Topic: Ordinals: Rare and exotic sats (Read 1057 times)

I actually would love to see that. However, there are potentially two problems:

1) The Runes protocol, as far as I know, doesn't provide a mechanism for address blacklists like those used by USDT and USDC in their ERC-20 incarnations. So probably the big, ultra-regulated stablecoin issuers would not want to build a stablecoin with that protocol (this might be actually good, because these blacklists are totally against the censorship resistance paradigm, but many people would surely love to see USDT/USDC on Runes  ). Perhaps this will limit stablecoins on Runes to "informal" DAOs like BAMK or to smaller companies from countries without strict stablecoin regulations. Perhaps from Argentina? (there are actually some small stablecoin issuers in ARG, like Num Finance, but I don't know the regulation in detail).

2) Runes also provides no advanced scripting abilities, which would be necessary to create an algorithmic stablecoin.

As already written currently there are no scripting possibilities on Runes. They are tailored to the BRC-20 "etch -> mint -> speculate" paradigm, more suitable for memecoins. One can probably build such a protocol on top of Runes but that would need an effort as big as the Runes protocol itself.

Perhaps it might be better to create some kind of multi-token API standard for wallets, which can be extended by Runes, but also by older protocols like Omni, and also by newer ones like Taproot Assets / RGB. The standard would basically cover the operations for wallet software and Lightning implementations. In this case, a lending protocol could be done with the most scriptable "base protocol", which in my understanding is RGB.

OK, BAMK probably isn't specifically a good example as a protocol for stablecoins in Bitcoin, but you do get my perspective that the Runes protocol + the Lightning combination to build a fast, scalable stablecoin might work, no?

Plus I believe an on-chain Lending/Borrowing protocol for Bitcoin through Runes should be built because many RICH Bitcoiners want to OWN Bitcoin, not sell. Who is building this?

While I agree that (since USDT moved to other blockchains) a Bitcoin-based stablecoin for Lightning would be probably quite useful, and of course the Runes standard could be used for that, Bamk didn't leave a good impression on me.

It's a completely centralized project, like any stablecoin (it has no "algorithmic" safety net like Dai for example), but without any legal responsibility (no company, only a group of "degens" lol), and the only thing incentivizing good behaviour of the collateral custodians is the BAMK "interest rate" (see FAQs). This means, if the BAMK token crashes, probably it will take NUSD with it. It's already 95% lower than its ATH, even if that ATH seems to have been only a short spike in June 2024.

It's probably not about what already exists, nor is it about what existed first. It's about what many people in the community to adopt as their "standard" for their shitcoining needs. I believe if a protocol/system is adopted by enough people from the community, developers would build apps to make them more efficient to use. Therefore Runes in Lightning is very VERY possible.

Bamk Of Satoshi stablecoin in Lightning would absolutely be very useful for many users from different crypto communities.

I think Runes and RGB/Taproot Assets supporters are quite different user groups. Runes users are more speculation-oriented and probably much less tech savy (I think Ordinals users actually don't know absolutely nothing about the tech because the BRC-20 standard is so inefficient, Runes users might have a slightly better understanding), while Taproot Assets and above all RGB are quite challenging to understand and I think these standards thus are supported by people with some technical knowledge.

If RGB/TA apps appear with good user interfaces, and somebody hypes a well-made memecoin on that standard, they could become popular too, but I currently see no hype of any kind around them. I personally hope they could replace Runes eventually as the premier token standard on Bitcoin, but currently the difference in popularity is abysmal, according to the posts I see about these standards both in the forum and on other platforms like X. I however don't know any statistics site about RGB or Taro so maybe I'm wrong and there is some "hidden" TA/RGB user group

Currently however the Bitcoin blockchain isn't congested enough for me to really expect a short-term migration of Runes users to LN. This might change once we get the next 2023-style bottleneck. Approximately I expect a Runes migration to LN (or other Layer-2 solutions) when we also see a Bitcoin user migration.

But FWIW, Taproot Assets and RGB protocol already exist before before Runes exist. So i have doubt most of Runes owner/user would move to LN, no matter the protocol.

But it looks like that that doesn't actually matter, because we've seen liquidity unlocked in other blockchains and most of the liquidity goes to shitcoining. Why? That probably is because people like to gamble, and "trading" shitcoins is a form of gambling.

The Runes market are currently getting more bids, https://magiceden.io/runes

  👀

We might be in that point of the cycle when Bitcoin speculators will start looking for other sources of profit to get more units in Bitcoin.

I'm a bit more optimistic with Runes than with Ordinals that their users will embrace second layers, because Runes doesn't rely on the "rare sats" concept, e.g. it doesn't really matter if the tokens are inscribed on the Bitcoin main chain (BRC-20s instead are inscribed on a specific satoshi).

Several Runes-oriented websites and service providers (e.g. BitRunes) already mention its Lightning compatibility, although I haven't tried out their solutions so I can't contribute own experiences. But basically, Runes are coloured coins with an OP_RETURN data output, so there should be no major technical challenges. The only "problem" of course is that Lightning channel operators would have to support the standard.

On LN or on a sidechain (where Runes transfers should be even easier) Runes would not do any harm to Bitcoin, so I would tolerate them there.

Somewhere it was said that at the same time, 8 people in the world would have the same idea. But few people undertake to implement it.

With my own limited understanding, I am not really attached either way.  Perhaps shitcoins would usually be some kind of coin or project that is printing its own coin and not attached or linked to bitcoin.

So Runes are kind of like their own attachment to bitcoin, and describing some parameters on bitcoin (or satoshis) to attempt to ascribe additional value to bitcoin but not creating any additional token, just creating additional parameters for describing value that others may or may not appreciate or recognize. 

I can see why some folks might want to put them in the shitcoin category, even though the definition might not exactly be correct since they are not creating new satoshis.

I am sympathetic to the ideas of labelling any new and unknown project as a shitcoin on first impression, so then the burden is for the new thing to convince others that it is not a shitcoin.. but then it might seem silly to prematurely categorize such a new thing as a shitcoin merely because it is new and unknown, and even if the new thing might be working within aspects of already existing bitcoin parameters.

Maybe another idea is that if there are feelings about if this new project is good for bitcoin or bad for bitcoin, that would help to guide whether or not to refer to such new project as a shitcoin, since there has already been quite a bit of hostility in regards to ordinals and inscriptions and then runes seem to be related similarly with ordinals yet with more details yet with various seemingly made up parameters... but it is all bitcoin, no?  So it is all good?  When I see some of the hype about some of these matters, it does give me a bit of a shitcoining feeling.

Looking at few months ago, it'd probably just rise TX fee rate.


1. Might? Did Binance themselves said that?
2. Neat feature, but i doubt that alone can attract new user.
3. Does Coinbase also state they'll support Runes, Ordinals or other similar protocol? If no, it just means they only plan to support Taproot address.


With limited block size, i doubt it.

No. There's a reason why they are called shitcoins in the first place.

Merely from a "viewpoint of risk taking and trading", will shitcoining in Bitcoin on-chain secure us plebs some profit in units of Bitcoin?

A shitcoining person that I met has told me some developments about shitcoining in Bitcoin.

- Binance might be discussing to list Runes tokens
- Magic Eden now has Runes direct swaps
- Coinbase started to support Taproot

Runes will probably be one of the opportunities that could unlock billions in liquidity from Bitcoiners, no?

I'm not actually sure where to post the latest information about Casey Rodarmor's latest projects, but OK, I'll post them in this topic.

- Casey etched a memecoin in the Runes Protocol called Memento•Mori, and because of that, an artist inscribed an NFT collection with the same name in the Ordinals Protocol.

That probably has some value for those speculators who want to gamble without converting their Bitcoins to hold another coin in another blockchain.

Bump.

I merely posting to continue the topic and for those living in space - that the Ordinals protocol has an upgrade called Runes. The upgrade enables tokens to be created on-chain in the Bitcoin blockchain, with token data stored in OP_RETURN and balances are stored in UTXOs.

I believe Runes = for tokens, and Ordinals = for NFTs? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Casey Rodarmor is probably working on something to give users the power to trade directly on-chain - like a DEX.

Not sure if it's been referenced here, but for anyone wanting to check if they have any rare sats there is a "sat scanner" to do so: https://ordinalhub.com/sat-scanner

(Doesn't require you to connect wallet, only to search a bitcoin address for any rare sats)

As referenced: "you will be doxxing your wallet address, can't use exchange wallets for this". Think you could also do this via tor or vpn though to avoid potential wallet address doxxing with IP

Source: https://twitter.com/billyrestey/status/1663946483861979137

There is also instructions on how to extract a rare sat if you find one. Enjoy!

Well yeah, thats why Ord is an experimental beta software.

We've already seen multiple projects in the past with the same goal, the missing piece was always the piece of code creating the actual transaction, if a mismanipulation/bug occurs you are doomed and you loose your property.

Done! Inscribed all 58 pictures:
 
https://bbgc58.wordpress.com/

Created the first item out of 58 ... BBGC '1' as Inscription #152184 ... https://ordinals.com/inscription/cacc83142fc3f0d27378f0245e7139721e423b5db074c344602bee4eed4511dfi0

 

You can't mix them like a "coin-mixer". If you have a transaction, you have inputs and outputs (including fees) and the definition of ordinals says: which satoshi came in first is the satoshi that comes out first, second satoshi that comes in is the second satoshi that comes out and so on. So we know exactly who is who  

Just when I thought I had seen it all, you come here and you post about a concept that I have never heard of before... thank you for posting about "ordinals" ... I am now going to take some time to read up on this. 

So, in theory..... every Satoshi will have a serial number linked to it... right? So, what happens if those satoshi's go through a mixer service..after it was handled by some celebrity or linked to some major event?

This development is amazing. Look, what I posted back in December 2021:


My project BBGC Bitcoin Blockchain Gold Coin contains 58 NFTs (simple 32 x 32 pixel coin pictures) that started in 2015 on the Bitcoin blockchain, 2 years ago continued on the Ethereum blockchain and now should come back to the Bitcoin blockchain  

You can read the short story about the project here: https://bbgc58.wordpress.com/


Yes nutildah, this is exactly what my project was waiting for. Back in 2015 there were no good possibilities and on the Ethereum network a Bitcoin NFT   They are on OpenSea at the moment  https://opensea.io/collection/bbgc-bitcoin-blockchain-gold-coin ... I have to check what can be done to bring them back. If you have some suggestions, please tell me.

Maybe I should start a project thread to bring them back.

If you mean the forum NFTs, the token metadata points to a small JSON file already stored on another blockchain (Arweave). AFAIK the current Ordinals explorer only displays media files. So while I could inscribe a JSON file and attach it to an ordinal its contents wouldn't display on the explorer.

Counterparty users are looking for a way to host the image data for their tokens as an inscription but its a matter of getting the xchain explorer ready to read it as part of a token description.

One of the coolest experiments I've seen so far is called Rare Ordinals, where ordinals are being tokenized on Counterparty to leverage its market system (dispensers & DEX).

I've heard a market for ordinals is in development.

How exactly does one go about and create an Ordinal? (specifically, how does someone use ord after they install it?)


Do you remember your Counterparty NFTs that you made some time ago? Perhaps you can now port them into an ordinal form.

The use of Satoshi serial numbers or ordinals, as you've described in your implementation, could potentially lead to increased data being stored on the Bitcoin blockchain, which could in turn lead to increased size of the blockchain and increased resource requirements for nodes. This could be a concern for some users of the Bitcoin network, particularly if the size of the blockchain grows significantly over time

@rodarmor i wanted to try Ordinals on Signet, but i saw few report which state indexing process is very slow[1-3]? Do you think it's viable to use HDD in this case?


There's theory where multiple pool could work together to manipulate people to pay more TX fee by filling unused part of their block with their own transaction or arbitrary data. There's extreme version where they attempt to make congestion.

[1] https://github.com/casey/ord/issues/1648
[2] https://github.com/casey/ord/issues/1377
[3] https://github.com/casey/ord/discussions/1619

Thank you nutildah! Getting such nice kudos on Bitcoin Talk is honestly a sweet milestone. These threads are feeling pretty legendary to me, especially the one I necro-posted to after a 10 year haitus.

The demand is huge. Some have already gone for multiple BTC. The thing is there is no marketplace for them so most sales are being done P2P.

To make up for this, some people have been depositing the Ordinals in an Emblem Vault where they are wrapped into an Ethereum ERC721 token. That way they can be sold on OpenSea. Sales there have been huge.



Emblem Vault sales blew up in the last 24 hours. You can see what they were on average prior to yesterday. The action is largely thanks to a series called Bitcoin Punks, which is just Ethereum Punks set against an orange background.



Crypto Twitter influencers got wind of it and Bitcoin Punks is now the latest NFT grift. No doubt after the pump is finished, prices will tank and the slowest among retail will be left holding the bag. None of that is rodarmor's fault, of course... just the way things go in this space.

How long have you been around not knowing the answer?

---

Anyways, cool project, not going to use third parties.
Btw, what's with the rare.text? Couldn't load it on mobile and don't know what those numbers mean.
This also reminds me of the *radioactive tracking technology.

*= Don't know what that is? It's a CIA project.

Is that a problem, or a feature? When there's high transaction demand, there are high fees, regardless of whether you transfer hard cash or the image of a monkey.

Since when miners are capable of forcing or manipulating you pay more?

The developers lie, the miners get to do whatever they want, they've been at odds, both groups rule bitcoin, why such conspiracy in one page?

This is really interesting. Although the success of this project is really only connected to how much demand there is for these rare and exotic Satoshis. But I think that most people who are not really developers do not yet perhaps understand the full potential of Ordinals or why they would be in demand in the first place. So, aside from the NFT nature of Ordinals, could there be any further use cases?

How would this complicate transactions? I assume people would be hesitant to transact unless they have no valuable Ordinals?

The idea of rare and more valuable Satoshis (in terms of NFT collections) has been going around a lot but I have yet to see any demand for them.... I could be mistaken...

Any marketplace, or escrow service?

This is by far the most interesting thing happening in Bitcoin at the moment, and except for a couple uppity threads where the usual ninnys are yelling at it, almost zero recognition on the Bitcoin Forum for the accomplishment of bringing so much newfound attention to bitcoin. Its just not a subject that is conducive to sig spamming, hence the relative silence.

Congrats rodarmor, you earned it



https://ordinals.com/inscription/25aa0505380d746e9d32ba0108e9dbab4a4a3958912bafb046c3c9c71cef2f65i0

It seems like miners and developers have been at odds for years with developers using tricks and lies to get miners to do what they want. Now it seems that miners are giving core developers the finger and doing what they want. This is likely the result or prior said developer behavior and in my opinion is a must to restore balance to Bitcoin. I personally love it and think it is necessary.

You are right, we should store whatever we want on bitcoin blockchain and pay the fees for it. That's called freedom, though at what cost?

---

Some facts and problems, with bitcoin being the leader in crypto, this could result in mass demand leaving normal transactions out the blocks, bumping the fees up. Didn't miners do this fee manipulation trick a few years back bumping the fees up to $50? Isn't there some shitcoin out there doing this NFT thing already?
Do the miners really think they control the network? Not theirs to decide alone, it's called consensus.

I am still researching and learning about this project but I have to say that I absolutely love the responses to it from certain developers. It shows who is a control freak that only likes Bitcoin when it does what they want it to. Use the code for something they deem as not appropriate and suddenly Bitcoin isn’t free and open software but instead something you can only use how they want you to use it. For that reason I love it. Eat your heart out controlling devs. Miners aren’t going to do your bidding and censor transactions, but it’s cute of you to ask.

Super interesting to watch the discussion over this bullet point in particular unfolding on Twitter as it now appears to be possible to upload several KB (theoretically up to ~4 MB) worth of data to the blockchain for the purposes of on-chain NFT storage.

https://ordinals.com/inscription/69d500051f9a0812ed41798eeb06d4af93349529480c23e9cf1ef0ccb2a921a8i0

On one side you have lukedashjr calling it an attack on Bitcoin and Adam Back calling for transaction censorship by miners; on the other side you have Peter Todd calling the "freakout" about ordinals "stupid" and reminding everyone that adding non-standard transaction data to transactions has always been possible.

It has reinvigorated the age-old debate of "appropriate use of block space," what "blockchain spam" entails, and whether Bitcoin should be used to store data not related to the actual transaction of BTC (for financial purposes).

Here is a brief overview of how it works as far as NFTs are concerned:

https://read.pourteaux.xyz/p/illegitimate-bitcoin-transactions

Of course the concept of adding non-standard data to the blockchain for other purposes already taken place via Omni and Counterparty for years.  In 2014, JP Janssen encoded a thumbnail size image and placed it in a Counterparty transaction -- it is probably the first example of a tokenized, on-chain image.

But using Taproot to do it in this new manner is bumping up the storage capacity by one or two orders of magnitude.

Almost zero mentions of this debate here, so let's mention it.

See, this is my confusion when it comes to units in Bitcoin, which led me to ask this question in this thread.

What I found out from responses there is that inputs are all combined anyway before being transmitted out -- so how do you then keep track of satoshis when mixed with other inputs? It's easy to track inputs if always sent whole and never combined with other inputs, but once consolidated, does this mean you lose their "serial"?

I understand that by 'naming' each and every satoshi in entire bitcoin network, you are trying to bring the 'collectible' feature to every satoshi. Basically, even 1mBTC got 100k satoshi which means what some celebrity 'held and sent' may not get the rarity grade due to massive in number.

If it is all about "tracking" then doing that in bigger unit might be helpful.

Probably I am not knowledgeable to realize this tagging each satoshi kind of concept with real world utilization.

Anyway, congrats and good luck with your contribution to bitcoin devotees.

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:

• 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:

• Conversion between different, equivalent, notations, including the raw integer notation, block.offset notation, names, and degree notation, which is based on relation to difficulty adjustments and halvings.
  
• An index that connects to a Bitcoin Core node instance and tracks the location of all sats.
  
• An NFT implementation which embeds NFT content in Taproot witnesses, assigning them to the first sat of the first output of the transaction, "inscribing" that sat with content
  
• 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.
  
• A naming system, which assigns unique names consisting of the letters a through z to each sat, basically base 26, but starting backwards, so that all short names aren't locked in the genesis block.
  
• A block explorer, with a signet instance hosted at https://signet.ordinals.com and a mainnet instance at https://ordinals.com. The block explorer supports search, try putting in different representations for a sat: 0, 0.0, satoshi, etc.
  
• A wallet, which can construct transactions to send particular sats and make and send inscriptions.
  

Everything is open source, permissively licensed, and independently developed, so try it out and let me know what you think! Keep in mind that this is still very much alpha software. We're as careful as possible developing it, but it hasn't been audited and may have bugs