Unique serial number for every single satoshi

GaloisField

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 1

Quote from: NotATether on July 28, 2024, 04:31:14 AM

Quote from: GaloisField on July 27, 2024, 05:58:13 PM

Quote from: hashman on October 09, 2012, 08:32:47 AM

I've been looking for a place to put this Cheesy

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin Roll Eyes

It seems quite ironic you write this, considering that anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the past 2 years will know about how Casey Rodarmor started Ordinals based on this entire concept, which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

Then he came back again with Runes after the most recent halving to replace Ordinals, but everyone already knew from the beginning that it was just a money grab.

Yes it is!

vjudeu

copper member

Activity: 903

Merit: 2248

Quote

Nobody ever goes there anymore — it’s too crowded.

It depends, what do you want. Because if Ordinals would be attached to normal payments as commitments, and would take zero additional on-chain bytes, then they would be fine. But instead, you have an option: confirm a regular payment, or confirm some Ordinal. So: do you want to do the transition from payment system into a cloud storage?

Fortunately, at the time of writing, Ordinals seems to be dying, because on-chain fees are around 5 sat/vB, and both testnet4 and testnet3 reached minimal fees of 1 sat/vB, and testnet blocks are almost empty again. By the way: if you want cloud storage, then testnet fits better, because if coins are worthless, then there are no payments, and you have only data pushes.

Also, one good thing about Ordinals is that they permanently blocked any block size increase proposals, at least for now. Because if someone will try to do it now, then it will be taken down, using simple argumentation: "there will be more data pushes, and regular payments will stay on the same level, so it won't help, and we won't do that".

But unfortunately, Ordinals also caused some downgrades from Taproot into Segwit, because only then, you can be sure, that you won't be mistakenly marked as a spammer.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: NotATether on July 28, 2024, 04:31:14 AM

... which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

That reminds me of a Yogi Berra joke:

Quote

Nobody ever goes there anymore — it’s too crowded.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: GaloisField on July 27, 2024, 05:58:13 PM

Quote from: hashman on October 09, 2012, 08:32:47 AM

I've been looking for a place to put this Cheesy

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin Roll Eyes

It seems quite ironic you write this, considering that anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the past 2 years will know about how Casey Rodarmor started Ordinals based on this entire concept, which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

Then he came back again with Runes after the most recent halving to replace Ordinals, but everyone already knew from the beginning that it was just a money grab.

GaloisField

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 1

Quote from: hashman on October 09, 2012, 08:32:47 AM

I've been looking for a place to put this Cheesy

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin Roll Eyes

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: NotATether on March 14, 2024, 03:09:07 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 13, 2024, 09:34:34 PM

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

I feel as though the numbering system would save a LOT of space if it was in binary.

There are many ways to represent an Ordinals satoshi. It is up to the implementation. At its core, an ordinal is a number from 0 to 2099999997689999. As long as the specification is followed, everything else is just a conversion between numbering systems.

alexeyneu

member

Activity: 351

Merit: 37

Quote from: NotATether on March 14, 2024, 03:09:07 AM

But you can fit every possibly practical block height inside a 78-bit (128-50) integer. I chose 128 bits because of memory alignment issues where smaller amounts will basically use this amount of space anyway.

it's not style bitcoin written in. there're own types like one used for nBits (it's called like vInt or something) . in packet structure it'll be rounded up to 8 bits . with no alignment . as it is in blockheader struct. nBits goes appended to smth else so complete thing occupies integral number of bytes. And it itself has integral size too .But may be it hasn't do not remember. Like 3 bytes

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 13, 2024, 09:34:34 PM

Quote from: JiiBs on March 13, 2024, 12:54:13 PM

... I really didn’t pick in on how ... 110000. ...

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

I feel as though the numbering system would save a LOT of space if it was in binary.

21,000,000 bitcoins in circulation * 100,000,000 sats per bitcoin would put the total number at around 2,100,000,000,000,000. That will take about 50 bits (in hex this value would be 775F05A074000 which is 13 hex characters long, but since the upper nibble (4 bits) of the first character is unused it can be omitted).

The block height is the part that can get tricky as it needs to be future-proofed.

We are way past 800k blocks over the last 15 years. Obviously a 14-bit number (64-50) cannot hold this amount so 64-bit ints are out. But you can fit every possibly practical block height inside a 78-bit (128-50) integer. I chose 128 bits because of memory alignment issues where smaller amounts will basically use this amount of space anyway.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: JiiBs on March 13, 2024, 12:54:13 PM

... I really didn’t pick in on how ... 110000. ...

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

JiiBs

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 106

While the OP might be a large text to read more carefully to understand, I might follow through on some of them but, I really didn’t pick in on how (what I might consider as the constant) 110000. While .5000000000 and all might explain for failing zeros and the 50BTC in Satoshi conversion, how did the supposedly #110000 which continues to reoccur in the rule of inheritance for output and input comes to be?

hZti

hero member

Activity: 1022

Merit: 642

Magic

What is not practical for them however is the fact that Bitcoin will be more and more inaccessible to new people, since the cost of sending bitcoins will simply be to high for a usually small first investment. But yes it is not surprising that also the Bitcoin community will at some point drown in their greed and there will be a new innovation that will flush Bitcoin away.
As they say at some point you will become your own evil if you are drunk enough in your success.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4256

Merit: 8551

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 09, 2024, 03:45:51 AM

Quote from: papiris on March 08, 2024, 04:05:21 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 22, 2022, 03:07:56 PM

Sounds like a fun project, but I don't think the idea has any practical use ~~because there is no real association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs~~.
I'm happy to admit that I was proven wrong, but I'm still waiting for a practical use. I'm not saying that there is no practical use, just that I am too closed-minded to come up with one. Wink

Curious to know how you were proven wrong. I also was just wondering the same thing. Is there any real association between input satoshis and output satoshis?

The Ordinals system specifically describes the association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs, so there is a real association when you use the Ordinals system. I think the jury is still out on whether there are any practical uses.

rising fees for miners.

which like or not is very practical for them.

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: papiris on March 08, 2024, 04:05:21 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 22, 2022, 03:07:56 PM

Sounds like a fun project, but I don't think the idea has any practical use ~~because there is no real association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs~~.
I'm happy to admit that I was proven wrong, but I'm still waiting for a practical use. I'm not saying that there is no practical use, just that I am too closed-minded to come up with one. Wink

Curious to know how you were proven wrong. I also was just wondering the same thing. Is there any real association between input satoshis and output satoshis?

The Ordinals system specifically describes the association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs, so there is a real association when you use the Ordinals system. I think the jury is still out on whether there are any practical uses.

papiris

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 22, 2022, 03:07:56 PM

Quote from: rodarmor on December 20, 2022, 07:18:18 PM

So, funny story, in the beginning of 2022, I came up with the exact same scheme discussed in this thread. ...
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.

Sounds like a fun project, but I don't think the idea has any practical use ~~because there is no real association between the satoshis in the inputs and the satoshis in the outputs~~.

I'm happy to admit that I was proven wrong, but I'm still waiting for a practical use. I'm not saying that there is no practical use, just that I am too closed-minded to come up with one. Wink

Curious to know how you were proven wrong. I also was just wondering the same thing. Is there any real association between input satoshis and output satoshis?

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4466

Merit: 3391

Quote from: so98nn on May 25, 2023, 10:46:01 AM

You mean this concept can lead to unique coding to each and every Satoshi that is already in circulation and those which will be minted in the future? If so then what happens to the privacy of transactions. ...

Ordinals is implemented outside of the Bitcoin protocol, so only the privacy of those who use Ordinals can be affected.

so98nn

hero member

Activity: 2114

Merit: 603

You mean this concept can lead to unique coding to each and every Satoshi that is already in circulation and those which will be minted in the future? If so then what happens to the privacy of transactions. I mean one could see that my XYZ property is getting moved to ABC address and it would be public information. I’m not sure technically this is correct or not but it’s gonna be anti-privacy to me.

Quote from: HoferBit on May 23, 2023, 02:24:19 AM

11 years later, ordinals implement it.

Yeah you can literally change the color, size and shape of every bit of information on it. So that’s another level of burden. Already looking bad to chain.

HoferBit

copper member

Activity: 94

Merit: 1

11 years later, ordinals implement it.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 19, 2023, 12:50:22 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on February 18, 2023, 06:49:39 AM

Creating BIP or consult with other Bitcoin developer is totally optional choice since Bitcoin supposed to be decentralized. IMO there's no need to do that when ordinals doesn't require any change on Bitcoin protocol or full node software.

from what i've heard and what i can tell, this ordinals thing is just using a loophole in the transaction witness size to store data. probably not how it was intended to be used.

At very least, i never hear anyone promote Taproot to store arbitrary data/used to create NFT before Taproot is activated.

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 19, 2023, 12:50:22 AM

didn't they once reduce the size of OP_RETURN when people was abusing that? well hopefully that doesn't happen here or it's goodbye ordinals. nice knowing ya.

The only change i'm aware is changing limit from 40 bytes to 80 bytes. But such limit only makes the transaction become non-standard and can be bypassed by asking miner to include their transaction manually.

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 19, 2023, 12:50:22 AM

Quote

Other usage which insert arbitrary data to Bitcoin blockchain (such as RSK sidechain merge mining) have no BIP either.

well you got me on that one because i'm not too familiar with that whole topic.

Here's some reference (for RSK merge mining) in case you're curious,
https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/mining/
https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/mining/implementation-guide/

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: ABCbits on February 18, 2023, 06:49:39 AM

Creating BIP or consult with other Bitcoin developer is totally optional choice since Bitcoin supposed to be decentralized. IMO there's no need to do that when ordinals doesn't require any change on Bitcoin protocol or full node software.

from what i've heard and what i can tell, this ordinals thing is just using a loophole in the transaction witness size to store data. probably not how it was intended to be used. didn't they once reduce the size of OP_RETURN when people was abusing that? well hopefully that doesn't happen here or it's goodbye ordinals. nice knowing ya.

Quote

Other usage which insert arbitrary data to Bitcoin blockchain (such as RSK sidechain merge mining) have no BIP either.

well you got me on that one because i'm not too familiar with that whole topic.

at any rate, i have to congratulate rodarmor here because he really did something quite unique and alot of people got excited about it.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 18, 2023, 12:29:28 AM

Quote from: NotATether on February 16, 2023, 03:56:04 AM

Two months from my earlier post, it looks like ordinals are doing just that. It's a pleasant surprise, considering that implementation (coding) was accomplished almost singlehandedly by one guy, and not by the Bitcoin Core developers at all.

usually when some new feature is added to bitcoin it has to go through some type of an approvals process. that happens by someone making a BIP and then it might get implemented by the devs if they agree it would make a useful addition to bitcoin. ordinals didn't happen that way. so we really don't know if ordinals was meant to exist or not. because the devs didn't have a chance to consider it before it just came into existence.

Creating BIP or consult with other Bitcoin developer is totally optional choice since Bitcoin supposed to be decentralized. IMO there's no need to do that when ordinals doesn't require any change on Bitcoin protocol or full node software. Other usage which insert arbitrary data to Bitcoin blockchain (such as RSK sidechain merge mining) have no BIP either.

Topic: Unique serial number for every single satoshi (Read 3984 times)