  This could be something I've wanted from Bitcoin for more than a decade.  It would basically eliminate the need for a 3rd party to run an exchange or sit on funds to be distributed.  I personally hope development in this area doesn't stop, as high Bitcoin blockchain fees could be an issue for distributions.  Hopefully with some more development we can see how to implement things like smart contracts that could be drained by collection owners with the end user paying the fees to withdraw any funds held on their behalf.  For me, this would be a game changer. 

I agree, this is not a discussion about the content of the spam, or if you like it or has value or not. It is spam, not bitcoin transactions.

Anyway 3 days and counting...

the idea of silly people thinking:
- bitcoin should have less transactions
- people paying more
- single user paying super big fee's
is the oppositive of bitcoins ethos

its a international currency for the masses

its not meant for bloat data for elitists unrelated to payment data

by allowing more
-lean transactions
    -actual byte counting
    -set for purpose
    -set for performance
-fee controls that punish the spammers more so than everyone

means each person pay less, but the amount combined is enough bonus to incentivise mining pools for when block rewards deplete

The ethos of Bitcoin is not anymore to be a usable decentralized mean of payment? If we can no longer send on-chain transactions with affordable mining fees for a random Earth inhabitant because of a new feature, I don't think this feature respect the ethos of Bitcoin. If only big mining farms can mine Bitcoin because of the size of the blockchain, I don't think that fits the ethos of Bitcoin. I may be wrong but I don't think Bitcoin has been initially designed to only being used by few rich westerners and mined by industrial factories. Bitcoin is already one of the most expensive cryptocurrency, we don't need to increase its cost of use.

bitcoin is not permissionless

a. firstly the consensus network is was consentual
b. secondly the public-private key signing

heres the thing
where the song sheet windy and pooya are singing get the words mixed up on

b. value ownership is where the network majority cannot move value without the individual key owners consent

a. the individual cannot couldnt(past) use new features without the network mass consent

and never should the two swap.. to become permissionless

though doomad wants the two to swap and be permissionless. and he has already got one of his idol wishes.. (a) softened
now he wants (b) broken... having people run fool nodes not checking transactions meet rules and wanting new opcodes that dont sign whole transaction lengths but only parts of data so he or others can manipulate data in a tx onroute (he loves the idea of anyonecanspend and anyonecanpay ideas)

Every day, another blockchain project is announced and most of them end up failing. At this rate the future looks bleak for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The only thing that can save bitcoin from becoming valuable or from being displaced as the dominant cryptocurrency is the slow and systematic addition of infrastructure and safeguards to ensure the security of the underlying protocol. After looking at the pros and cons I believe that people should be given the freedom to implement their own features as long as they don't affect the base layer.

We talk about the uselessness of NFTs and their scam nature but that is not the debate.

Bitcoin was not invented to become some sort of cloud storage where people upload their files. The debate about NFTs and other tokens on bitcoin blockchain is also not about their usefulness, their value or anything like that. It is all about using a system in a way that it is not supposed to be used.

Bitcoin is meant to be a currency people use for payment, using it for anything else is actually against its "Ethos". Also:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61733370

We can't determine, nor debate, what can and what can't have value, or what actually has value, except for the market to accept "it" for the fair asking price. We also can't demand for those NFT transactions to be censored, because it would be a failure to Bitcoin's Ethos if it actually happens. I believe we just have to merely accept it, BUT we shall agree that the development of NFT in the Bitcoin blockchain is not pushing the boundaries of Science anymore. It's actually in the world of stupid. Censorship-resistant dick pics and fart sounds are stupid.

I'm not sure what the motivation was for Casey Rodarmor to put his system together -- experimentation is often fueled by simply wanting to test the bounds of what can be done -- but the people creating NFTs with it are certainly doing it out of financial motivation, for the most part.

The novelness is already beginning to wear off, however, and it will be a matter of interest maintenance to keep prices high, just like every other NFT project... constant social maneuvering to maintain relevance in the face of a flood of new NFTs being created across a dozen blockchains every day.

I think we're witnessing a rush for people to get their stuff inscribed now in case changes are made to the protocol to prevent such "abuse" from happening in the future. There is just something about putting your art on the Bitcoin blockchain that is so damn appealing.

The potential applications for this beyond art are limitless, however. A lot of potential utility here. Art NFTs just happen to be the gateway to onboarding normies to crypto.

I would like to highlight something I just noticed today. I was checking the growth of the blockchain's size through time and it was very stable.

However, when I zoomed in I realized that we could be witnessing a new trend on the blockchain's growth, assuming this usage to mint NFTs continues through time.


I decided to jump onto Excel and tried to made some basic calculations considering the growth rate of these last four days. i am aware that this is pretty raw data since ideally I would need to wait more to see how the blockchain behaves.

I have come to the conclusion the blockchain grew at an approximate rate this last year of 4676 Mb/Month
Since the implementation of the NFTs, the weight has been going around 70% faster these last 4 days, at a pace of 7959 Mb/Month.


In that rough estimation (Where  Y= weight in Mb and X= Time (month). Being month 0 February 2022).


Within a year (Month 24 in the model) the blockchain should weigh around 503339 Mb (503 Gb), but if the current NFT mania continues like this, it may reach 644920 Mb (644 Gb). 141 Gb of difference in a year.

---

Again, just rough estimations and extrapolations, which could not be accurate but I think some of you would be interested on having some numbers.
If you find some math mistake, I apologize in advance, I just made this and it is almost 2 am.

If it was not obvious enough:

Source: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/blocks-size

yeah but ethereum doesn't store the images.

big difference.