Topic: Why was Ordinal NFTs created? - page 4. (Read 1278 times)

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".


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

you mean create another sh**chain that no one cares about or wants to hold in their wallet?

i'm not sure it is. but who says it would definitely make bitcoin be inflationary anyway? it might not have that much of an effect.

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?

That's better than making Bitcoin inflationary, no?

Why don't we try that? Let Doge or LTC pilot a fixed-sized block reward after a bunch of halvings (not just a few years after the coin is created like Monero did because that wouldn't allow the mining economy to expand first). Actually, better if Litecoin or DASH tries this first as Doge will probably never make any innovations besides memes on Twitter.

Ordinals in a way were piloted on ETH before someone decided to reproduce them here, so the logic would be similar.

well it could will be interesting to see if a good fix happens or if scrypt/doge becomes the lead algo down the road.

maybe the new gimmick will be to change to a constant block reward. the block reward going to zero is the problem for miners right? they don't like that. yes it is inflationary possible to *some* degree but if we're being realistic most people that use ethereum don't realize that its block reward doesn't go to 0 you just keep those type of details under the hood away from them and they'll be fine. 

To all mods

Please note franky1 is not allowed to post here and placed this in a different section.

Lots of info here. I am tired long day mining driving and real world gear stuff.

I am going to sleep on this.

Please do not delete this

I would like to try to unwind it and understand it.  Thank you.



 I am going to move this to the nft/ordinal thread.


I read this a few times.

I bolded his example of a co opted block..


lets say the pool in his example does 20 blocks in a day.

10 of which are flooded with memes and 10 of which are not.

it is much like my thread done back in 2017.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.26809430

So it looks like a strong incentive to not mine with antpool.

you could do a small pool that pays the fees and a pool like viabtc that gives 98% of the fees.

A lot depends if ordinals jack up fees like the 2017 .

Fees need to be large enough in the non ordinal blocks to make ordinals boost mining earnings

Ie 144 blocks 24 with shitty ordinals that follow franky1s idea but 100 with high fees say .4 under current
6.25 reward .

a block with 6.25 + .4 due to other blocks being filled with ordinals means miners get .
96% of the 6.25 and 98% of the .4 fees thats a win for miners but much like 2017 fees will get stupid high.

All of which points to a day of reckoning in the 2056 time slot . I pick that date as I am 99 so I will have reckoned with death 💀 (most likely)

So if ordinals don’t work
and if nfts don’t work
and if frozen stale never used btc is not reclaimed like banks do
the only hope for btc is LN

and LN looks like off book no block chain theft of coins by exchanges like coin base.

It appears BTC will really struggle without a new gimmick. by 2056.

With all due respect, a bat-slap doesn't encourage learning ser. I believe many people make such comments because there's simply a misunderstanding on how and why Bitcoin actually works. I also make the same mistake sometimes, and I need to be taught, not bat-slapped.


But with Ordinals bringing more demand for block space = higher fees, and possibly also bringing more demand for Bitcoin itself, would you say that "mining LTC/Doge makes more $$ per watt than mining BTC" is more seasonal?

Excellent post.


While my first thought is to bat-slap  serveria.com  for saying miners are greedy, you managed to make a much more intelligent reply.

As I type I am mining with 3 other people one 3 locations.

Due to mining we have built a 280 kwatt solar array. and a 45 kwatt solar array. These produce about 1.25 megawatts a day. This is real wealth created by BTC's financial incentives.

I love NFT's and Ordinals for the ability to continue to incentivize mining of BTC.

I am 66 I so wish I was 36 as I know mining coin with my partners will allow us to build more solar arrays as long as mining continues to sweeten the pot so to speak. If I was 30 years younger I would operate a bit differently.

I see all of this as Satoshi's idea of turning energy into coin.

So I am pro mining my biggest issue is many people do not see what I see. BTC could be used to help pay for 1000 megawatts of solar every year. Throughout  USA and rest of the world.

Below is great adventure in New Jersey Notice only ⅓ of the parking lots have solar.
One of my partners has the service contract to keep the panels they have running.
He has talked with them on and off about expansion to more of the parking lots. One of the talking points is they can earn money mining when the park closes from Jan to April.





Now we see mining for what it is watts turn into coin.
As solar business is real and working we rather BTC stay on top of things and figure ways to keep its rewards and fees for mining.

But to be honest scrypt algo since 2020 fall which is around 2.5 years has been better for us than BTC.

mining LTC/Doge makes more $$ per watt than mining BTC.

And here we have a thread with many people arguing against putting more reward/fee money for BTC

Our main business is not mining.

2 of us own warehouses
1 of us owns a solar business
1 of us me is a retired Navy veteran

So attacking ordinals and NFTs simple makes us diversify into Gpus and Scrypt.

We are very green and want to be more green. Rather than hurting us simply attack miners that do nothing to make the industry green.

one last thing is if all mining dies and all coins die, we will still have solar arrays with 20 years left on warranty making 1.25 megawatts a day which is about 1250 x 14 cents = 175 dollars a day in power or $63,875 a year

Anyone could call it greed, but to put it more simply, it's actually just Incentivization. In a decentralized system such as Bitcoin, to have everything constantly working and sticking together, the miners must be incentivized to do their job, or be penalized if they failed or if they didn't do anything.

With the exception that regular users don't make a hundred median-size transactions every day, which is about the equivalent of an average Ordinal transaction. An ordinal owner pays the same rate, but pays more.

I wouldn't rely on this mindset. As I've said, there's an economy around Ordinals. Small, but it grants an income. We should expect the majority of pool owners to perform the necessary tests and software reviews.

In short: greed. Some people got carried away with a possibility to sell monkey pics to gullible peeps, that's all. Miners got excited too as they're earning extra buck for processing spam transactions. Again, it's greed. 

Yes, such transactions are non-standard. The line in the Bitcoin core code is here in policy/policy.cpp. Miners can change this policy (like they did with the 3,9 MB Ordinals inscription) but most will abide it.

Is there a rule that prevents multiple OP_RETURN outputs in one transaction?

While I wish Bitcoin's blockchain shouldn't be abused for arbitrary data storage, I would be OK that those who want to abuse it, should pay a hefty price in transaction fees.

True but remember that before Taproot it was also possible but never happened. You see, in these attacks the attackers want regular people to be able to easily participate in it otherwise if they have to go through some centralized service, it would become harder and could even become impossible if the community puts pressure on that service to stop accepting the malicious attack.

Actually unlike Taproot, the consensus rules for P2WSH has a line to check the data size that is being pushed to the stack and also the witness items data sizes that are already the stack itself.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/84f4ac39fda7ffa5dc84e92d92dd1eeeb5e20f8c/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1815

It's all opinions that's pushed as fact, even by the smartest Bitcoiners in the forum. I hope the newbies could discern the difference.


I believe you are talking about financial value? Financial Value is what the buyer thinks is the current fair market price for an item that a seller is will to accept. That's why, like Bitcoin, when someone says it has "no value", we should ask "what's the highest price in U.S. Dollar can we sell 1 Bitcoin"? That's the current value. The same context for NFTs.

For me Ordinals exists so that the big mining pools that mine several blocks a day increase their profits. I will always be convinced that this is something initiated by pool operators.

When you look at the mempool, Ordinals has really blown up the fees, we are almost continuous like at some points in 2018 in terms of fees. Mempool is almost always suffering of congestion now.

Other than them, at this point, I don't see who the real winners are. Especially not the people who have a full node that will become extraordinarily heavy with all this, let alone those who use the Bitcoin network for their daily transactions.

Ordinals might as well be an invention whose purpose is to push people to use the Lightning Network, you flood the BTC blockchain, the fees go up, people start using LN to escape those fees.

In any case, the blockchain is not centralized, and if it is possible to do something, there will always be someone to do it, especially if there are potential gains to make at the end.

Then people will use another way to achieve the same thing. Note that even if Taproot transactions will be restricted on consensus level, then still, Segwit v2, v3, and later versions will be wide open for pools that will include non-standard transactions, because currently there are no rules to that kind of witness data.

And note that even with Segwit v0, you can still create P2WSH address, that will push a lot of data to the stack. Even with standard rules, it means 10k bytes per input, so by using 40 Segwit v0 inputs, you can still push around 400 kB transaction. Make 10 of them, and you will fill 4 MB block. If you assume using OP_DROP or OP_2DROP, then "push and drop" construction means "4d0802<520bytes>75" (524 bytes) or "4d0802<520bytes>4d0802<520bytes>6d" (1047 bytes). That means the whole overhead of 4 bytes per 520 or 7 bytes per 1040 is below 1% of the message size. And the consequence of that is if you want to fill the whole 4 MB block with Segwit v0, you can use just a few kilobytes of transaction data. By adding transaction structure to that, I guess you will end up for example with a model that will fill the whole 4 MB with 50 kB or 100 kB of additional bytes, so you will get 3.9 MB data per block or something around that in practice, with just plain old Segwit v0.

I think miners love ordinals, because then there is more consumption of space on the blockchain, therefore more scarcity, therefore higher fees for them.
 on the other hand, I believe that if ordinals were made no longer possible, the price of bitcoin would rise, with a mechanism similar to the halving. 

so maybe it would be a good idea to create a soft fork that makes it impossible on the chain for new blocks: in this software maybe new blocks with ordinals shouldn't be accepted as valid anymore

I'm not an expert, but from what I understand Ordinals resulted from an unintended consequence. It's not like Taproot allowed NFTs by design and everyone accepted it. Taproot got ride of a size limit, see ETFBitcoin's comment above:

"While i agree most Ordinals TX can be considered as spam, the problem isn't Taproot itself but rather removal of several soft limitation (mainly 10K script size limit) for Taproot address/script."

The guy who created Ordinals realized Taproot left open a hack in which he could cram unintended arbitrary data into transactions. It's basically a spam attack vector that the devs/community didn't think about when Taproot was implemented.

So no, the community did not accept the ability to make Ordinal NFTs because it was an unintended consequence of changes made in the Taproot upgrade.