And yet my current transaction is still pending. I did one such transaction in early Jan 2018 which is why i remember, it may have come to two months by late Jan/Feb like you say.
And don't forget, if those things start selling higher to account for the fee, they won't mind increasing it. this is a foreign competition to actual transactions within the blockchain. People were already complaining about Bitcoin capacity even before this, and while you think it "may be over", i think we have seen nothing yet, and leaving the door open for spam abuse is a mistake.
Sure if they go to Namecoin its fine for now, but this can still be abused by others in the future, and they did for us a perfect demonstration of it.
Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 47. (Read 9235 times)
Yes, for now, but then 2 won't be enough. 3 won't be enough, and its a repeat of Jan 2018 (two weeks for 1 sat/b) all over again.
Then also the Inscription/Ordinal guys will have to pay more for their trash to be included. With transactions of well over 1 kB, paying 2 (or worse, 3 or 4) instead of 1 sat/vByte can already be a big difference. Most of these NFTs probably won't sell for more than $10 or $20, so if you have to pay $5 in fees (and well over $10-20 for anything closer to "high-resolution") this will already make many people think if it's worth it.And the 2017/2018 blockchain bloat event was much, much worse than now. 2 weeks for an 1 sat/byte tx? This was illusory then. I think it was about 2 months
(look at the All view of Johoe's mempool graph, I see there no possibility for an 1 sat/vByte tx for most of the early quarter of 2018. We're not even close to the situation in the first half of 2021, when the bloat was simply caused by a bullish hype.)I'm following the evolution of Inscription transactions and the worst may be already over. Februrary 8/9 was the peak with over 20000 inscriptions in 24 hs., now the number has lowered to 6000-7000. It's a novelty, so people are trying it out, but I'm almost sure it will go down to less than 1000 inscriptions per day soon, and also with a focus on less "heavy" transactions.
Anyway I've proposed the Namecoin guys to promote Ordinals on their chain, as it's Bitcoin merged-mined (and thus it can be described as an "extension" of Bitcoin), and it's focussed on data/non-financial transactions anyway. They seem to be not uninterested, but Taproot is still not live on their chain.
What if Ordinals leaves and comes another and does the same? What if they don't leave and more join? Where does it end? "Use lightning, on chain sucks, use altcoin, bitcoin sucks" etc...
Again, it's a free market, if the hype continues the "inscribers" will have also to pay more fees. 2017/18 was also not the end of Bitcoin at all By the way, I was able to transact BTC these days for the same fee as I normally do (for convenience reasons I almost always use a little bit more than 1 sat/vbyte, between 1,5 and 3 sat/vbyte). I think expecting 1 sat/vbyte could not be realistic anymore in the near future, even without Ordinals.
PS: I have a slight hope that Ordinals could speed up the development of sidechain solutions on Bitcoin. There is for example a proposal for Rollups (a special kind of sidechain known from Ethereum).
PS: I have a slight hope that Ordinals could speed up the development of sidechain solutions on Bitcoin. There is for example a proposal for Rollups (a special kind of sidechain known from Ethereum).
Yes, for now, but then 2 won't be enough. 3 won't be enough, and its a repeat of Jan 2018 (two weeks for 1 sat/b) all over again. Still waiting for that transaction to have an exact count of how many hours is taking, where the same until last week was just about two hours. What if Ordinals leaves and comes another and does the same? What if they don't leave and more join? Where does it end? "Use lightning, on chain sucks, use altcoin, bitcoin sucks" etc...
Is it a will of the big mining pools? Do they just want heavier blocks with more fees and therefore more profits for them? One could imagine something like that.
One name has been mentioned and its very involved with altcoins and some other finance activities, so it may not be coincidence.
I am just afraid of the potential attack vector to the whole blockchain this may be.
[...]A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
I don't get why they shouldn't have spammed the Bitcoin blockchain in other ways. Data spamming is possible since Bitcoin exists (with "fake" addresses, later OP_RETURN etc.). [...]A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
PS: I have a slight hope that Ordinals could speed up the development of sidechain solutions on Bitcoin. There is for example a proposal for Rollups (a special kind of sidechain known from Ethereum).
op return only allows 80 bytes
and thats not enough to put anything useful outside of a payment signature into that space
so no one used if for much else but a hash to then reference that hash on other networks
to put say 3000kb on the block chain was not possible pre tr
to put say 30kb on the block chain was not possible pre segwit
from memory the most it could have been was 10kb in segwit days and 80bytes per opcode in legacy days
forget for now about sidechains. as thats different teams and corporate business product stuff
bitcoin devs need to work on bitcoin stuff of plugging the holes that were made when the rules were softened over the years
make consensus hard again
..
current subnetworks (those beginning with L) are not functionally viable to handle peoples hoards, they are for the penny spenders. not the normal people that have 1st world country monthly-yearly salary amounts
yes new subnetworks will take their place that actually have real utility and are functional. but for the moment bitcoin devs need to plug the holes of bitcoin and concentrate on bitcoin
I agree with you Artemis3. The fees have become really hard and it's very frustrating to think that it's because of this Ordinal mess.
We can still trade with small fees, fortunately, but you have to look at the mempool more than you used to, and I must admit that it's annoying some days.
Is it a will of the big mining pools? Do they just want heavier blocks with more fees and therefore more profits for them? One could imagine something like that.
In any case, if it goes on like this, I think that the Lightning Network will experience a new boom. The Bitcoin blockchain is becoming less and less efficient nowadays, I hope like you that this NFT fad will pass. Developers should find a way to deal with this.
I can't even imagine the transaction fees for users of some CEXs that charge excessive withdrawal fees. If already when transactions at 4 sat/vB pass they exaggerate, I dare not imagine currently
We can still trade with small fees, fortunately, but you have to look at the mempool more than you used to, and I must admit that it's annoying some days.
Is it a will of the big mining pools? Do they just want heavier blocks with more fees and therefore more profits for them? One could imagine something like that.
In any case, if it goes on like this, I think that the Lightning Network will experience a new boom. The Bitcoin blockchain is becoming less and less efficient nowadays, I hope like you that this NFT fad will pass. Developers should find a way to deal with this.
I can't even imagine the transaction fees for users of some CEXs that charge excessive withdrawal fees. If already when transactions at 4 sat/vB pass they exaggerate, I dare not imagine currently
I am just afraid of the potential attack vector to the whole blockchain this may be.
[...]A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
I don't get why they shouldn't have spammed the Bitcoin blockchain in other ways. Data spamming is possible since Bitcoin exists (with "fake" addresses, later OP_RETURN etc.). But it's not even necessary if spamming is their main interest. They can simply send lots of "financial" transactions without sense, like the big blockers did (presumedly) in mid-2017. The "witness discount" exists since 2017, so all they have to do is to create big Segwit transactions with lots of inputs and outputs. I recently read on Twitter that with Taproot it's possible to achieve a 15% lower fee cost per data byte than with earlier methods, so it was not really a game-changer for pure spammers.[...]A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
A long continuation of the Ordinals hype would be more concerning. But I expect the NFT hype in general to be over soon (it is already much less of an hype than 2021), and the Ordinals hype will also follow. People will see that if they inscribe more than a few pixels (i.e. higher resolution images or even videos) their transactions will be possibly more expensive than what they can expect to get as a price.
So I generally think people are over-reacting to Ordinals Inscriptions, even if I absolutely don't mind NFTs (at least those of the "pixel art" category, maybe there could be some valuable NFT use cases in the "legal contract" category). The Ethereum blockchain is also full of bloat and spam since at least the big ICO/DEX hype ~2017 ("people using decentralized exchanges to trade decentralized exchange tokens" is still my favourite
) and it continues to work.By the way, I was able to transact BTC these days for the same fee as I normally do (for convenience reasons I almost always use a little bit more than 1 sat/vbyte, between 1,5 and 3 sat/vbyte). I think expecting 1 sat/vbyte could not be realistic anymore in the near future, even without Ordinals.
PS: I have a slight hope that Ordinals could speed up the development of sidechain solutions on Bitcoin. There is for example a proposal for Rollups (a special kind of sidechain known from Ethereum).
Every month i have been doing small transactions at 1 sat/b to pay for monthly utility bills, food, etc. The usual "waiting line" (memblock size) to wait was usually around 6mb which was like a couple of hours of wait at most. Today I'm trying a transaction, guess what? 61mb waiting line...
Those parasites are earning money selling NFTs or whatever their spam business is, at the expense of everybody else's livelihood. Yes i take it very personal what Ordinals and their accomplices are doing.
Those parasites are earning money selling NFTs or whatever their spam business is, at the expense of everybody else's livelihood. Yes i take it very personal what Ordinals and their accomplices are doing.
24 hours later and the transaction remains unconfirmed... Yes i could rise the fee, but this is not urgent and its a clear demonstration of whats going on... Of course everyone can rise the fee and then the spammers will do it too. It would be fine if those were normal transactions but this is pure spam, there is no other way to call non tx content in the blockchain, don't call it NFT or memes, the content itself doesn't matter, they are spammers pure and simple and that's how they should be called.
ok lets take things back to basics
to help you get unstuck
cases ordinal theory feature is a build up of 3 main sub deatures cmbined.
il just call them version 1ord,version 2ord,version 3ord
for simplicity
v1ord
this is before any bloat data concept(v3ord)
lets say he started the 'first ordinal height' of block 750,000(for easy math)
block 750,000 offering 6.25btc means the reward is the
first 625000000 sats
when the mining pool coinbase winner maakes its first transaction
bc1qblocreward 6.25 ->bc1qminera 0.00001000
bc1qminerb 0.00001000
bc1qminerc 0.00001000
bc1qminerd 0.00001000
(and so on)
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the first 1000sat of ordinal rank
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the 1001-2000sat of ordinal rank
(and so on)
bc1qminera 0.00001000->bc1qminera 0.00000001
bc1qretailerX 0.00000375
bc1qretailerY 0.00000375
(249sat lost to fee)
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the first 1sat of ordinal rank
bc1qretailerX is now ranked as owning the 2-376sat of ordinal rank
bc1qretailery is now ranked as owning the 377-751sat of ordinal rank
whereby its simply about ranking each sat
in caseys algo of ranking sats
where the sat in bv1qminera is rated as being the rarest sat as its the first.
(its a side show of rarity)
its not about putting in data into sats nor anything else its just his algo.
declaring certain sats as rare
v2ord
now to transfer the sat (knowing utxo dont retain sat data or transfer sats but destroy txid from utxoset to create new txid into utxoset) involves careful "utxo selection" to pick the rare one as the first input and also the first output
to keep its "rarity claim"
so whomevers address is in first poutputof child tx then owns that rare sat
EG if someone wants 2000sat from minera and minera wants to give them 1999 less rare +1 rare sat
bc1qminera 0.00000001->bc1qsomeone 0.00000001
bc1qminera 0.00002249 bc1qsomeone 0.00001999
(250sat lost to fee)
whereby the first output being 1sat then is IN CASEYS THEORY AND SOFTWARE
treated as the same "first sat"
emphasis. this again is not about putting in any special data into blockchain
this is about the sat. being ranked as first by caseys ranking system.. not bitcoin protocol
which to then transfer the deadweight meme. is not just having the dead weight move by normal bitcoin code of making a transaction, but via caseys software uploading memes into a raw TX witness area
v3ord
now we get to the deadweight of memes
these memes are not put into the sat area of "value" of a raw tx
they are put into the "script/signature/witness area (pick the buzzword that appeals to how old school you want to interpret the area talked about)
the dead weight meme is put into the signature area(witness) of a tx. and if that tx has a rare sat. then that makes that deadweight meme rare
having an ordinal meme(deadweight image file) in the first sat does not mean its having an image in the bytes where sats sit in a tx
its having dead weight in the witness area of a transaction that also contains a rare sat(aka first sat)
GET IT YET
..
deadweight (memes) are not about sats..
sats are a separate algo, feature about ranking system of rarity
..
now thats cleared up
to transfer the meme requires putting the meme file into the witness of the next tx to tag it to the output that has been deemed by caseys algo as being the one that has the rare sat to ensure they stay linked as a rare meme
otherwise you dont own the meme you just own the rare sat if you were in position 1 of a taint of position 1's according to his theory
but outside his theory
the utxo in is a different txid as an output thus not the same
a true transfer would be where a file is hashed and then appended
with say (made up) bc1N[hash]
which becomes an identifier of a file. or satoshi amount
which if output 1 this address and its designated output 2 is someones address that gets claimed ownership. then they can use that said address..
(but that requires changing bitcoin to allow that)
which core cant/wont
this someones utxo 5 childs away(unless dead data is added) has no reference in the tx to call it the owner.
apart from caseys software which is not a bitcoin rule but some guys theory
to help you get unstuck
cases ordinal theory feature is a build up of 3 main sub deatures cmbined.
il just call them version 1ord,version 2ord,version 3ord
for simplicity
v1ord
Code:
# subsidy of block at given height
def subsidy(height):
return 50 * 100_000_000 >> height // 210_000
# first ordinal of subsidy of block at given height
def first_ordinal(height):
start = 0
for height in range(height):
start += subsidy(height)
return start
def subsidy(height):
return 50 * 100_000_000 >> height // 210_000
# first ordinal of subsidy of block at given height
def first_ordinal(height):
start = 0
for height in range(height):
start += subsidy(height)
return start
this is before any bloat data concept(v3ord)
lets say he started the 'first ordinal height' of block 750,000(for easy math)
block 750,000 offering 6.25btc means the reward is the
first 625000000 sats
when the mining pool coinbase winner maakes its first transaction
bc1qblocreward 6.25 ->bc1qminera 0.00001000
bc1qminerb 0.00001000
bc1qminerc 0.00001000
bc1qminerd 0.00001000
(and so on)
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the first 1000sat of ordinal rank
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the 1001-2000sat of ordinal rank
(and so on)
bc1qminera 0.00001000->bc1qminera 0.00000001
bc1qretailerX 0.00000375
bc1qretailerY 0.00000375
(249sat lost to fee)
bc1qminera is now ranked as owning the first 1sat of ordinal rank
bc1qretailerX is now ranked as owning the 2-376sat of ordinal rank
bc1qretailery is now ranked as owning the 377-751sat of ordinal rank
whereby its simply about ranking each sat
in caseys algo of ranking sats
where the sat in bv1qminera is rated as being the rarest sat as its the first.
(its a side show of rarity)
its not about putting in data into sats nor anything else its just his algo.
declaring certain sats as rare
v2ord
now to transfer the sat (knowing utxo dont retain sat data or transfer sats but destroy txid from utxoset to create new txid into utxoset) involves careful "utxo selection" to pick the rare one as the first input and also the first output
to keep its "rarity claim"
so whomevers address is in first poutputof child tx then owns that rare sat
EG if someone wants 2000sat from minera and minera wants to give them 1999 less rare +1 rare sat
bc1qminera 0.00000001->bc1qsomeone 0.00000001
bc1qminera 0.00002249 bc1qsomeone 0.00001999
(250sat lost to fee)
whereby the first output being 1sat then is IN CASEYS THEORY AND SOFTWARE
treated as the same "first sat"
emphasis. this again is not about putting in any special data into blockchain
this is about the sat. being ranked as first by caseys ranking system.. not bitcoin protocol
which to then transfer the deadweight meme. is not just having the dead weight move by normal bitcoin code of making a transaction, but via caseys software uploading memes into a raw TX witness area
v3ord
now we get to the deadweight of memes
these memes are not put into the sat area of "value" of a raw tx
they are put into the "script/signature/witness area (pick the buzzword that appeals to how old school you want to interpret the area talked about)
the dead weight meme is put into the signature area(witness) of a tx. and if that tx has a rare sat. then that makes that deadweight meme rare
having an ordinal meme(deadweight image file) in the first sat does not mean its having an image in the bytes where sats sit in a tx
its having dead weight in the witness area of a transaction that also contains a rare sat(aka first sat)
GET IT YET
..
deadweight (memes) are not about sats..
sats are a separate algo, feature about ranking system of rarity
..
now thats cleared up
to transfer the meme requires putting the meme file into the witness of the next tx to tag it to the output that has been deemed by caseys algo as being the one that has the rare sat to ensure they stay linked as a rare meme
otherwise you dont own the meme you just own the rare sat if you were in position 1 of a taint of position 1's according to his theory
but outside his theory
the utxo in is a different txid as an output thus not the same
a true transfer would be where a file is hashed and then appended
with say (made up) bc1N[hash]
which becomes an identifier of a file. or satoshi amount
which if output 1 this address and its designated output 2 is someones address that gets claimed ownership. then they can use that said address..
(but that requires changing bitcoin to allow that)
which core cant/wont
this someones utxo 5 childs away(unless dead data is added) has no reference in the tx to call it the owner.
apart from caseys software which is not a bitcoin rule but some guys theory
a UTXO is not txdata/deadweight data
a UTXO is TXID+index
a utxo does not mention sat amount when its put in as a input of a spending tx
a utxo does not mention the witness data of the previous transaction
please read raw tx data as to what goes into a child transaction when a parents contains a ordinal meme image
that meme is not in the child. just a txid and a index
..
also
ordinals are the meme images
inscriptions is a identifier
read your own links
am inscription is the script of describing what is to be put into the witness data. the ordinal is the image/meme
again both ordinal and inscription of ordinal. are not included in the UTXO set and dont get put into an input of the child spending the UTXO
PLEASE forget what you read on some promotional website.. and read real actual transaction data on the bitcoin network.
read the bits where he says incompatible wallets
as that is bitcoin and bitcoin wallets dont do as website says.
his software will do other things to GUI present information to appear linked by using his softwares tricks of copying one piece of data to another piece outside the default bitcoin rules
learn the difference between what you see at GUI (user interface) level. and what is actually seen at binary level of blockchain data and what difference for instance core does to a utxo. vs what caseys software does with utxo + deadweight +meta date
you are not simply spending sats/utxo to move a ordinal
if it were true then just using core you would move an ordinal by just spending a p2TR utxo
but it doesnt work that way
it requires caseys special software where the software doesnt just put in a utxo as input.. from the utxoset
it then seeks out the txid in the blockchain data files(.blk) finds the tx looks at the witness data, copies the witness data and puts it as witness data into the child tx
learn the difference
a UTXO is TXID+index
a utxo does not mention sat amount when its put in as a input of a spending tx
a utxo does not mention the witness data of the previous transaction
please read raw tx data as to what goes into a child transaction when a parents contains a ordinal meme image
that meme is not in the child. just a txid and a index
..
also
ordinals are the meme images
inscriptions is a identifier
read your own links
am inscription is the script of describing what is to be put into the witness data. the ordinal is the image/meme
again both ordinal and inscription of ordinal. are not included in the UTXO set and dont get put into an input of the child spending the UTXO
PLEASE forget what you read on some promotional website.. and read real actual transaction data on the bitcoin network.
read the bits where he says incompatible wallets
as that is bitcoin and bitcoin wallets dont do as website says.
his software will do other things to GUI present information to appear linked by using his softwares tricks of copying one piece of data to another piece outside the default bitcoin rules
learn the difference between what you see at GUI (user interface) level. and what is actually seen at binary level of blockchain data and what difference for instance core does to a utxo. vs what caseys software does with utxo + deadweight +meta date
you are not simply spending sats/utxo to move a ordinal
if it were true then just using core you would move an ordinal by just spending a p2TR utxo
but it doesnt work that way
it requires caseys special software where the software doesnt just put in a utxo as input.. from the utxoset
it then seeks out the txid in the blockchain data files(.blk) finds the tx looks at the witness data, copies the witness data and puts it as witness data into the child tx
learn the difference
Any blockspace that isn't used to prove how X BTC moved from A to B is a waste of space and thus an attack on Bitcoin by the various iterations of peoples that have tried to turn Bitcoin into some sort of Ethereum clusterfuck.
no nutilda
yes frank
I will spell out for you exactly what role UTXOs play in ordinal ownership since you refuse to do the research on your own:
https://docs.ordinals.com/guides/collecting.html
and where the witness data of a tx.. is separate in the parent, does not cross over to the child in wallets like core or other native bitcoin wallet
... (followed by more arguing against points that were never made) ...
... (followed by more arguing against points that were never made) ...
Nobody ever said that it does, nobody said any of these things are true and they are not part of how the system functions. If you would have actually read my first post in this thread instead of knee-jerk reacting to it, you would have learned the difference between ORDINALS and INSCRIPTIONS. Inscriptions make use of witness data whereas ordinals do not. Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of understanding how the protocol works.
You're now just arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no point of continuing this conversation any further because every time you are proven wrong you just double down in your wrongness while acting like a dismissive dickhead, regardless of the subject being discussed.
I encourage you to actually LOOK at the components of the ordinal send transaction I outlined in my previous post before responding. You won't do it because if you were capable of honest comprehension you would have to admit you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
the only way to move an ordinal is to when spending value. copy/paste the deadweight data from one witness. and put it into a new witness in the next transaction
franky if that's true then it's even worse than we thought. 
you would think the guy that designed this thing would have tried to prevent duplicating the image every time someone sold/transferred it. but i guess not? the claim that an ordinal/inscription is sitting in 1sat is wrong..
a sat(first sat/1sat) does not have >4mb of binary bits..
at binary
1 sat is "1" (1bit), 2sat is "10" (2bit), 3sat is "11" (2bit),
4sat is "100" (3bit), 5sat is "101" (3bit), 6sat is "110" (3bit),
7sat is "111" (3bit), 8sat is "1000" (4bit), 9sat is "1001" (4bit)
and so on
where by one byte(8bit) would be upto 256 sats
and just 4bytes of data meme would be 32bit which is upto 4294967295sat
(near 43btc)
no way in hell is anyone burning/using 43btc to represent a 4byte file
and there is not enough sats in circulation to represent a 4mb file
even if you were to lock up all 19m btc
1930000000000000sats
110110110110101001100100100011010101010000000000000
| | | | | | |
is only 6bytes of file data
thus
ordinals/inscriptions are not sitting in the "value" pocket of a output
ordinals/inscriptions are not sitting as a 'sat'
they are in the signature/script/witness area
(choose the buzzword for whatever era of recognition you got into bitcoin)
it certainly isnt in the "output value" area(where sats sit)
Those parasites are earning money selling NFTs or whatever their spam business is, at the expense of everybody else's livelihood. Yes i take it very personal what Ordinals and their accomplices are doing.
This is the biggest problem with this type of spam. Unlike the 2017 massive spam attack campaign that had to be funded by the attackers and from their pockets (eg. DASH foundation paying for spams), as I said before this time they are providing an incentive for regular users/spammers to spam the blockchain. It is basically bitcoin infected by cryptokitties. 
I am just afraid of the potential attack vector to the whole blockchain this may be.
I am not talking about some random guy minting 5 NFTs for fun. A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
Granted, there will be miners or pools that could see this as a problem and may ignore those NFTs transactions, but are we just going to leave the destiny of this project on the assumption of good will of some pools?
Are we going to wait until some hedge fund shorts Bitcoin and proceeds to spam us for days, while the FUD commences?
I am not talking about some random guy minting 5 NFTs for fun. A government or even a hedge fund could use their economical power to spam the blockchain in some sort of denial of service attack, specially halting honest transactions of people who just wanted to send some satoshis at fair price...
Granted, there will be miners or pools that could see this as a problem and may ignore those NFTs transactions, but are we just going to leave the destiny of this project on the assumption of good will of some pools?
Are we going to wait until some hedge fund shorts Bitcoin and proceeds to spam us for days, while the FUD commences?
So I stand on neutral ground. Its not really of interest to me but I have nothing against it.
so you don't mind if transaction fees go up. you're still neutral about that? or you're saying that the benefits of having nfts stored on the blockchain outweigh any inconvenience caused to end users such as higher transaction fees and longer confirmation times. it's hard to believe that someone could be completely neutral on the entire issue unless they don't even use bitcoin at all. It already has by way of Emblem Vault which is a method for locking up the contents of a Bitcoin address and bridging it over to Ethereum as a ERC721 token. This means that Ordinal NFTs can be traded on major NFT marketplaces like OpenSea. It works very well, except it is easy to claim your vault holds something it actually doesn't, and thus a lot of scams have happened using that tactic.
Sales of Bitcoin Punks (Ethereum Punks but with an orange background as inscribed ordinals) on OpenSea are through the roof, about 500 ETH in volume in the last 24 hours.
https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/5189380251671771
opensea is kind of playing a gatekeeper role here though. what's stopping someone from uploading the entire bored apes nft collection to the bitcoin blockchain and selling them all by making their own website? probably nothing! anyone can upload any image so in that sense it seems like this permanent storage on-chain devalues nfts on ethereum and other chains that store the image "off chain".
the only way to move an ordinal is to when spending value. copy/paste the deadweight data from one witness. and put it into a new witness in the next transaction
franky if that's true then it's even worse than we thought. you would think the guy that designed this thing would have tried to prevent duplicating the image every time someone sold/transferred it. but i guess not?
ok.
an ordinal is in the witness area
an inscription is in the witness data, not an ordinal. The ordinal (theory) is just a protocol for tracking satoshis across transactions.
https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html
(facepalm x5)
stop using silly website promotion wording
this image/meme(ordinal) is not transfered from prev tx output to next tx input(utxo) via Sats .. becasue the input of new tx does not include sats
if you were to spend a inscription or ordinal.. from a tx that included it...
well using core to make a new tx. the blockchain wont show the ordinal move or get copied
it requires a separate bit of software to manually copy/paste dead data to make it appear that they are still associated.
stop readjng some websites puff piece advertising of claims. and look are real raw data of bytes, hex.
an ordinal is in the witness area
an inscription is in the witness data. The ordinal (theory) is just a protocol for tracking satoshis across transactions.
a satoshi in a output of parent tx is not found in a utxo of child, as a utxo of child is not an address+value,.... its a txid+index
ordinals are not saved in the utxo set!
an ordinal is in the witness area of child tx
ordinals are not saved in the utxo set!
an ordinal is in the witness area of child tx
you cant just use core as is to change ownership of an ordinal because where the ordinal (meme) sits in the parent tx does not transfer into a child tx.
you would have to use another program to copy and paste and re-associate it to a child tx .. thus is not naturally/natively changing ownership
it require a user manually copy and paste data into his tx from some other tx to associate it with a new owner.
you would have to use another program to copy and paste and re-associate it to a child tx .. thus is not naturally/natively changing ownership
it require a user manually copy and paste data into his tx from some other tx to associate it with a new owner.
from what I understand, ownership is tracked by tracking satoshis - e.g. when a satoshi is inscribed with data and sent to another address, there's a 1:1 connection between that specific satoshi in the input and an output of sait transaction - so you can track backwards from a certain satoshi to all its inscriptions.
What I think nutildah is trying to say is if there's only one input, the inscription is transfered for *all* of those satoshis to (satoshis in) the output(s) - in this specific case you don't need any extra software to tell you which satoshis from the inputs map to which satoshis in the outputs.
Maybe I have it completely backwards, but that's how I understand it from the (very limited) documentation and the only way it makes any sense (to me).
Jump to: