Unique serial number for every single satoshi

odolvlobo

legendary

Activity: 4298

Merit: 3209

Quote from: NotATether on March 14, 2024, 04:09:07 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 13, 2024, 10:34:34 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: 312

Merit: 30

Quote from: NotATether on March 14, 2024, 04:09:07 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, 10:34:34 PM

Quote from: JiiBs on March 13, 2024, 01:54:13 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: 4298

Merit: 3209

Quote from: JiiBs on March 13, 2024, 01:54:13 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

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 41

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: 938

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: 4116

Merit: 7849

'The right to privacy matters'

Quote from: odolvlobo on March 09, 2024, 04:45:51 AM

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

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 22, 2022, 04:07:56 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: 4298

Merit: 3209

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

Quote from: odolvlobo on December 22, 2022, 04:07:56 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, 04:07:56 PM

Quote from: rodarmor on December 20, 2022, 08:18:18 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: 4298

Merit: 3209

Quote from: so98nn on May 25, 2023, 11:46:01 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: 2072

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, 03:24:19 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: 92

Merit: 1

11 years later, ordinals implement it.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2856

Merit: 7410

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 19, 2023, 01:50:22 AM

Quote from: ABCbits on February 18, 2023, 07:49:39 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, 01:50:22 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, 01:50:22 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: 1036

Merit: 350

Quote from: ABCbits on February 18, 2023, 07:49:39 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: 2856

Merit: 7410

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on February 18, 2023, 01:29:28 AM

Quote from: NotATether on February 16, 2023, 04:56:04 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.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1036

Merit: 350

Quote from: NotATether on February 16, 2023, 04:56:04 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.

Quote

Never underestimate the decentralized developer community. We can get pretty much anything done at this point.

hopefully the devs won't try and shut down this "loophole" or should i say "unintended functionality"? either way, when people depend on some functionality they should have the reassurance that it will not be removed or taken away at some later date. we don't have that with ordinals.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: maikrothaman on December 23, 2022, 08:23:46 AM

Quote from: NotATether on December 23, 2022, 12:21:36 AM

Not withstandaning the implementation that was just posted, but does anyone else find it odd that even in 2012, these kind of "markers" were already considered to be well-known, to the point where such ideas were almost redundant?

Quote from: jgarzik on October 08, 2012, 01:32:38 PM

Old ideas -- Search for "colored coins" and "smart property".

I believe that colored coins should be natively supported by Bitcoin. Even though a ton of shitcoins will circulate on the bitcoin network, ethereum will be rendered useless.

Quote from: houseo on February 16, 2023, 03:19:02 AM

Quote from: rodarmor on December 20, 2022, 08:18:18 PM

~

That idea is so crazy, it just might work

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.

Never underestimate the decentralized developer community. We can get pretty much anything done at this point.

houseo

full member

Activity: 180

Merit: 102

Quote from: rodarmor on December 20, 2022, 08:18:18 PM

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

That idea is so crazy, it just might work

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 5818

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: maikrothaman on December 23, 2022, 08:23:46 AM

Quote from: NotATether on December 23, 2022, 12:21:36 AM

Not withstandaning the implementation that was just posted, but does anyone else find it odd that even in 2012, these kind of "markers" were already considered to be well-known, to the point where such ideas were almost redundant?

Quote from: jgarzik on October 08, 2012, 01:32:38 PM

Old ideas -- Search for "colored coins" and "smart property".

I believe that colored coins should be natively supported by Bitcoin. Even though a ton of shitcoins will circulate on the bitcoin network, ethereum will be rendered useless.

Bitcoin does support them; as you're also proving. Cheesy

Bisq for instance uses colored coins; the probably most popular actual token on the Bitcoin blockchain.
https://bisq.wiki/DAO_technical_overview#BSQ_token

I do think this serial number idea is interesting; especially reading the ideas, doubts, potentials that people have thought about this 10 years ago and how they might have changed with the latest developments like SegWit, Taproot, Lightning, ...

maikrothaman

jr. member

Activity: 84

Merit: 1

PandoraCash.com anonymous money

Quote from: NotATether on December 23, 2022, 12:21:36 AM

Not withstandaning the implementation that was just posted, but does anyone else find it odd that even in 2012, these kind of "markers" were already considered to be well-known, to the point where such ideas were almost redundant?

Quote from: jgarzik on October 08, 2012, 01:32:38 PM

Old ideas -- Search for "colored coins" and "smart property".

I believe that colored coins should be natively supported by Bitcoin. Even though a ton of shitcoins will circulate on the bitcoin network, ethereum will be rendered useless.

Topic: Unique serial number for every single satoshi (Read 3719 times)