Topic: Why running NFTs on Bitcoin blockchain is a dumb idea. (Read 448 times)

doomad you have no clue about how things work!!!

you want users of full nodes to have no say in core dev activations
(you love that its no long an opt-in(majority) to activate and instead an abstain=activate model)
you want core to activate anything they like into bitcoin without any scrutiny critique or review outside their team
you think anything that opposes CORES view of bitcoin should be REKT and F**ked off to an altcoin

so how about you stop your totalitarian adoration while pretending im the one ruining things for bitcoin
devs make the code and THEY should be scrutinised and critiqued
not given "god mode"

---

now for how to implement a fix that does not involve a roll back..
many ways but here is an easy one

play the same game core does

new consensus rule about treatment of certain tx formats..

tx that use certain opcodes should be limited to how much "weight" their witness allows
EG only say 80 bytes
(after all wasnt TR meant to be the "solution" to weight, where all scripts meant to only be under 80bytes.. well make a rule to enforce that promise)

where the rule starts to be enforced(as thats what consensus rules do) as of block 7XX,000

that way they cant make 300kb+ bloat per output/input after that. thus no longer bloating the blockchain


...
the biggest laugh so far of 2023 has been you pretending I have deprived anyone
funny part is YOU have been the one moderating me out of conversations, trying to get me banned trying to recruit teams of trolls to shut me up. and you are the one that loves how core are depriving users of better utility onchain.

you dont want payments on bitcoin you want bloat.
your mind set is the one depriving more people of things.
you dont want core devs working on scaling bitcoin for tx growth. you want them to be conservative about that and instead promote your subnetwork sham
while telling everyone to just wait a few more years. with your fake promises of dreamy fantasy

i am still laughing now how core have become the totaliratian. even in recent days achow wants to strenthen his moderation powers with a new moderation level of hierarchy on github and other places

your little social club are the ones hitting the ban request buttons. not me

Okay.  That's the wishlist.  Now explain how to implement it without telling people what they can or can't do.

This is the point where you either start telling people what they should or shouldn't be allowed to code, or start trying to decide users' fees for them, when they are currently free to decide that for themselves. 

Because your immediate reaction to every situation is to deprive someone of their freedom in order for you to get what you want.  You're a monster.

my opinion is this
NFT have a purpose. (and feature that is not about memes)

but
NFT hard data(bloat, meta) should not be pushed on the bitcoin blockchain

instead:
simple bitcoin value locks should be used. (no more data than any other utxo)

and that reference is then used for subnetworks to then bloat up on a NFT subnetwork designed to strictly only function with bitcoin pegs. (no bridge to multiple mainnets) thus becomes a sole feature of a bitcoin community-culture (emphasis community/culture, not bitcoin network)

---

anyway today there was a block that had only 149 tx(facepalm) but where 10 of them were "ordinals" creating a big 3.8mb block bloat(facepalm) consisting of 10 images of about 350kb each(facepalm)
block:
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775085
tx's:
https://ordinals.com/tx/ [<-add txid(listed below) to end]
1: 614846a46df125e8d5094594a6be1faaff1797161e1fa00a6226f997625f1fe6
2: b476866eebc62de7408b6dcbbeb97120710f8519de8b9d20c7a4b7e189487ae7
3: 9fb2bdb6bf81be94cbb853970a4c0d7cc7824b6184deffa7a444656eb0276ceb
4: 0d50e1cd4ffb55bec386822edf4aa8708ccf5d98cf2d7df268b495650e6076ec
5: 118dbb891a234a389e4dfb4fc45b81401caaf7d271a28037323ec8aa2226dee3
6: a3e432abf6d9fb04016afbed5a34e1e30b1daea5b24329c5508aabbd9bcb99de
7: 3f04548f18ee09ae04c923c1f1f85a560ca783673a3d2b74b83334432e38a2ea
8: c562a90d51ebf31f72872eb8dab3c6a946d4844b30b93e552de93be9a1e1f3d8
9: 60c4fe9830680eb140bdf467e321071d5cd749e3315dd7ebb2671e59df5a4bde
10: caa6a0e3835cf900f0a466f74ada0b26e82742cb59372f9a33d35c33850052e3

to just view the image
https://ordinals.com/content/ [<-add txid(listed above) to end]

We have a saying that a knot that you can open with your hand, you shouldn't open with your teeth.
That's what NFTs are. Everything that can be done a lot better using a lot of other methods is made worse when done through creating a token, specially if it is a silly token on bitcoin blockchain.
You can argue about all the non-meme usages of NFTs but this fact will not change.

369kb wasted (>30% of a block)
(in369kb excess bloat in the 3mb witness area not the base tx 1mb area)
turning a 1.47mb block into a 1.84mb block just for that one spammy frog meme

hope nutildah is proud of herself(sarcasm)

these crappy bloats should just be a bitcoin lock(like standard) and then use that referecne of a utco on a subnetwork and spam the crap in that subnetwork

no one person should deserve to spam the equivalent of a 3rd-5th of a standard block(depending how you measure it)

Network congestion is going to be a problem in the future and as much as I hope that there's a solution hidden in plain sight somewhere, we don't. But that wouldn't stop Ordinals and subsequent NFT projects to want to build their names in the bitcoin blockchain. If anything, they may take it as a challenge to be surpassed even. In any case, we already had NFTs in the bitcoin blockchain since 2014, so I don't see what the point is of these fucking purists who don't want anything to do with NFTs when it's one of the most successful concepts in the industry. As much as Pooya has a point in the fact that artists switching to the NFT industry is more like relinquishing an old slave master for another, you also have a very sound argument on how this can be solved. One thing that he did miss is the fact that the artist has full liberties to embed his piece to the blockchain, via encryption or whichever method they see fit, which provides ownership to that particular buyer. Now on the case of compensation, I don't think artists will be given a doodoohead-useless coin. Most openmarkets nowadays use blue-chip crypto for payments like ethereum or sol, so if's not like these people will be taken advantage.

To add to this, in the current shape of let's say the art and the music industry, the artist gets taken advantage by their labels, on Spotify alone artists aren't even paid more than 50 cent per play on their song. At least when they switch to NFTs, they have full control of how much their pieces are worth, plus they get to bag royalties from resell too which they normally cannot on a conventional label or organization.

NFT went the meme route rather then the clever route.. and failed
ordinals came about where some thought ok maybe something different.. but no.. more meme crap

oh well
seems no one can think outside the utility mindset of twitter/reddit (memes and social drama)

let me guess another 2 years to wasting more time with distractions for sublte delay intention purposes for devs to avoid scaling while they play around with dev politics deciding on allowing memes or not

One of the best ones yet



https://ordinals.com/tx/eeb5baf826a0a093c85f738443aa800a70795c38d8c01768c32f48f06f7893a7

Its the first of a series called Rare Ordinals, was tokenized by its creator on Counterparty.

https://xchain.io/asset/ORDINALPEPE

You can buy a 1 sat fraction of ORDINALPEPE for 1 sat. A fair deal if you ask me.

https://xchain.io/tx/3313dd2de28baac8639a4b3c237b3f8fbe7f83a6c5ec94a256506e9f8637542f

20 purchases so far in the last 24 hours, not too bad. I was 2 of them  



Enjoy!  

here is the thing though.

songs are just data.. encryption is data
you can do alot of great things if you combine both.

im not talking about the lame id3 tags(metadata) appended to the end of a mp3 song that can easily be 'ripped' out. im not talking about standard mp3 (which shows data in different frequencies to play). but instead as encrypted data that converts as it buffers the song as long as the key is presented to the special player

whereby again not as just appended metadata at the end of the file. but within the song itself has a frequency range thats not heard by the human ear but is entangled in the song where other software that hear it then block it out
thus making it easy not just for a song writer.. but also for youtube/skype and such to easily 'hear' copyright songs played in a a youtube video/skype call. and block it out

(ever been on a skype/zoom call where someone is playing loud music but the call software is not letting the person on the other end of the call hear it. )
thats because skype can sense the secret sound that tells skype its a copyright song

also most of the copyright stuff is about where big business tries to play songs for free instead of getting a licence. a music artist is not concerned about street bootleggers. they want to ensure radio stations. and music platforms(spotify, itunes) play and pay fairly as thats where the real money is.
the money is not in chasing every street bootlegger that was a pirate of spotify/youtube. its as just said to go after spotify/youtube

sending out a cease and desist letter. to provide a key to prove (a business) has licence to use the song. or settle for X amount before court. or let it go to court whereby you have electronic proof of abuse

---

all that said
there are other utilities too. take cloud hosting /online virtual lands.
(server renting in the old language)
not only can you leave a server, but also lease a virtual plot of land on a server. where a legit business can render a online store in a 3d world that has rendered 3d products inside the 3d store. where people can see such products where designed just to be used within the 3d word of some game it as a representation of some real world stock that gets sent to real world home location when purchased

..
NFT are not just about memes. there is alot more then can be done with them

Easily doable using bitcoin and a decentralized platform (similar to OpenBazaar that I mentioned earlier) and with no need for a token. People go on the platform, buy the decryption key using bitcoin and receive it to unlock their song.

LOL
There is a massive pirating world going on that trillion dollar industries haven't been able to "sue" to this day with or without evidence.

@Pooya87
thats where meme NFT fail

however.
you have missed or skipped a step, or subtly avoided a step

the usage of web3 and decentralised tech
is that by setting up platforms that require usage of a (decryption)key or permission. then makes that product useful only by the product owner and those he gave permission to

EG encrypting a song.
then hash the encrypted file to have an ID that represents the ownership of file. where the transaction also includes a way to move the de-crypt file key aswell as ownership permissions
use the hash in a NFT platform to trade. whereby. the owner/permissioned user gets the key to unencrypt the file and use the content

where by anyone found with an unencrypted copy of the song, without a key. can be sued. (yep it makes court evidence of IP, copyright fraud easy to judge and prosecute.. so much so it becomes as easy to prosecute/fine a person as "show me a valid parking ticket for the car space we think you didnt pay for, or pay $200 in 14 days")

this step has not been utilised yet.

there are numerous examples of utility.
just utility that should be on subnetworks and platforms. whereby bitcoin network just sticks to payments and not every property licence imaginable on a IP registry

The problem you are describing is about centralized platforms and the companies behind them that are taking advantage to make money. The solution to this is to publish their music on a decentralized platform and cut the middle man as you mentioned in the last line. Something like OpenBazaar.

But using NFT is not doing either of those things! With an NFT the artist is still publishing their music on a centralized platform and only creates a token which they claim is linked to that music! So the middle man is still there, they just add an extra step to make additional money by selling an unrelated and useless token.
In simple terms, the music is not the token. The token is just a hash/script or basically an arbitrary data that can not be used itself. Hence why the token itself is useless.

good example. which is why ether then done coloured coins and nft on subnetworks

That's been my entire adulthood, since well before cryptocurrency was a thing. So my reaction is to not care and continue doing it for myself and the people who do find value in it.

Sometimes it just takes time for them to come around. Nobody recognized the value of the early stuff I did with Bitcoin and Dogecoin. They do now.

I agree with kicking NFTs out, that's what the altcoins are for, go pollute elsewhere and leave Bitcoin for actual transactions. Honestly, it looks like a type of attack. This is going to be abused no doubt.

Energy usage is still a very first world problem, i mean a user might not be directly impacted by it. But the biggest problem is the scaling of the chain. Doing such things will put unnecessary pressure on already a very crowded chain which might become even slower and expensive. Obviously it makes zero sense to bring this NFT shit in bitcoin chain. I remember how bad the Eth chain went during that crypto kitties saga.

Yeah, I'm definitely not going to derail this thread with this debate again. Just a question of mine though: What's your reaction if lots of people you trust don't recognize value in something you do?

1. you dont need to bloat a blockchain with the actual file data.. thats what hashs are for

2. you can create a bitcoin lock. and then referece that as value on a subnetwork(one designed better than some subnetwork designs thus far) and then put all that hash ID+meta data+any dream and fantasy you like on that subnetwork, which has some consensus chain of file hash accountability and verification and also accountability(again unlike some shoddy subnetworks designed today)

3. i know for years dev politics has been that payment transaction data should only consist of the 1mb block 'base'(weight/4 cludge) wall but then have 3mb of space for bloaty scripts and signature mass. but that does not mean its then default acceptable to bloat blocks upto 4mb with the said crap. especially if that 4mb weight rule then depreciates how many payment transactions can then be used in the 1mb base if there were say just 20 meme files of 150kb each

4. the cludgy code of vbyte/weight was meant to be a temporary thing that should have been removed years ago to allow full transaction space of 4m to increase transaction count. it was not to just bloat up blocks with 3mb of crap non payment data

5. idiots that think we should just lay down, go sleep and pretend it didnt happen to then allow 4mb of bloaty non payment data which consist of maybe 20 transactions of some meme. those idiots need to be the ones that go quietly into the night and forget themselves

6. suggesting "it doesnt matter" becasue after downloading people can strip/prune..
well it actually does matter becasue full nodes would need to archive data(in a scenario of foolishly holding full files of memes) to then seed to leacher fool nodes that would then prune/strip at the fool node peer layer group

7. bitcoin should not be letting in bloat of non payment data that is 3x of payment data. if people want bloaty crap. do it on a subnetwork. just make that subnetwork actually function, have a real niche and actual utility (unlike certain subnetworks that failed to met expectations and left us waiting years for progress)

7. bitcoin should not become the bloaty meme file library just to offramp users that want btc payment being told to go elsewhere.. it should be the other way round

They could be used to describe anything of value that somebody doesn't like, but the facts remain that they are applied to Bitcoin by its critics on a daily basis and the thing of value continues to possess value regardless of your personal opinion of it.

But, NFTs don't replace intermediaries. Music artists can upload their songs as NFTs, but they need a platform to have them available for the audience. Be it Spotify, YouTube, iTunes, Opensea. They will all take a commission along the way. The solution to this problem isn't NFTs, but more competitive platforms, which will be in favor of the artists.

I don't know for sure, I make a guess. Either way, I don't know their good better than they themselves.

Yes, I'm the president of Greece, and millions from our government spending goes straight to NFT shilling. You got me.

Those rather sound counter-arguments for shitcoining.

Few points that haven't been brought up yet:

- Bitcoin already had NFTs by way of Counterparty. Its had them since 2014. The main difference is image data for them is stored off-chain (with one famous exception where the image data is small enough to be embedded in a transaction).

- The image data for Ordinals NFTs can be added in such a way that it is entirely prunable as it mostly relies on witness data, thereby minimizing the blockchain bloat factor.

- Once an Ordinals NFT has been minted, future transactions do not require "movement" of the image data but rather a single satoshi which is the "ordinal" that has been associated with the image data.

- Ordinals NFT sales & transfers are already happening although an automated marketplace hasn't been built yet, so they are all P2P sales for now.


Personally I'll never use it as I'm quite content with Counterparty, although some Counterparty artists are already devising ways to combine the two platforms.

I don't know totally what to think about it yet, am kind of on the fence about it as it pertains to the longevity of Bitcoin. What I do know is that being mad at it is pretty dumb and reflects a steadfast refusal to learn new things.



Most anti-NFT people can only bring up the same arguments that no-coiners have used for a decade against Bitcoin:

- its silly
- its useless
- its a Ponzi scheme
- the real thing is better

NFT haters are basically the new no-coiners  

NFT is not about uploading a whole song/pic/video on a blockchain
NFT is a registry of the HASH ID of a file*.. not contain the whole file itself

yep there are some NFT blockchains that dont even have a unique hash of the file and just some nonce-count ID of version X of a listing..(facepalm)

*EG the "first tweet" on twitter exists in twitters servers(obviously)
but the HTML webpage code for that tweet would be SHA256'd and its that sha256 ID thats put into a NFT blockchain

---

NFT do have utility, but currently the greedy idiots just want to create memes and pay influencers to buy them for a % of the influencers pay, thus created a fake but endorsed value for one version of the item..

if it was used properly for its proper utility of registering ownership of a IP, copyright, patent, landclaim then it can have purpose

but these things should be done on subnetworks of a monetary mainnet. not on the monetary mainnet

LMAO. I doubt the idiots who are uploading porn and donkey jpegs care or even know about immunity, censorship resistance, freedom, transparency or whatever cliche buzzwords you are trying to spout. You give them way too much credit. Do you work for the government or banking industry? Honestly you sound like a shill for either one or both.

I have to chime in and disagree with you here. While I agree that the whole NFT hype bubble is ridiculous, I won't say it is useless. I think NFTs have immense potential in the music industry for artists. The artist usually receives less than 50% of revenue from using streaming avenues and this is being a best case scenario. For selling their music, they receive less than 20% of the revenue and that does not include the costs they outlay on production. I think for music artists, cutting out the middlemen is a great use-case of NFTs. For art it has some use case too, such as the rights to ownership.

 

This got me dead man, laughing hard. Finally someone with all the energy bursting out about how NFT's are making fun around the internet. I am also till date finding that sweet spot to understand what interests people more, the bored ape monkeys or just he money that they might make in the future? Definitely not the art but it's all about money and that is why it got dragged all the way up here. Otherwise NFT was worst idea. It just got pumped because of the guy who made millions of dollars by combining few hundreds digital photos into single one. Lolz.

You never know, what surprise might come along the way in crypto.

May be in some years we will be buying stars and planets with the crypto sitting on the earth itself. 

Bitcoin should be kept clean as it is. Let it prosper with the Satoshi's idea of free monetary outflow and inflow.

This is what I always said to my friends when they ask me which altcoins are good to invest in, they said can you recommend any NFT to buy?

I said, it's better for you guys just to remain and stick with bitcoins forever because these altcoins are truly uncertain when it comes to their preservation as we can truly see, there are some altcoins that haven't been recovered after it falls hard, their developers abandoned the project and jump to another one. Because of tight competition, it always ended up losing its value except for a few of course. but in reality, most of them didn't really make it until now and you have these NFTs joining the list which surely will gonna be like the other altcoins in the upcoming future as well.

No it's not. A bank isn't an immune, censorship resistant, pro-freedom, transparent, globally accessible payment network with no intermediaries involved.

It's debatable only if we accept that making a transaction constitutes a burden for the network. In my opinion, it doesn't. Everyone can make as many transactions as they wish if they're willing to pay the fee. It's a feature.

That's debatable. Remember a couple of years ago when fees were so high that everyone was complaining? That was the result of the biggest spam attack bitcoin has experienced in its short history. A big chunk of that spam attack were altcoins spamming the network as a method of mining their shitcoin!
I'd say that is enough harm for us to do something about such attacks like Ordinals on bitcoin before they become a threat.

I think at this point we just need to accept that NFT is a bad idea and it turned out to be a scam and gambling object. So I don't think that it will be a good idea to associate the bitcoin blockchain with NFT.

Some would argue that the moment the US opted to trade liberty for security was the true moment they lost the so-called war on terror, because they gave up one of their fundamental principles in order to try to win.  The same argument could be made here for Bitcoin right now.  If we truly value freedom, we can't abandon that principle at the first sign of concern.  Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, it cheapens the thing as a whole if we start to espouse totalitarianism.  That's the biggest issue here, in my humble view.

Besides that, if one side escalates, the other entrenches in response and it becomes a drawn out conflict.  I personally believe Bitcoin is resilient enough to withstand any sort of "abuse", as many tend to see this idea.  I also get the impression that market forces will make NFTs on the BTC chain non-viable over the long term.  You could fan the flames, but it's probably better just to let it fizzle out on its own.

NFT is a scam and just plain stupid and it doesn't matter which network it's being run on. Running it on any shitcoin blockchain doesn't affect me as a Bitcoin maxi (haha) as long as it stays away from Bitcoin network. Ethereum is notorious for letting various scammers use their network so nothing new here. Perhaps it will help some peeps to see the light and steer clear from shitcoins.

nfts are a bad ideal anyway, 99% of them have no real (use) besides a promise to get rich

Your argument makes as much sense as saying a bank is practicing censorship when it refuses to be a marketplace for NFTs and pornography.

That is not the purpose of a bank, nor was it ever the purpose of bitcoin. Bitcoin is for moving around money, not images of porn and monkey jpegs.

But no blockchain other than Bitcoin's is immune and censorship resistant. I can see the reason why someone selects this network for this job.

Pointless? According to who? You and me? Obviously, it isn't pointless by whoever broadcasts such transactions. Secondly, the network allows for message transfer, even if highly discouraged. That's a protocol rule, not an opinion. If someone wants to store an essay, he doesn't violate anything. Thirdly, every transaction can be considered congestion, but it doesn't make sense to follow that route, does it?

Actually, I absolutely despise NFT things and am not ready to utilize them for fucking. To convert an image to NFT is ridiculous. NFT on the Bitcoin Blockchain is absolutely disgusting. It resembles an attempt to kill Bitcoin. But I'm curious about who will use it in due to high transaction fees. Many Chain are available to deploy NFT, such as polygons. However, I continue to be curious about how NFT projects raise money from investors.

If you want to spend your money on NFTs then there are other blockchains that are much better suited for that. Clogging up the bitcoin network with pointless traffic and congestion has adverse effects on everyone else using it, in the form of longer waiting periods and higher fees. The cost isn't just paid by the sender. That is not the purpose of bitcoin.

Just because someone values something (whether it be monkey jpegs and videos, cat memes, animal porn, gay porn, child porn etc.) does not mean they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. There are limits to free speech and the miners have the right to refuse to accommodate such nonsense.

originating from colored coin concepts we seen NFT go viral
but seeing as NFT is now just a buzzword associated with over priced no function meme jokes on a ethereum tokened subnetwork

i guess the similar (original colored coin) concept of things like "ordinals" which would/should avoid being identifiers of meme junk could "if" made on a new good subnetwork of bitcoin and have good coding policy could have real utility of registering property, thus providing a secure system of new utility

I don't have anything against NFTs because I don't even buy them, good for those that sees or develop interest in NFTs but bring this to Bitcoin will just ruin the permissionless open-source project, I like meme coins and I have a few bags of them, it will suck seeing such on Bitcoin blockchain, I believe such trashes are better off on other blockchain projects like Ethereum and Polygon. I can never imagine a day that I will invest my hard earned money on any Jpeg of a cartoonish character, it will never happen.

I hate to say this but agree: say no to nonsense monkeys and fish and cats. I like memes as much as the next person, but no need to bloat the blockchain.

But those aren't just what NFTs (man I hate the word, it's not like we say fungible coins anyway) could do.

I like some ideas I've come across, that would require (evolving) non-fungibility, and linking that to block time instead of regular time as a stable way to lapse time.

Probably atop Bitcoin, sure. Where Rootstock et al?

You don't get to decide what's a waste for somebody else's money. If someone acknowledges value in JPEG, there should be nothing stopping him from spend their satoshi that way. There is a non-zero cost at making those transactions, and the cost is only paid by the sender, again. Not to mention, that it is pointless to measure in energy spent per byte.

Or we just leave it as is, as it isn't harmful for non-NFT users?

going around in circles again

first it was coloured coins,, resulting in(circa 2013-15) dev conflict and moderation causing people to create ethereum and develop subnetworks for colour coins over there(now branded erc tokens and then NFT)

now its re-spinning again. .. ordinals.. poking at the same debates again. where its obviously not going end the debate with the result being to be a onchain(mainnet) accepted proposal

the best play is not bloat bitcoin blockchain with metadata per tx for every business, IP registry on the planet.
but to have a subnetwork thats actually a subnetwork of bitcoin but for only bitcoin.
thus making bitcoin the go to first network to be able to access the subnetwork (no side-bridging)

thus becomes a sub feature for only bitcoin.
(unlike a certain subnetwork that phishes its a bitcoin subnet but is actually a crossborder bridge subnet)
so not those silly subnetwork bridges of cross borders existing today, but a new one.. not one that just pretend to be bitcoin subnetworks and abuse bitcoin co-branding while offering nothing to benefit bitcoin solely/usefully/securely

where by bitcoin if having a true sub feature subnetwork offers a NFT proposition, where its not for meme crap.. but for actual business registration and IP right. which as a sub of the sub then can be used as company shares, stocks, bonds, land(physical and server virtual land(web3)) shares/allocations

thus having an actual purpose and real tradable utility and ownership rights of property law without bloating bitcoins mainnet

but these subnetworks better be designed with better security, accounting and policy, rather than the crappy subnetworks currently being made with wishful over promised propositions that have for 7 years not met any expectations and people know they couldnt, yet left people waiting years and even now still told to wait for them to (facepalm) flourish

bitcoins network doesnt need to "be-all" but it needs to scale onchain to not be expensive to transact nor be congested as soon as one business needs to sweep deposits. and no i dont mean throw everyone off the mainnet like other fools suggest. or suggest "just pay more or wait a week"
bitcoins onchain scaling need to finally get into action again. and also have subnetworks(with real integrity and validation and security) as a sub mission. not the main mission of bitcoin devs

so subnetworks do have a niche and utility. they just have to be good and actually solve something and actually do as promised.
rather than just brand steal "bitcoin" but offer nothing apart from stalling bitcoin growth

No, because nobody will buy them on the Bitcoin blockchain.

And since there are no buyers, the number of people looking for a quick buck dramatically goes down, like say to 1/100th.

Which effectively means, the ecosystem will stay small forever unless someone causes a seismic shift in terms of adoption of Bitcoin NFTs. Which by the way I am not holding my breath on.


I'd argue that most people reading this thread won't understand that one. There's a reason it's in Dev&Tech.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nfts-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain-ordinal-theory-5437464

There is already a discussion on the same topic.

Altcoins are perfect tools for scammers. Their developers simply create blockchains with smaller block time, faster transaction speed, bigger block size and convince investors that their altcoins are better than Bitcoin.

But they failed because their blockchains and networks have lower hashrates than Bitcoin. Centralization is worse than decentralization. Faster does not mean better if their blockchains can be reverted, attacked, halted anytime by big holders or core teams.

Do we really need faster blockchains but have to accept higher risk of coin seize, hacks and other risks.

With same algorithm, Proof of Work, altcoin networks can not compare to Bitcoin network.
https://howmanyconfs.com/

Other algorithms like Proof of Stake ... are worse than Proof of Work.

NFT as the silly identifier of monkey/cat memes is a waste of time. waste of resource

and sure let that waste its time and resource on ethereums subnetwork bridges

however the initial utility of NFT was not monkey/cat memes

NFT that represent a key identity to property has utility.. just not meme property.
keys that are used as gateways for server access/ownership claims and account management. reputations and business.. you know things like IP rights, brand copyright, patent claims,
time stamping your business brand registration and then using that NFT to peg out and create more shareable units to be the businesses official company shares. that was the initial premiss of some of the benefits of NFT

selling ownership shares in a brands identity, a companies stock, collateral in a immutable timestamped way that holds up in court should there be dispute of ownership

that is where NFT can explore and have usefulness. and thats the ones that should be utilised on a bitcoin subnetwork bridge

The problem is with people or things who don't consider the fact that everyone/most participants should be able to run full Blockchain nodes, which help keep the network more decentralized and secure. Another very important reason everyone should be able to run a full node is so that it becomes possible to replicate the nodes within ones physical community, then continue to exist and do transactions with the community without the rest of the main Global Networks. This could be necessary when a part of the World/Network cuts off from the rest of the Global Networks during internet shutdown, disaster. etc
This is why I believe things will work out well on Sidechain/Multichain Networks  designed for different economic groups with different hardware capabilities/capacities. They should be able to customize the Blockchain to suit their capacities and their needs. Anyone can decide to run multiple Blockchains (multiple fullnodes) if he/she wants to, or run a single Fullnode of small/medium/big/unlimited Blockchain size. This could be inform of big/medium/small Blockspace or Blockchain that is customized to hold certain amount of information/data before it's automatically locked so that nothing enters anymore. You could customize it to lock at 50gb, 100gb etc..
A Blockchain can be designed to hold whatever amount or type of data one wishes so long as they are not limiting most/all participants from running their Fullnode for the Network. People could even design their Blockchain within the Multichain system to reject evil/harmful data that breaks their good rules. You can only be censorship resistant if your data is not a danger to the networks/participants/societies. If people reject your harmful data you have the option to destroy the data or host it alone or with your group and you will now be distinct group and easy targets for law enforcement agencies.
It's important that Blockchain be used for holding certain size of data most times as it may not be efficient to do otherwise. It's more suitable for light data/information. Other decentralized  non-blockchain applications/systems could be used for this purpose and they can be part of the Bitcoin Network as long as they meet the required safety standards/principles.

The actual problem is limited block size capacity, not energy usage to mine Bitcoin. Theoretical transaction/second isn't affected by total hashrate/energy to mine Bitcoin.


But what can be done to prevent this kind of spam? Adding more hard limit (such as maximum tx size or maximum redeemspend script size) require hard fork and it can be mitigated by creating multiple transaction.

To me the energy consumption is a non-issue. Anything we use in our daily modern life that is worthwhile requires as much or more energy than bitcoin. Washing machines and dryers, automobiles, public transportation, heating and cooling our homes, using our bank ATM machines, microwave ovens, are things that require more energy per capita than bitcoin. Having said that, the technology is always improving and becoming more energy efficient. Over half the energy used by bitcoin is now renewable and/or stranded energy that otherwise could not be used. The energy it uses it what makes bitcoin so incredibly secure. Which is why it will never become proof of stake which is not very secure.

Some American politicians love to criticize bitcoin for this kind of thing while flying around in their private jets, driving in their big SUVs, using energy to heat their 5,000 square foot McMansions. If these people would first give up all their modern luxuries and go live in a cave then maybe they won't sound so dumb.

The energy consumption of Bitcoin is unrelated to how it is used, except that more adoption means higher fees, which result in more energy consumption.

Every now and then some people come along that have drank the shitcoin koolaid and think the same garbage should be implemented inside Bitcoin protocol too. I see it as a good thing since they sometimes find attack vectors like the recent thing with this "Ordinals" nonsense that has showed us an attack vector that exists in Taproot scripts where the user can easily inject garbage into the blockchain (as opposed to it being very hard in the past).
That's not even to mention how useless the NFT idea is as a whole.

Full node developers should get to work and non-standard that to prevent such spams from growing on the chain.

Will Ordinals and NFTs Destroy Bitcoin?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJr8yUf3dYk


Energy usage of bitcoin is high enough as it is and should be reserved for more worthwhile applications. Transferring around monkey jpegs and/or porn images on the network is a pointless waste of energy. The congestion and bloat this would create will lead to higher fees for users, clog and slow the network with useless traffic that can potentially compromise security with overcomplexity and bloat. Bitcoin should remain true to its core mission and principles-- the most sound money ever created and greatest store of value.

Once you try to be too many things and try to please everyone, you just become another stupid altcoin.
Leave the idiots to play around with their ethereum and solana, monkey pics, etc.