Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 49. (Read 9235 times)

Any marketplace for this, or escrow service?

I think it's a bad idea to use the main Bitcoin blockchain for anything other than finance applications. It will clog up the network until fees skyrocket like crazy. NFTs will make matters worse, especially when anyone can get a copy of a JPEG image online just to put it on the Blockchain. The rate of which new NFTs are added on-chain, could make Bitcoin unusable in the long run. What was the creator of Ordinals thinking? Wasn't it best to build the protocol using an off-chain scaling solution like the Lightning Network? It would've helped prevent Blockchain bloat with too many NFT transactions. Not to mention, it puts Bitcoin's security at risk.

There's a reason why BTC was meant to be used solely for finance. Not as an "all-in-one" platform for dApps, NFTs, and tokens (like it's the case with Ethereum and BNB). As a result of mass adoption from Ordinals NFTs, Bitcoin's on-chain fees increased a little. Let's see how everything will turn out to be in the long run, when more NFTs are added to the chain. Hopefully, BTC Core developers will find a solution to keep the cryptocurrency as decentralized and cost-effective to anyone as possible. Just my thoughts

and you think that a fart is an efficient use of a blockchain..
and you think that a fart is worthy of immutable requirement
(facepalm)

(pre-empting your silly thoughts and laughable moments)
just because bitcoins purpose is financial related, it does not mean it should have a fart in it

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.

anything can be added to the taproot mechanism of allowing upto 3.9mb of weight
ordinals(currently flat images) is just the first small minded bloat thats being promoted by a team in sanfransisco organising that project of this latest bloat scheme

(anything can be added to the segwit version but that was (forgive memory its been a while) limited to 10kb)
(anything can be added to the op_return version but that was limited to 80bytes)

..
oh and the ordinal adorers do get paid. just not how you think

main ordinal project manager
Casey Rodarmor (a company head of layer1(company brand) until it got into some legal crap about looting the company for personal gain)
(funded by DCG)

DCG sponsors most of the core devs with merge capability(via subsidiaries and shells.. like blockstream, chaincodelabs,brinks)

and all the sworded history of the NYA agreement(DCG+blockstream)..
you soon see all the ties over the years loop around in knots

podcast interview of casey feb 1st as one point of interest of hearing his thoughts on his motives (first 11 minutes are boring intro and talking about fiat/markets.. so yea skip that crap) 11minutes onward:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/casey-rodarmor-on-ordinals-inscriptions-bitcoin-nfts/id1618973677?i=1000597831237

edit listening to the first 25mins (11min-24min) he is actually saying things certain idiots in this topic need to learn.. and it is what i have been saying all along..

so while those idiots are defending ordinals. they need to listen to the technical stuff even THEIR idol is saying(maybe hearing it from their idol is the only way they will be willing to learn)

note: he does make a few misconceptions.
Eg because a ordinal is put into a input witness. its "spent" meaning its not in a output(tx destination). so trying to transfer it via using a utxo(output destination of parent) does not mean you can transfer the ordinal in a childtx)..
Unless you add a copy of an ordinal into the next tx(more data/copies of same data). meaning its not locking ordinal to a value/key that transfers.
its just copy and pasting dead data not locked to a key/ownership

also about his mentions of blocks meant to be full. he shys away about the filling a 4mb of transactions. and just says "data" because reality is the cludge of making the 4mb blockspace does not allow full use of 4mb of transaction data.

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.

Can you explain how this works?, I don't get how "Ordinals and others" are making any money.

So this is one week of mempool:



Thanks Ordinals and others from profiting on volunteer run nodes...

the thing about gates. they swing open. and can be swung closed again
hardening consensus to treat such "gates" as limited to x byte lengths per entry is possible. its even possible without needing to re-org existing data. thus only having a couple months of existing bloat. and then closing the gates to only allow entry of slim entrants again


they are allowed in due to consensus softened opcodes
EG repurposing the old "anyonecanspend" opcode(op_0) in 2016-7 to be treated instead as a "default:isvalid" that allows anything to be pushed through unverified by treated as valid without checks
then a sub class of opcodes under that one. which is new list of sub opcodes to let in another subclass many newer opcodes that do X, Y,Z and one that is treated as again as default:isvalid to let in a third tier of opcodes
but some of these opcodes in first, second and third tier are without even a byte limit. thus allowing any length through

---

the treatment of what to do with data after op_0 had changed. please do research on the changes that occured and activated august 2017


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

You are confusing Taproot with Schnorr digital signature algorithm. Introducing ECSDSA added the ability to aggregate pubkeys and signatures. Taproot is the script that uses this new DSA and offers more capabilities.

That has not changed.

It would've been better if this was built on some Layer 2 protocol, but now that the gates to L1 have already been opened, we will just have to put up with it.


I wonder how are these ordinals being created anyway? Like is there a special software that will mint some arbitrary (image) data but with dedicated addresses for this purpose?

Time will tell in my opinion. It’s a slippery slope for sure. I wish this wouldn’t have been possible without a hard fork, because now most people will probably just go with it. I am against NFTs on mainchain, that’s for sure. But for now, fees remain unaffected and block size has risen only to the recent hype of ordinals. One can hope for the fad to pass and bloat to be released. IMO, blocks should remain as lean as possible. But the possibility to add more data to the chain could open new possibilities for feature on second layers.

Sadly, I feel like this one is out of our hands and onto the miners’. As much as I’d love to downgrade my node to a pre-taproot version, I doubt the miners would because of how it helps filling blocks and rendering more profit.

CMIIW, but that only applies to aggregating multiple signature into single (also called schnorr signature).


But take note some of the limitation is categorized as limitation imposed by node. Some of those could be ignored by miner and those who can give non-standard transaction to miner.

You raise a fair point.  I'm not aware of the specifics for why each of those limits exists in Bitcoin, but I'd maintain there's still a difference between "these are the limits we currently have" and "I don't personally approve of what someone else is doing, so we should change Bitcoin to impose new limits".

What I'm hearing at the moment is essentially "let's grab the pitchforks and torches because I disagree".  I appreciate there's a balance to be struck and that being permissionless isn't more important than other fundamental aspects in Bitcoin.  But I find the sudden formation of lynch mobs is just a little concerning when we haven't yet established just how serious the perceived problem really is.

It all seems a little reactionary, is all. 

certain formats have,,,,,,,,, FORMATS
its those FORMATS that should be verified that they fit their FORMATS

remember the promise "taproot witnesses will be lean and appear like 1 signature length"

so where is this promise now?
nowhere because idiots like doomad, pooya, windfury and their other few buddies you usually see repeating doomads narrative like a cult..  want bitcoin not to verify that data fits the rules which data should be following

they dont want bitcoin to have rules
they think bitcoin should have no rules

they do not understand what consensus was before it was softened in 2017

consensus is nodes uniting via consent of mass survey of following a set of rules
it worked from 2009-2016 where it required nodes to upgrade to contain new rulesets that it would follow before allowing the new rules set formats be allowed to activate..
this meant the nodes would be ready to fully verify everything
since mid 2017 consensus has softened to allow rules to be broke and things accepted as default isvalid without fitting a ruleset format/function

thre is reasons why sipa and luke jr (the two main guys that softened consensus for new formats post 2017) still leave their value on pre 2017 formats.
yep both use legacy even though they want everyone else to use segwit and taproot

i too am sticking with legacy formats..

the idiots above want all the rules to be broken
including the rule about max supply of shareable units
they love even having nodes not store the blockchain(pruning)
where by the blockchain is less distributed(decentralised)

they dont want alternative brands on the network offering their own fixes, proposals, solutions. they love REKT campaigns and treating anything not following the core roadmap(of breaking the rules and softened consensus), as opposition nodes that need to be thrown off the network if they try to oppose cores bugs, flaws and bad features that break the concept of consensus of the rules

as for doomads economics lessons..
he wants people to not use a node that enforces a consensus of hard rulesets (that verify transactions fit their formats and rules). he wants people to instead let dead data without rules to be allowed to sit on the blockchain and then artificially inflate the fee's to dis-advantage said dead weight transactions...

thus he wants to artificially make the fee market a political system of controlling what transactions get through.. which in basic terms is getting everyone to pay more to stop the dead weight.
however his preferences of using the fee market as politics fails
becasue by allowing dead weight. means mining pools can throw in the dead weight unchallenged by nodes.

where by the pools adding dead weight to their unchallenged blocktemplate. whatever fee the pool adds for their dead weight goes back to them in coin reward

thus a xbtc fee in a deadweight tx they produce, becomes Xbtc in a blockreward they produce = no funds actually change ownership,

thus no cost to actually add the dead weight = other users cannot compete no matter how much a outsider transaction offers

• OP_RETURN size more than 80 bytes are rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• More than one OP_RETURN is rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• pubscript that isn't P2PKH,P2SH,P2WPKH,P2WSH,P2TR are rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• scriptsig containing extra items (ie garbage) pushed to the stack is rejected as non-standard -- > bitcoin is permissionless
• for years if the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) dummy item were garbage data other than OP_0 the transaction would have been rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• OP_(NOT)IF conditional not being OP_0/OP_1 and if garbage data were injected instead the tx would have been rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• Tx with script containing OP_NOPs is rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• Tx containing OP_SUCCESS, different witness program, Taproot version, etc. rejected as non-standard --> bitcoin is permissionless
• complicated redeem scripts with bigger sizes (eg. containing a bunch of conditionals) is rejected --> bitcoin is permissionless
• ...

---

if we decide to reject Taproot witness containing garbage --> bitcoin's permissionlessness is at risk!!!!!!!!

What kind of logic is that?

The nerve of the troll. He merely changes his narrative to gaslight everyone, and when someone points out what he's doing, he tells you that you're starting Social Drama. That's = franky-101 for everyone. There are some newbies who are starting to debate for him, then saying that his viewpoint is merely different from the majority. There will just be some users who learned the hard way.

But let's not go off-topic like what the troll wants to do.

Someone built a site that everyone can use to inscribe without running their own node, https://ordinalsbot.com/

The blockchain will be full of dick pics by the next halving.

i guess that's the largest possible size for an ordinal nft due to the blocksize constraint but that would mean no one else could do any transaction at all in that block. 

then they could do it for 10 times less if their nft was only 400 kilobytes which is probably doable for most nft images. so maybe $100 to mint an nft to bitcoin. but i agree with you franky it's not good for the ecosystem to be raising transaction fees. just look at what happened to ethereum. fees got out of control and it become unusable for people. for doing just daily transactions.

if someone wants bitcoin to be expensive then i don't want to use bitcoin. 

it will be useless if people just stuff it full of nfts and squeeze out people wanting to pay for coffee. but need to pay $20 transaction fee to get it confirmed.

that's not where i want to be transacting because then its not decentralized anymore. i have to depend on the company to not close my account. it's not a good feeling when a company is telling you you can't send your own money because they have some arbitrary rules about proof you need to show them of things and until you do that, you won't use their service. thats what corporations do though.

If and when node operators want to bear that cost, it'll happen.  Not when you screech and whine about it.  It's not your place to tell others what burden they "should" accept in order to run a node.  
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.



I don't hate the idea of low fees.  I hate the idea of artificially manipulating market forces to achieve your desired outcome.  I hate you thinking you get to arbitrarily decide what fees others "should" pay.  
People will decide that for themselves, because freedom.



If you want to implement something which is incompatible with what the majority of users want, it's your best option.  Screeching and crying about it doesn't make me wrong.



ALL devs.  Not just Core ones.  

You are the one who wants to maintain the absurd position that Core devs hold all the power.  It's the people who run the code who have the power.  If Core do something those users don't like, they won't run it.  Although I'm starting to think maybe you do run Bitcoin Core, even though you claim to disagree with it.  Is that where all your anger stems from?  Are you some sort of masochist who runs code they overtly despise?



I hate your twisted, moronic, demented fantasy of what consensus "should" be.  Every time you repeat your "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" catchphrase (like the braindead parrot you are), I read it as "bullshit nonsense franky1 totalitarian pipe-dream".  You don't understand consensus and wish to utterly pervert its meaning.  Feel free to have your own ridiculous definitions of words, but don't expect the rest of us to abide by them.

"permissionless freedom"

says the guy that hates the idea of increasing the blocksize to allow more lean transactions

says the guy that hates the idea of bitcoin being used as intended as a peer to peer PAYMENT NETWORK. and instead wants people to make payments elsewhere and use blockspace not for coffee/wage payments. but for memes

says the guy that hates the idea of low fees to allow more people of the world to afford to use the bitcoin network

says the guy that shouts out if you dont like cores plan, should fork off to an altcoin and go away

doomad wants CORE to have the freedoms to do as they please.. not the bitcoin users
doomad hates the idea of consensus

he does not want equal decentralised users that unite by common agreement
(byzantine generals solution aka consensus)

doomad love core'poral leader control where anyone not in core who opposes core should be thrown off the network

---

by the way.. when a pool adds a meme into its own blocktemplate. the fee becomes meaningless.. because (take some time to let this settle into your minds)

the sats it destroys in the meme tx... get rewarded back to itself the coinbase. thus no cost no loss..

fees are not the solution.
and pools dont care about fees (thats why pools do empty blocks aswell)