an ordinal is not a NFT in the sense of a token that can be transfered naturally natively in its network.
ordinals are just dead data sat inside a transaction
..
an NFT is locked to its identity and that identity moves.
an ordinal just sits in witness data. and does not transfer with the UTXO in the next transaction
Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 48. (Read 9235 times)
I personally do not see what all the hubbub is about. But then again, I am not a fan of NFTs as they have absolutely no meaning to me. Just as I see trading cards as expensive strips of paper.
But I do understand that there is a demand for NFTs and that some people go totally crazy over the idea of Bitcoin NFTs. Especially if they are dedicated Bitcoiners in the first place.
So I stand on neutral ground. Its not really of interest to me but I have nothing against it.
But I do understand that there is a demand for NFTs and that some people go totally crazy over the idea of Bitcoin NFTs. Especially if they are dedicated Bitcoiners in the first place.
So I stand on neutral ground. Its not really of interest to me but I have nothing against it.
no nutilda
what appears in a "input"(source of funding)(utxo) of a tx looks different to what is in an output(destination)
the formatting is different..
input is a txid
output is a public key
(^dumbed down least complicated version of explanation^)
when a parent tx has a
in: [txid](position index)
out: amount, public address, script
once confirmed
to spend amount of public address of parents out.
you are not using any of whats wrote word for word from parent output
your instead referencing parents txid selecting the output index and you type the destination into core the amount of how much you want to spend to the next address.
...
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 wallets
it cant just be passed to a child tx by just spending the output
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.
and no the json code you grabbed from blockchain.info is not RAW TX data
please do try to learn this stuff if you really have interest to learn about it
what appears in a "input"(source of funding)(utxo) of a tx looks different to what is in an output(destination)
the formatting is different..
input is a txid
output is a public key
(^dumbed down least complicated version of explanation^)
when a parent tx has a
in: [txid](position index)
out: amount, public address, script
once confirmed
to spend amount of public address of parents out.
you are not using any of whats wrote word for word from parent output
your instead referencing parents txid selecting the output index and you type the destination into core the amount of how much you want to spend to the next address.
...
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 wallets
it cant just be passed to a child tx by just spending the output
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.
and no the json code you grabbed from blockchain.info is not RAW TX data
please do try to learn this stuff if you really have interest to learn about it
I think this is an existential threat for bitcoin, if not an outright catastrophe. NFT will kill bitcoin just like the GPU-based mining of etherium and other shitcoins has already killed high-resolution video gaming.
One of the basic limitations of bitcoin (as well as any decentralized blockchain) is the necessity of large storage space at a lot of different computers, forever (or as long as the blockchain exists). On the other hand, "modern art" is a de-facto standard tool of tax evasion nowadays. Leaving alone the discussion about goodness or badness of this practice itself, I just want to say that as a result, people are willing to pay much more money to store NFTs on the blockchain than to perform a typical money transfer. As a result, the blockchain will be flooded with NFTs, making regular transactions impractical due to the amount of fees required to compete the NFT fees. The next question is, whether the miners are going to support the blockchain after that: numerically, their fees will be much higher, but it will be quite hard to do anything with these gained fees.
You can already see how rapidly the mempool is getting flooded now, and how the BTC/USD rate has already started to drop.
One of the basic limitations of bitcoin (as well as any decentralized blockchain) is the necessity of large storage space at a lot of different computers, forever (or as long as the blockchain exists). On the other hand, "modern art" is a de-facto standard tool of tax evasion nowadays. Leaving alone the discussion about goodness or badness of this practice itself, I just want to say that as a result, people are willing to pay much more money to store NFTs on the blockchain than to perform a typical money transfer. As a result, the blockchain will be flooded with NFTs, making regular transactions impractical due to the amount of fees required to compete the NFT fees. The next question is, whether the miners are going to support the blockchain after that: numerically, their fees will be much higher, but it will be quite hard to do anything with these gained fees.
You can already see how rapidly the mempool is getting flooded now, and how the BTC/USD rate has already started to drop.
You may not like it but this is what adoption looks like:
Something I remind myself every day. What we think adoption looks like, what mainstream media thinks it looks like, and what it actually looks like? We're probably the ones (or speaking for myself anyway) who will be disappointed.
Because either Bitcoin is used for all expected purposes, but majority of its users don't even interact with the network directly...
...or we get people actually interacting with the network, but in non-expected ways.
For me, personally, I never saw the threat of ordinals. I even probably thumbed it up on first encounter on that post in Projects (shoot me, but that could just be me being a basic person). I still don't even really get the threat now, or, at least, don't see it as a bigger threat then when people were tolling the bells for Bitcoin spreading "immutable" porn online.
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.
how a ordinal data is not saved to a UTXO
Again, wrong. The protocol used to track inscribed ordinals follows transfer of the ordinal through UTXOs.
For example:
https://ordinals.com/inscription/78d6a47167a10429450d1e36e091be721c40eed14c7250c8faa6e66713f6966fi0
The address to which the Ordinal NFT was minted is:
bc1p0qc0qjselqjj2mue82nl4c89z8ll8nvn7wn6g4uczfk0qsgf5r3sj3dy3m
That address sent it to this address:
15swCYzNK2FrE9MWN1zHTT8Fhwn5nwZV75
You can see the tx used the minting transaction ID as its sole input:
This is all the information that is required to track Ordinal NFT ownership. So long as inputs are not mixed or spent in other types of transactions, the history of ownership is quite clear and it is all based on UTXOs.
By themselves they are harmless, BUT to be taken advantage by a bad actor, it could open another attack vector that could used for nefarious purposes. Perhaps to constantly make the network congested through dick pic transactions? There's probably high demand for censorhip-resistant dick pics.
It has always been a matter of whoever is willing to pay the fee is entitled to the blockspace.
i wonder when the first video will appear. that will be a truly decentralized version of youtube for sure. 
but no monetization just the user paying to upload. but it can't be deleted. so there's that.
but no monetization just the user paying to upload. but it can't be deleted. so there's that. It's not going to be a decentralized version of YouTube, there would be no use for inefficiency by using the blockchain unless the information inscripted is something that requires censorship-resistance. Why put it in the blockchain? Just because?
But while we talk about that, debating about if/for/else, someone inscribed an audio file of a fart in the blockchain, https://ordinals.com/inscription/5e92195849607b400d77f01cb1146563ce523fed47f66a044e7a470016e05e59i0
There's a fart in the blockchain.
--Snip--
There's franky-101 again, always putting words in someone's mouth, making everyone believe it's true, therefore gaslighting them. OR franky-101 forgot to drink his medication to read sarcasm again.
Its worth pointing out that Ordinals by themselves are harmless: it is just a method of de-fungifying individual satoshis so that each one in essence can be seen as an NFT. The idea was actually proposed over 10 years go but nobody ever had much use for it until recently.
By themselves they are harmless, BUT to be taken advantage by a bad actor, it could open another attack vector that could used for nefarious purposes. Perhaps to constantly make the network congested through dick pic transactions? There's probably high demand for censorhip-resistant dick pics.
forget some guys promotional puff piece
instead look at how transaction templates of raw data are done
how a ordinal data is not saved to a UTXO
instead look at how transaction templates of raw data are done
how a ordinal data is not saved to a UTXO
Its worth pointing out that Ordinals by themselves are harmless: it is just a method of de-fungifying individual satoshis so that each one in essence can be seen as an NFT.
ordinals dont do that
It does. Read the description from its creator.
I just necroposted to an old thread in which Johnson Lau came up with a numbering system for satoshis, which I independently also came up with a decade later. I think it's worth giving its own thread, so I'll copy what I posted here:
So, funny story, in the beginning of 2022, I came up with the exact same scheme discussed in this thread. After I finished the scheme, I realized that it was basically serial numbers for satoshis, typed "satoshi serial numbers" into Google, and found this post. It feels natural extension to bitcoin, so it makes sense that multiple people have come up with it over the years.
I called it "ordinal theory" or "ordinals", because it uses order in multiple places:
I've spent the last year implementing it, so just 10 years after the OP, you can finally try it out!
The binary, written in Rust, is called ord, and the code is on GitHub at https://github.com/casey/ord.
I has a bunch of functionality:
...
So, funny story, in the beginning of 2022, I came up with the exact same scheme discussed in this thread. After I finished the scheme, I realized that it was basically serial numbers for satoshis, typed "satoshi serial numbers" into Google, and found this post. It feels natural extension to bitcoin, so it makes sense that multiple people have come up with it over the years.
I called it "ordinal theory" or "ordinals", because it uses order in multiple places:
- The order of satoshis in the supply of satoshis, for numbering
- The order of inputs and outputs of a transaction, for inheritance
- The order of transactions in a block, for inheritance of fees
I've spent the last year implementing it, so just 10 years after the OP, you can finally try it out!
The binary, written in Rust, is called ord, and the code is on GitHub at https://github.com/casey/ord.
I has a bunch of functionality:
...
- An index that connects to a Bitcoin Core node instance and tracks the location of all sats.
- A rarity system: common = not the sat of the block, uncommon = first sat of the block, rare = first sat after a difficulty adjustment, epic = first sat after a halving, legendary = first sat after a conjunction, which is the difficulty adjustment and the halving happening on the same block, which happens every 6 halvings, and mythic = first sat of genesis block.
Its worth pointing out that Ordinals by themselves are harmless: it is just a method of de-fungifying individual satoshis so that each one in essence can be seen as an NFT.
ordinals dont do that
ordinals is just dead data put into a witness of a tx
when someone spends value (sats) that sat is destroyed. and a new utxo with sat is created
learn how transaction templates take in UTXO references to spend to new outputs
a UTXO used as a child tx input does not contain the witness of the parents UTXO input
it contains the UTXO of the parents output
and that parents output and the childs UTXO input does not have the same witness
...
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
meaning instead of there being just 1 copy of a chimp and hen people just trading sats.
people need to copy and paste dead weight per TX meaning multiplying the dead weight per transaction..
a normal full node wont automatically copy this deadweight by just spending sats. it requires manually editing raw TX to add the dead weight per attempt, to associate it with the next tx
Its worth pointing out that Ordinals by themselves are harmless: it is just a method of de-fungifying individual satoshis so that each one in essence can be seen as an NFT. The idea was actually proposed over 10 years go but nobody ever had much use for it until recently.
Its the inscriptions being attached to the ordinals that is the controversial part.
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.
You may not like it but this is what adoption looks like:
Guy is syncing up a full node for the first time so he can do inscriptions.
Its the inscriptions being attached to the ordinals that is the controversial part.
just wait until some nft marketplace website starts supporting bitcoin "nfts". if it gets mainstream then bitcoin might have a problem.
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.
You may not like it but this is what adoption looks like:
Guy is syncing up a full node for the first time so he can do inscriptions.
I guess it’s unavoidable for some people to want to take control when a decentralized system of that scale happens to be within reach. Guess we’ll have to watch them closely, haha
and do what? they're already loading up the blockchain with "nfts". just watching them isn't going to do anything. 
apparently some nft sold for 9.4 btc recently on the bitcoin blockchain. just wait until some nft marketplace website starts supporting bitcoin "nfts". if it gets mainstream then bitcoin might have a problem.
Thanks for the summary. Well, this is disappointing to say the least.
I guess it’s unavoidable for some people to want to take control when a decentralized system of that scale happens to be within reach. Guess we’ll have to watch them closely, haha
I guess it’s unavoidable for some people to want to take control when a decentralized system of that scale happens to be within reach. Guess we’ll have to watch them closely, haha
bitcoin HAD strong hard consensus. but over the years it has been softened to allow more and more things through that required less and less community agreement, preparedness, evaluation, and verifiability of before such things happened.
but to undo these things only one dev team has gained the prominence to allow such. they pretend when things go good they done it due to everyones adoration of their teams idea.. but it does not require everyones adoration for their things to activate..anymore
ading noew loose things is easy for them. but trying to get the community to tighten up the rules against their methods. is met with savage tactics to remove the core opposition
.. when it goes bad they pretend they are just janitors/caretakers. and not involved in the code. and some how its as asic machine that caused it, or some outside user that made it happen
its very shameful methodology, but thats how dev politics is playing it these last few years
some devs proudly admit their egotistic methods, others are ashamed. even some lead maintainers quit due to realising they were part of some centralist point of failure
satoshi left becasue he didnt want people seeing him as a central point of failure
gavin left becasue of the brand wars of disliking the direction things were continuing to go
core devs branded themselves the core of the network
and even more recently even wlad the latest lead maintainer left noting he was seen as a centralist point of failure
but if any other brand wanted to run on the bitcoin network.. but also try to do what core think only core should do.. that brand would get REKT
all proposals need to go through the monotony of layers of core dev moderation. and they have put in alot of layers to protect them from having things change their roadmap too easily
but to undo these things only one dev team has gained the prominence to allow such. they pretend when things go good they done it due to everyones adoration of their teams idea.. but it does not require everyones adoration for their things to activate..anymore
ading noew loose things is easy for them. but trying to get the community to tighten up the rules against their methods. is met with savage tactics to remove the core opposition
.. when it goes bad they pretend they are just janitors/caretakers. and not involved in the code. and some how its as asic machine that caused it, or some outside user that made it happen
its very shameful methodology, but thats how dev politics is playing it these last few years
some devs proudly admit their egotistic methods, others are ashamed. even some lead maintainers quit due to realising they were part of some centralist point of failure
satoshi left becasue he didnt want people seeing him as a central point of failure
gavin left becasue of the brand wars of disliking the direction things were continuing to go
core devs branded themselves the core of the network
and even more recently even wlad the latest lead maintainer left noting he was seen as a centralist point of failure
but if any other brand wanted to run on the bitcoin network.. but also try to do what core think only core should do.. that brand would get REKT
all proposals need to go through the monotony of layers of core dev moderation. and they have put in alot of layers to protect them from having things change their roadmap too easily
other options are
taproot devs made a promise that taproot witness would look like a single signature of <80bytes
and so keeping to that promise they can release a client we all upgrade to. that from block 7xx,xxx all taproots relayed at unconfirm are only 80byte limit witness. and if they get into a block after 7xx,xxx they would reject a block that breaks the rule
taproot devs made a promise that taproot witness would look like a single signature of <80bytes
and so keeping to that promise they can release a client we all upgrade to. that from block 7xx,xxx all taproots relayed at unconfirm are only 80byte limit witness. and if they get into a block after 7xx,xxx they would reject a block that breaks the rule
That's great and all but no action will be taken if the community is censored. Do we need to send a petition to the Devs or somethings? :lol:
So Bitcoin Magazine also censors concerns now? I posted the following comment on a youtube video and it was deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUAHex8wSag&ab_channel=BitcoinMagazine
Quote
Ordinals will most likely be a problem in the future it's important to talk about it. Average block size exploded, the mempool is through the roof. This will lead to longer time to download the chain when setting up a node, more Hard disk space needed - making it harder for low revenue households to run a node and participate in decentralization. People with a lot of money can now pay big fees to have priority over monerary transactions and are celebrated for it. All for stupid JPGs that could've easily been hosted on a sidechain to Bitcoin. I'm pretty sure that most people who updated to Taproot had NO CLUE that it would lead to that or they WOULD HAVE NOT updated to Taproot.
This is an issue and the community needs to take action before it's too late. Surely there's a way to limit Ordinals or give them a bigger disadvantage towards transactions. It may not look like a problem now but think about the future. Hell, you don't even have to think further than the next Bullrun to figure this bloat will make fees and delays explode onchain. Now think 50 years from now - ridiculous.
This is an issue and the community needs to take action before it's too late. Surely there's a way to limit Ordinals or give them a bigger disadvantage towards transactions. It may not look like a problem now but think about the future. Hell, you don't even have to think further than the next Bullrun to figure this bloat will make fees and delays explode onchain. Now think 50 years from now - ridiculous.
That CK guy in the video said: "If this is what takes Bitcoin down, well then Bitcoin wasn't what we thought it was, lol". As if he doesn't understand that it's his responsability as a voice in the community to make sure Bitcoin stays strong and stable. Who are these clowns? I'm seriously being disillusioned towards Bitcoin since this debate... I know anyone can use Bitcoin, I know it is permissionless - but I thought we at least agreed that main chain needed to stay simple and provide a strong base layer. It's what we've been preaching for years.
no pooya you are wrong there are other options
other options are
taproot devs made a promise that taproot witness would look like a single signature of <80bytes
and so keeping to that promise they can release a client we all upgrade to. that from block 7xx,xxx all taproots relayed at unconfirm are only 80byte limit witness. and if they get into a block after 7xx,xxx they would reject a block that breaks the rule
that way it does not stop proper use of taproot, nor does it cause a re-org, nor does it cause the stuff you speak of
it actually enforces the rules that were promised. by strengthening consensus rules and tx format policy as should be the case all along
other options are
taproot devs made a promise that taproot witness would look like a single signature of <80bytes
and so keeping to that promise they can release a client we all upgrade to. that from block 7xx,xxx all taproots relayed at unconfirm are only 80byte limit witness. and if they get into a block after 7xx,xxx they would reject a block that breaks the rule
that way it does not stop proper use of taproot, nor does it cause a re-org, nor does it cause the stuff you speak of
it actually enforces the rules that were promised. by strengthening consensus rules and tx format policy as should be the case all along
Is our only course of action just really downgrading core hoping others do the same?
That's not a good idea because the only way for that to work is to downgrade to an older version that doesn't have the Taproot code (so it considers it non-standard) so that it stops relaying them. But it will stop relaying ALL Taproot transaction instead of only the spam ones which is not what we want.The other problem is that your node would also be incapable of verifying Taproot transactions in blocks which means it will no longer be a full node and if everyone does that, the security of the chain is threatened.
as you are learning.
mods dont want negative speak made about ordinals
those same mods own the moderation privilege of other development too
including github
they do not want tosee it stopped
any attempt to stop it outside the core team is treated as opposition and the core team with REKT any brand of any other full node that tries to oppose, stop, or change bitcoin
welcome to centralisation. core own bitcoin
mods dont want negative speak made about ordinals
those same mods own the moderation privilege of other development too
including github
they do not want tosee it stopped
any attempt to stop it outside the core team is treated as opposition and the core team with REKT any brand of any other full node that tries to oppose, stop, or change bitcoin
welcome to centralisation. core own bitcoin
There’s so many people complaining about this
That I don’t understand why no action is being taken. Is our only course of action just really downgrading core hoping others do the same?
/r Bitcoin mod literally removed a post I made raising concern about ordinals because there’s apparently "too much threads about it" when in reality, mostly memes are posted to the sub. It made me join here to talk Bitcoin instead, but it doesn’t help the fact that more awareness should be raised about this issue.
It’s sad to think about but.. I feel like if the Bitcoin ecosystem has come to not care about integrality issues like these (or at least stopped acting on them) the future is bleak. Have any core devs been vocal about it since the renewed debate? I’d be curious to read what they have to say.
That I don’t understand why no action is being taken. Is our only course of action just really downgrading core hoping others do the same?
/r Bitcoin mod literally removed a post I made raising concern about ordinals because there’s apparently "too much threads about it" when in reality, mostly memes are posted to the sub. It made me join here to talk Bitcoin instead, but it doesn’t help the fact that more awareness should be raised about this issue.
It’s sad to think about but.. I feel like if the Bitcoin ecosystem has come to not care about integrality issues like these (or at least stopped acting on them) the future is bleak. Have any core devs been vocal about it since the renewed debate? I’d be curious to read what they have to say.
Jump to: