Why was Ordinal NFTs created? - page 3.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 24, 2023, 02:39:05 AM

Probably, but if Bitcoin surges to a six digit price during the next bull cycle, which is very possible in my opinion,
then wait for the possibilty of a seven digit price narrative to arise.

it's one thing for btc marketcap to go from half a trillion dollars to 4 times that. but another thing entirely go to 40 times that. do we really think that's going to happen?

Quote

It just starts as a narrative, then as a possibility, then a?

Cool

ordinals is not going to drive that. so what's going to drive it? you would need 1000 projects like ordinals to get you up to $1,000,000 maybe more.

Quote

I'll pretend I didn't see that part of your post.

ok. don't tell satoshi either. Shocked

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 23, 2023, 11:19:25 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 22, 2023, 08:37:27 AM

Don't speak that it's absolutely impossible. A person from 2012 would also say the same about Bitcoin surging to $10,000.

bitcoin going from $1 to $10,000 is not the same thing as going from $10,000 to $1,000,000. it's going to need alot of help to reach $1 million things like hyperinflation come to mind...gonna take more than just being useful for some purpose in my opinion.

you got fednow coming out soon and countries are jumping on the bandwagon to want to make their own digital currencies. bitcoin can't compete with that. (I mean in terms of the convenience and ease of use factor...why subsidize pictures of monkeys when you just want to transfer money electronically with little to no fee? ) plus you throw in government regulations and it makes it even harder for people to get involved in it in the first place. even if they wanted to. coinbase might not even be in the usa for alot longer.

but yet somehow bitcoin is going to go to $1,000,000. americans might not be able to buy it but somehow it will be worth that much. go figure. Shocked

Probably, but if Bitcoin surges to a six digit price during the next bull cycle, which is very possible in my opinion, then wait for the possibilty of a seven digit price narrative to arise. It just starts as a narrative, then as a possibility, then a?

Cool

Quote

Did it say about zero coins lost? No, check the code.

maybe that's one of the things about the code that need to be reconsidered. Lips sealed

I'll pretend I didn't see that part of your post.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 22, 2023, 08:37:27 AM

Don't speak that it's absolutely impossible. A person from 2012 would also say the same about Bitcoin surging to $10,000.

bitcoin going from $1 to $10,000 is not the same thing as going from $10,000 to $1,000,000. it's going to need alot of help to reach $1 million things like hyperinflation come to mind...gonna take more than just being useful for some purpose in my opinion.

you got fednow coming out soon and countries are jumping on the bandwagon to want to make their own digital currencies. bitcoin can't compete with that. (I mean in terms of the convenience and ease of use factor...why subsidize pictures of monkeys when you just want to transfer money electronically with little to no fee? ) plus you throw in government regulations and it makes it even harder for people to get involved in it in the first place. even if they wanted to. coinbase might not even be in the usa for alot longer.

but yet somehow bitcoin is going to go to $1,000,000. americans might not be able to buy it but somehow it will be worth that much. go figure. Shocked

Quote

Did it say about zero coins lost? No, check the code.

maybe that's one of the things about the code that need to be reconsidered. Lips sealed

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

I think you're overthinking the incentive. As a recent poster questioned, the potential incentives can be: transaction fees, investments in bitcoin, and protocols running on top of it. And we still have about twice the age of bitcoin until it starts becoming an observable problem.

And, to repeat myself: if there are no transactions happening on-chain, there is no point in having a bitcoin in the first place, let alone to secure it.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 21, 2023, 10:01:03 PM

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 21, 2023, 02:25:38 PM

well if btc is 30k a 6.25 block with 0.15 rewards = 6.4 coins or 192k these numbers do work

it is likely the .15 in rewards is up due to Ordinals and Nfts.

If btc is 60k a 3.125 block with 0.075 in rewards = 3.2 coins or 192k these numbers work

and I dropped out 0.075 in rewards with the assumption that ordinals and nfts reduce due to lack of demand this will hopefully be all true in 2024

So we could be okay for a few more jumps. Without nfts or ordinals

But 2028 120k a 1.56125 block with 0.075 in rewards.

yeah, i dont think anyone really has a good answer for this problem but it does seem to limit bitcoin's upside potential in usd value. bitcoin can't just shoot up higher and higher just because miners want to offset their dwindling block reward. Shocked

That's true, but since when did Bitcoin surge because miners simply wanted to offset their rewards that are halved every four years? The price is what the market - buyers and sellers - makes.

Quote

problems start showing. the 20 mill x 120k = 2.4 trillion value and for the numbers to be okay

difficulty needs 50% growth and efficiency should go from 29 watts to 20 watts per th.

The value of your protection will have went up a bit but price of coins is 4x/

It just get wonky when you project into the future.

imagine 1btc is worth $1M usd. maybe miners would be happy then if they could scrape out a .0001 block reward but it's not going to $1M...not unless the usd experiences hyperinflation but that wouldn't help anyone either.

Don't speak that it's absolutely impossible. A person from 2012 would also say the same about Bitcoin surging to $10,000.

Quote

Quote from: Wind_FURY

But from the standpoint of the protocol, it must be preserved. 21,000,000 coins mined

and zero coins lost. how's that?

Did it say about zero coins lost? No, check the code.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 21, 2023, 02:25:38 PM

well if btc is 30k a 6.25 block with 0.15 rewards = 6.4 coins or 192k these numbers do work

it is likely the .15 in rewards is up due to Ordinals and Nfts.

If btc is 60k a 3.125 block with 0.075 in rewards = 3.2 coins or 192k these numbers work

and I dropped out 0.075 in rewards with the assumption that ordinals and nfts reduce due to lack of demand this will hopefully be all true in 2024

So we could be okay for a few more jumps. Without nfts or ordinals

But 2028 120k a 1.56125 block with 0.075 in rewards.

yeah, i dont think anyone really has a good answer for this problem but it does seem to limit bitcoin's upside potential in usd value. bitcoin can't just shoot up higher and higher just because miners want to offset their dwindling block reward. Shocked

Quote

problems start showing. the 20 mill x 120k = 2.4 trillion value and for the numbers to be okay

difficulty needs 50% growth and efficiency should go from 29 watts to 20 watts per th.

The value of your protection will have went up a bit but price of coins is 4x/

It just get wonky when you project into the future.

imagine 1btc is worth $1M usd. maybe miners would be happy then if they could scrape out a .0001 block reward but it's not going to $1M...not unless the usd experiences hyperinflation but that wouldn't help anyone either.

Quote from: Wind_FURY

But from the standpoint of the protocol, it must be preserved. 21,000,000 coins mined

and zero coins lost. how's that?

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8950

'The right to privacy matters'

well if btc is 30k a 6.25 block with 0.15 rewards = 6.4 coins or 192k these numbers do work

it is likely the .15 in rewards is up due to Ordinals and Nfts.

If btc is 60k a 3.125 block with 0.075 in rewards = 3.2 coins or 192k these numbers work

and I dropped out 0.075 in rewards with the assumption that ordinals and nfts reduce due to lack of demand this will hopefully be all true in 2024

So we could be okay for a few more jumps. Without nfts or ordinals

But 2028 120k a 1.56125 block with 0.075 in rewards.

problems start showing. the 20 mill x 120k = 2.4 trillion value and for the numbers to be okay

difficulty needs 50% growth and efficiency should go from 29 watts to 20 watts per th.

The value of your protection will have went up a bit but price of coins is 4x/

It just get wonky when you project into the future.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 18, 2023, 05:45:48 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 18, 2023, 03:06:34 AM

The real difference is the social contract of the 21,000,000 Bitcoin limit isn't broken. It's part of Bitcoin's ethos, and in my personal opinion, it must be preserved.

the problem is, it's not preserved in the sense that people lose access to bitcoin meaning there no longer 21M of them but less. i think if they could recycle lost bitcoins back into the system via increasing the coinbase rewards to miners then maybe that would help miners to not need to worry about decreasing income over time and thus needing things like ordinals to make up the difference. but even if not, it just makes sense that if 21M is really 21M then coins shouldn't be lost forever. because then it's less.

But from the standpoint of the protocol, it must be preserved. 21,000,000 coins mined.

Quote

Without doing actual Proof Of Work on those tokens? No.

just because something has proof of work done on it doesn't make it useful. maybe its a necessary condition but surely not sufficient otherwise all the bitcoin forks would be useful which clearly no one wants to use most of them if any at all.

Usefulness, what coin is, what coin isn't, that's another debate for another topic. But for "BTC-Miner coin", if it truly works to incentivize the miners to continue maintaining Bitcoin's security, then for that reason, it will already be useful.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 18, 2023, 03:06:34 AM

The real difference is the social contract of the 21,000,000 Bitcoin limit isn't broken. It's part of Bitcoin's ethos, and in my personal opinion, it must be preserved.

the problem is, it's not preserved in the sense that people lose access to bitcoin meaning there no longer 21M of them but less. i think if they could recycle lost bitcoins back into the system via increasing the coinbase rewards to miners then maybe that would help miners to not need to worry about decreasing income over time and thus needing things like ordinals to make up the difference. but even if not, it just makes sense that if 21M is really 21M then coins shouldn't be lost forever. because then it's less.

Quote

Without doing actual Proof Of Work on those tokens? No.

just because something has proof of work done on it doesn't make it useful. maybe its a necessary condition but surely not sufficient otherwise all the bitcoin forks would be useful which clearly no one wants to use most of them if any at all.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 17, 2023, 06:18:23 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 17, 2023, 08:48:02 AM

They probably will if it's life or death for Bitcoin, but in my opinion, the tail reward paid in another chain that's merge-mined with Bitcoin, IF implemented securely and IF gets social consensus, would be a compromise. It will continue to incentivize the miners without breaking the social contract.

what's the real difference though? whatever you pay out the tail reward on, someone has to be willing to step up to the plate and buy those worthless piece of crap tokens... Shocked

The real difference is the social contract of the 21,000,000 Bitcoin limit isn't broken. It's part of Bitcoin's ethos, and in my personal opinion, it must be preserved.

Plus it's not us plebs who decides what's worthless, just the market. We can call them shitcoins though.

Quote

why don't we push your solution to the extreme and say that someone invents a way to pay out the tail reward in ethereum. but they still need someone to put up the actual money...and that's the problem. why would people want to do that?

Without doing actual Proof Of Work on those tokens? No.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 17, 2023, 08:48:02 AM

They probably will if it's life or death for Bitcoin, but in my opinion, the tail reward paid in another chain that's merge-mined with Bitcoin, IF implemented securely and IF gets social consensus, would be a compromise. It will continue to incentivize the miners without breaking the social contract.

what's the real difference though? whatever you pay out the tail reward on, someone has to be willing to step up to the plate and buy those worthless piece of crap tokens... Shocked

why don't we push your solution to the extreme and say that someone invents a way to pay out the tail reward in ethereum. but they still need someone to put up the actual money...and that's the problem. why would people want to do that?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 15, 2023, 07:14:59 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 15, 2023, 06:19:15 AM

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

but there has to be a reason people would use a gimmick. no one wants their nft stored on some sidechain. that's why people use ordinals so it can be on the main chain. i think there's more than 1 million ordinals now or coming very soon. Shocked

Confused. Are we talking about Bitcoin's security provided by the incentivization of miners through block rewards, or Ordinals. Our discussion started with this post of yours, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62070560

Quote

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

honestly it wouldn't suprise me if they raised that cap at some point or introduced some tail reward. look at society how they can never get things right and have to always invent new laws and regulations even though society has existed for over 100 years...some of them are in response to the way the world has changed, some not.

They probably will if it's life or death for Bitcoin, but in my opinion, the tail reward paid in another chain that's merge-mined with Bitcoin, IF implemented securely and IF gets social consensus, would be a compromise. It will continue to incentivize the miners without breaking the social contract.

vjudeu

copper member

Activity: 907

Merit: 2262

Quote

you would once commit a hash and a pointer to the sidechain location to the mainchain

You don't need even that. If you have some data, and you want to connect them with some transaction, you don't need to increase the size of your on-chain transaction. It should look in the same way, then it will be very hard to censor, and then you can reveal your data after getting enough confirmations, then nobody will revert it easily.

For example, if you create "OP_RETURN " as a TapScript, then it will never be pushed on-chain. Then, your Taproot address will be different, but everything else in your transaction will stay the same, no additional fields for hashes are needed. However, you can go even further: if you want to have it in your inputs, instead of your outputs, you can take your signature, tweak your R-value, and hide your data there, in the same way as Taproot keys are tweaked. Then, you can use it anywhere, every OP_CHECKSIG or similar operation is then your entry point, where you can hide your data inside your signature, and reveal it later.

Also, if sidechain for Ordinals will be supported on consensus level, it can be constructed to make blocks smaller in non-upgraded nodes. For example, if you have witness data with 4 MB limit, then non-witness data still has 1 MB limit. And if you look at those blocks from the perspective of non-Segwit node, then you will see that blocks are smaller, not bigger, because each four bytes of witness data decrease a room for non-Segwit data by one byte. So, if you have this huge Taproot transaction with 3.94 MB of witness data, then it takes 984.67 kvB, when you count virtual bytes. And that leaves something around 16 kB for non-witness data, then from the perspective of non-upgraded nodes, that is the size of the whole block. And for sidechains, it could be similar: if additional data will be also counted, then by moving things to sidechain commitments, blocks will have lower weight, because of those limits.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: philipma1957 on April 15, 2023, 07:24:24 PM

I still say the 'frozen' btc could be folded back into the reward system.

i've also proposed this idea in the past here on the forum but people don't like it.

Quote

If an address never makes a withdrawal it lose its contents after 50 years.

i had said 100 years but even if we say 500 years, someone is inevitbly still going to have an issue with it simply because they think bitcoin should be able to be passed down for generations infinitely many times without ever being touched.

Quote

Thus is there are 1 or 2 million lost frozen coins they would feed back into rewards.

i see nothing wrong with it myself. that way we know that bitcoin is neither inflationary or deflationary which is best.

Quote

I have mentioned this idea more than once.

But many think is not the solution.

right, because they want other people to lose access to their coins so that their coins become more valuable forever.

Quote

You never pass 21 million coins

you stay at 21 million with 1 or 2 million being redistributed.

i wouldn't have an issue with that. think of it like replacing worn out currency but not adding any extra. the only people that would oppose this type of structure are people that hope to get rich off of other peoples' misfortune of losing their bitcoin through whatever means...

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 15, 2023, 06:19:15 AM

What' your opinion on Drivechains/BIP-300?

I'm following them since a long time ago (probably 2017) and their idea is extremely interesting. I generally agree with Paul Sztorc that the risks should be manageable.

It's cool that they are doing alpha tests with some "clone" blockchains. But I have currently not too much hope that the "ACK" opcode (i.e. the "hashrate escrow" mechanism) gets added to the Bitcoin code in the short to mid term.

Thus I think in the short term, "dynamic federations" like Stacks and Nomic are what's possible today - only that both rely on premined tokens and thus they're not decentralized solutions for me.

I also have some hope about rollups being possible soon (see here for a concept). They could drastically reduce the footprint of payment transactions. Perhaps they could be combined with the "data sidechain" concept, i.e. you would store an Ordinals NFT in the rollup-sidechain and for all related mainchain activity (e.g. buying and selling the NFT for BTC) you would once commit a hash and a pointer to the sidechain location to the mainchain. Haven't thought about that in depth though.

philipma1957

legendary

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8950

'The right to privacy matters'

I still say the 'frozen' btc could be folded back into the reward system.

If an address never makes a withdrawal it lose its contents after 50 years.

Thus is there are 1 or 2 million lost frozen coins they would feed back into rewards.

I have mentioned this idea more than once.

But many think is not the solution.

You never pass 21 million coins

you stay at 21 million with 1 or 2 million being redistributed.

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 15, 2023, 06:19:15 AM

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

but there has to be a reason people would use a gimmick. no one wants their nft stored on some sidechain. that's why people use ordinals so it can be on the main chain. i think there's more than 1 million ordinals now or coming very soon. Shocked

Quote

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

honestly it wouldn't suprise me if they raised that cap at some point or introduced some tail reward. look at society how they can never get things right and have to always invent new laws and regulations even though society has existed for over 100 years...some of them are in response to the way the world has changed, some not.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on April 13, 2023, 10:42:34 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 12, 2023, 11:41:29 PM

I said that there should be community consensus behind it, or else, it will just be another shitchain with a shitcoin. Plus you said that a "new gimmick" was perhaps required. That's merely another suggestion for a "new gimmick".

do you really think that new gimmick would have a feasible chance at being adopted or having any affect whatsoever? drastic times call for drastic measures. a little side chain probably wouldn't be good enough.

I honestly don't know, I'm merely suggesting another "gimmick" after the "gimmick" that you suggested. What I do personally believe is it might have a better chance of getting social consensus than breaking Bitcoin's social contract.

Quote from: d5000 on April 13, 2023, 01:36:40 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 12, 2023, 06:31:49 AM

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

What' your opinion on Drivechains/BIP-300?

larry_vw_1955

sr. member

Activity: 1190

Merit: 469

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 12, 2023, 11:41:29 PM

I said that there should be community consensus behind it, or else, it will just be another shitchain with a shitcoin. Plus you said that a "new gimmick" was perhaps required. That's merely another suggestion for a "new gimmick".

do you really think that new gimmick would have a feasible chance at being adopted or having any affect whatsoever? drastic times call for drastic measures. a little side chain probably wouldn't be good enough.

Quote

But in breaking the social contract of having Bitcoin's supply limited at 21,000,000, you risk another split within the Bitcoin community.

that's the downside of my gimmick but i think one of the groups would end up being the minority chain and quickly forgotten about just like ethereum classic... Shocked

d5000

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 6249

Decentralization Maximalist

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 12, 2023, 06:31:49 AM

Or if just for a "gimmick", it's probably better to build another chain, get community consensus behind it, and have its token merged mined with Bitcoin to help with miner revenue?

You could have the best of both worlds (altcoins/Bitcoin) if you design such a coin as a Bitcoin sidechain, i.e. with the ability to transfer Bitcoin's value on it and with a 2-way-peg with BTC, but with an own mining token.

Sidechains are seeing some development lately and aren't limited anymore to static federation-based chains, see Stacks. The problem of Stacks is that its token is premined, so it's conceptually centralized (not technically).

If we had a "decentralized Stacks" with community consensus, or even better several chains in this manner, we could not only use it for things like Ordinals, but also for smaller payments, which could increase adoption due to smaller fees.

This would mean the benefit for miners would be "doubled": first, they of course get the static block reward of the sidechain's "native" coin, and second, the value proposition of the whole chain ecosystem would be stronger, so it's likely that the mining reward for Bitcoin's main chain, even if it becomes very small, provides enough incentive for safety.

Topic: Why was Ordinal NFTs created? - page 3. (Read 1280 times)