Topic: Why was Ordinal NFTs created? - page 2. (Read 1272 times)

The day the Ordinals Attack started, I said it has to be stopped and moved off-chain. It is good to see others are coming to the same conclusion!

I personally believe the reason why they refused to use a side-chain (even though other solutions existed) is because they wanted to gain maximum hype possible for their scams. We know things like RSK existed but if they created a token in those platforms, they wouldn't have been able to get the same level of hype hence the same exposure. That meant a failed scam.

But creating it on mainnet by exploiting the protocol and making a lot of people angry gave them a TON of exposure hence the hype and the maximum number of "victims" to rip off.

That's why they will never use any sidechains ever.

For the record yes Logan Paul is generally irrelevant even when he is mentioned in something and he certainly is not a blockchain wizard or educated in anything useful. However it goes to show that even a guy with a billion blind young rich followers cannot sell this absolute crap to anyone. It will die slowly or fast depending on how much money the buyers have and how many drug addictions the sellers have. sums it up rather well.

Just an observation: Now (in late April/early May 2023) the focus of the Ordinals community seems to have been directed to smaller inscriptions like BRC-20 tokens which could already have been achieved without Taproot because they're definitely below the 10K script size limit.

(BRC-20 tokens are basically tokens like those possible with Omni or Counterparty, only that they're using Ordinals to store a JSON text file with the parameters of each token/transaction. I'm still wondering why they use that silly and ultra-inefficient approach).

Now these small inscriptions are causing fees to grow even more than the first big Ordinals wave in February/March. The reason is actually simple: storing a 50K picture with 10 sat/bytes is already expensive, but a small token transfer of no more than 300-400 bytes is perhaps even possible with 100 sat/bytes.

This could lead me to conclude that the bigger Inscription transactions aren't really the problem for the current blockchain bloat. The problem are periods of extremely high blockchain activity when some kind of "hype" is going on, regardless of the size of the individual transactions. And such a hype could have been already possible with pre-Taproot rules.

So I think the solution is not hard forking into a new limit. Instead sidechains should be made finally possible, because these could provide enough space to get rid of the problems when these "hypes" arise.

With Stacks providing already a relatively descentralized method for sidechains, why not fork Stacks and use a decentralized (non-premined) merged-mined token to power a sidechain supported explicitly by the Bitcoin community, to make transactions smooth again?

(PS: Reading the last posts, isn't this exactly your idea @Wind_FURY?)

Thanks for your comment. Exactly this!
I highlighted the main important thing about this "is it censorship to hard-fork out of ordinals?" debate -> If you create something with a certain intention, and unintentionally it can be ABUSED to do something else that the majority of users don't agree with, or even worse feel attacked by, you cannot simply call it censorship. It's getting rid of a bug.
If a tiny minority agrees with this bug, they can still run along with it - but it's gonna be a different product, in this case a different chain.

There was never a consensus (bip) decision about its implementation. It's a hack that gets in the way with most people's intentions for Bitcoin which are transactions of value (BTC).

who are miners going to sell their miner chain coins to?

that's a big assumption.

what would be the purpose of the miner chain other than to give miners more income?

What are your opinions on having a "Miner Chain" issuing "Miner Coins" that's merge mined with Bitcoin and, in practice, continues miners' block rewards forever. Let's pretend that it has the whole community's support.

I believe it could be another form of an increase in block size, in that, miners would need to process more data, no?

but ordinals was not put through any type of standardization/bip process.

there's tons of blockchains where you can do that.why not use one of them which are specifically tailored for nfts, in that they were designed to support them, not just someone found a way to mimic them.

you're being overly generous to ordinals by referring to it as a "new technology". i would call it a cheap hack. but that's just my opinion.

maybe you have a misconception because you speak as though a group of developers got together and hammered out a protocol to stick into bitcoin to support storing monkeys on the blockchain. and then put it up to a vote to make sure everyone had their say. when in reality it was nothing like that. just one guy sitting athome in his underwear that came up with a cheap hack exploiting a loophole in bitcoin that could be patched in the future. and put an end to his little scheme.

ordinals is not a technology IMO, it's just a cheap hack.

Ordinal NFTs came into existence because of the introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin's mainnet. The idea behind creating these NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain was to take advantage of its established infrastructure and security while offering a unique way to represent and trade digital assets. Now, I understand that there have been some negative comments floating around, expressing concerns about the impact of Ordinal NFTs on the Bitcoin blockchain. It's important to remember that whenever a new technology emerges, there are bound to be varying opinions and debates. However, the creators of Ordinal NFTs probably saw potential benefits in using the Bitcoin blockchain, such as its reliability, decentralized nature, and large user base. Despite the negative comments, there are positive aspects to consider as well. For instance, Ordinal NFTs could enhance accessibility and interoperability, opening up new possibilities for digital asset ownership and exchange. It's crucial for ongoing discussions to address any concerns and ensure that the technology grows sustainably, striking a balance between innovation and maintaining the integrity of the underlying blockchain.

if that ever happens then no one will be able to afford to buy bitcoin.

yes it does sound like there's a reckoning day coming where some type of adjustment will need to be made. or else the security of the bitcoin network will be going down by alot. due to miners not participating as much.

imagine if minimum wage jobs paid $150 per hour. that's what it would take for that to make sense.

Yeah and .1756 in fees with  blocks doing  500 tx  means .1756 x 1 million = 175,600 dollars in fees or $351 a transaction.

So we need adjustments. Franky1 likes a bigger tx section we can go to 32mil vs 2 mill or 4 mill that would mean maybe 5000 tx in a block or

175,600/5000 = $35.12  a tx. which would be maybe 3 or 4 usd in 2023 money.

but block size needs to be higher.

Should be fun to see it works its way out

well after thinking about it, i realize that just because bitcoin were to devalue wouldn't necessarily mean fiat would also devalue. for example, say ordinals really takes off and becomes the main use case for bitcoin. and other people abandon bitcoin because they don't like nfts so bitcoin price goes down because all its being used for is storing monkey pictures. that wouldn't affect the us dollar at all.

bitcoin has risk cases that are unique to it which are not shared by fiat. for example anything that caused a disruption in the internet would affect the price of bitcoin.  and not in a positive way. the longer the outage lasted, the lower bitcoin would go. until it reached 0. fiat existed long before the internet and could exist long after it if necessary i would think.

so you're saying in order to keep the same block value, bitcoin would need to go up to $1,000,000 per BTC by 2056. that doesn't bode well for bitcoin.  of course, the other way to get the block value to the same level is with much much higher fees but who is going to want that? no one! and no one would use it except rich people if that was the case...

But btc is designed to be protected by mining.

 and the reward to fee ratio is critical for it to continue to work.

I want someone to make an example for 2056 reward to fee ratio

with btc at

2,000,000
1,000,000
   500,000
   250,000
   125,000

today we do  6.25  + 0.15  = 6.4 btc and about 192,000 value.

today we are in a workable range.

fees are not deadly high.
fees are not too small.

enough gear and power is spent to protect the 0.6 trillion value of btc.

partly due to ordinal and nft existence.

in 2056

rewards will be a lot lower.

0.0244xxx make  fees higher  0.1756 you are at 0.20 means 1,000,000 a coin is a 200,000 block value

which does not work.

In any argument you can bring up any arbitrary condition and then try to make your conclusion. The strong argument is if you first explain your arbitrary condition and why it can happen first then try to extend it to your conclusion.

In here you first have to explain what can cause both fiat and bitcoin to devalue at the same time.
Fiat devalues because it is being printed nonstop whereas bitcoin has a capped supply. And remember to not confuse short term market volatility in bitcoin caused by the mess in the economy as a whole, that is somewhat unrelated with fiat devaluation.

so that's what you do when someone asks you to defend your statement/position. you put them on ignore. not much respect for that but whatever...

 

You're on ignore.

i'm not so sure about that as far as being 100% guaranteed. what if whatever causes the dollar to devalue also affects other fiat currencies. what if it also affects bitcoin?

well if you can't explain why something is "laughable and very stupid" then maybe it's not. but if the reasoning has to do with your coins going higher in value because other peoples' coins are getting lost then that's really not a good enough reason...

OK from the perspective that the network will go on whatever the price.

If the Dollar devalues, Bitcoin surges in Dollar units.


Theoretically it's supposed to, but practically it also depends on demand.


I believe Craig Wright had the same proposal. For me it's laughable and very stupid.

OK, we're off-topic now. This post will be my last reply on that matter.

so if bitcoin just stays under $100,000 forever that's ok too? what if the us dollar devalues alot and bitcoin still stays the same? that's ok too?

apparently bitcoin is supposed to go up in price at each halving.

never heard of that satoshi. that sounds unreasonable of a demand though. but recirculating old coins that haven't been used in 250 years does seem kind of reasonable. at least to me.  

Probably another thing, but what's going to happen and what's not going to happen is not for you and me to decide, it's the market, and probably we can agree that the market doesn't care about the marketcap. It will take Bitcoin where it wants to take it. If it goes to a seven digit price valuation, OK. If not, OK.

 


I don't know, I neither thought nore suggested that Ordinals is going to drive it to new valuations. Let's wait for the next halving.


"Satoshi"? Are you talking about the person who demanded that the Core Developers write code to recover his lost coins? That "Satoshi"?

2040

 0.195 btc lets argue .205 in fees total btc is .4

6.4 x 30000 = 192,000 a block

.4 x 480000 = 192,000 a block

so lets argue that efficiency is 2x

lets argue that diff is 2x

miners would  profit pretty much the same as now…

so they are happy.

but the marketcap grew to about 9.6 trillion

and for miners to be happy i made power used flat =unlikely and gear value pretty much flat = unlikely

i also made fees raise from about .15 a block to .20 (loose rounding)

96000 in fees maybe 1000tx in a block = 96 usd for fees.

1 dollar fee now is decent
96 dollar fee in only 17 years is not good.

as coin goes up 16x and fee goes up 96x

It is hard to see this staying very stable even by 2040

3.125
1.56125
0.780625
0.3903125


0.0195xxxx 2040.  plug in your numbers here.

I am thinking lower coin prices for this to work.

more than higher numbers.

100k a coin forces less gear and less difficulty which could balance system. in the 2040 time frame.