Topic: Why was Ordinal NFTs created? - page 5. (Read 1212 times)
Still more negative comments about Bitcoin Ordinal NFTs. Bitcoin core has a community, don't the community accept an update first before it is added to Bitcoin Blockchain?
What I sees from it, NFTs was just a new Ideas calve from bitcoin to support more threads on basses of what bitcoin can do.
Bitcoin doesn't need to add more features to be useful, it is already useful enough. Besides the token creation nonsense is not a new thing. The discussions started many years ago possibly in 2012-2013 and in fact scammers like Butterin were also part of that argument and failed to convince anybody that Bitcoin needs to expand its smart contracts to allow token creation so he created the scam project called ethereum. To this day things haven't changed, Bitcoin does not have the token/NFT creation capabilities and it doesn't need them. 
Can you even imagine how many TX needed to store 100KB on-chain if people were to use OP_RETURN?
That's exactly the point: the incentives would have worked favouring small inscriptions, or NFT systems where mainly hashes of the content would be stored on-chain. NFTers would have to had become creative, for example you could imagine a system where the "possession" of a low-resolution image via Ordinals could also determine ownership of a high-resolution one stored on a sidechain.(to try to answer my own question: I believe that it's a mix of "wanting to boost the fee market" and just liking the idea of large inscriptions.)
I know "it's cheaper", but I think if he had implemented it in a system where large NFTs would have been stored in several OP_RETURN transactions
It's not just cheaper. It's non-standard. His project wouldn't have a good start, because the very first Ordinal transactions would be rejected by the network. If we make the current "Taproot hack" non-standard, he'll argue we're not being censorship resistant as we invade in his right to make transactions (and he will be right).Unless you mean to make thousands of 80 bytes long transactions, which as meant by ETFbitcoin, is madness.
Otherwise they could have created the same system on a side-chain that would have also been a lot cheaper than using bitcoin mainnet and abusing Taproot scripts. Which is another reason why Ordinals is malicious.
The fact that they don't turn it to a side-chain gives me hopes it won't last long. It seems like NFTs, but instead of hashes, the entire thing; both of which are completely pointless, but anyway. I think it's just greater fool's theory. 
First of all, the bitcoin developers did not "make" this. A random guy on Github invented the format and a program for it, and placed it on Github. It just so happens that the program interfaces with Bitcoin Core, so now people are saying this is a Bitcoin Core problem, despite Bitcoin Core devs having nothing to do with this.
Well it was created because it could be created. Anything that can be created will be created. The creator of Ordinals realized there was a way to spam data into transactions, an unintended consequence that was left open in the Taproot upgrade. People don't like it because it spams data into transactions, therefore filling up blocks with arbitrary data in the form of NFTs rather than monetary transaction data.
It's an interesting use of bitcoin, but it in no way helps Bitcoin, while it does hurt Bitcoin's ability to perform monetary transactions on-chain, which as we all know was already at a premium. Unfortunately there is a market for lame collections of digital images to be sold for money and therefore the economics of NFTs is such that the transaction fees are worth sending them around on Bitcoin.
Imagine you have a four lane highway and then someone realizes that there is no rule against circuses marching along the highway. Suddenly you've got several lanes filled up with a circus act while the people actually trying to travel have to be stuffed into one or two lanes instead of four. And there is a small but sufficient amount of those people who are willing to pay to watch the circus in the other lanes so the circus act clogging up the road is economically viable. That's what NFTs does to Bitcoin.
An interesting idea to think about is if NFTs end up spamming Bitcoin so much that they take over the chain, will it end up being in the best interest of Bitcoin to hard fork away with an anti-Ordinals upgrade and leave the original blockchain as a dead-end NFT-focused s**tcoin. That would be a very drastic scenario but Ordinals is essentially a spam attack on Bitcoin that is unlikely to go away as it seems even though the NFT fad largely died off already there are still enough people interested in paying money for cheap collections of digital images on the blockchain that the economics of NFTs are still worth it. The general consensus of the Bitcoin is to keep the chain immutable and not hard fork, but in cases such as this where unintended consequences of upgrades end up attacking Bitcoin and making it less useful the community may at some point need to consider moving the chain on to an upgrade that isn't compatible with such an attack, unless a soft-fork to stop Ordinals is possible.
But the answer to the questions is it was created because it could be. And yes it is an interesting use of Bitcoin, it's just not a good use of Bitcoin, due to Bitcoin being the digital currency for all of humanity and transaction space being at a premium. The last thing Bitcoin needs is arbitrary non-currency data lessening its ability to move money around.
It's an interesting use of bitcoin, but it in no way helps Bitcoin, while it does hurt Bitcoin's ability to perform monetary transactions on-chain, which as we all know was already at a premium. Unfortunately there is a market for lame collections of digital images to be sold for money and therefore the economics of NFTs is such that the transaction fees are worth sending them around on Bitcoin.
Imagine you have a four lane highway and then someone realizes that there is no rule against circuses marching along the highway. Suddenly you've got several lanes filled up with a circus act while the people actually trying to travel have to be stuffed into one or two lanes instead of four. And there is a small but sufficient amount of those people who are willing to pay to watch the circus in the other lanes so the circus act clogging up the road is economically viable. That's what NFTs does to Bitcoin.
An interesting idea to think about is if NFTs end up spamming Bitcoin so much that they take over the chain, will it end up being in the best interest of Bitcoin to hard fork away with an anti-Ordinals upgrade and leave the original blockchain as a dead-end NFT-focused s**tcoin. That would be a very drastic scenario but Ordinals is essentially a spam attack on Bitcoin that is unlikely to go away as it seems even though the NFT fad largely died off already there are still enough people interested in paying money for cheap collections of digital images on the blockchain that the economics of NFTs are still worth it. The general consensus of the Bitcoin is to keep the chain immutable and not hard fork, but in cases such as this where unintended consequences of upgrades end up attacking Bitcoin and making it less useful the community may at some point need to consider moving the chain on to an upgrade that isn't compatible with such an attack, unless a soft-fork to stop Ordinals is possible.
But the answer to the questions is it was created because it could be. And yes it is an interesting use of Bitcoin, it's just not a good use of Bitcoin, due to Bitcoin being the digital currency for all of humanity and transaction space being at a premium. The last thing Bitcoin needs is arbitrary non-currency data lessening its ability to move money around.
Your opinion is it is spam. Others believe it to be art.
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/_assets/www.moma.org/wp/moma_learning/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Warhol.-Soup-Cans-469x292.jpg
is the above art? mom.org says it is.
so you may not like it but if blockchain art is deleted I smell lawsuits.
Best you can do is set a future date to stop new additions.
Which will make the ones on the chain now more costly.
Well it was created because it could be created. Anything that can be created will be created. The creator of Ordinals realized there was a way to spam data into transactions, an unintended consequence that was left open in the Taproot upgrade. People don't like it because it spams data into transactions, therefore filling up blocks with arbitrary data in the form of NFTs rather than monetary transaction data.
It's an interesting use of bitcoin, but it in no way helps Bitcoin, while it does hurt Bitcoin's ability to perform monetary transactions on-chain, which as we all know was already at a premium. Unfortunately there is a market for lame collections of digital images to be sold for money and therefore the economics of NFTs is such that the transaction fees are worth sending them around on Bitcoin.
Imagine you have a four lane highway and then someone realizes that there is no rule against circuses marching along the highway. Suddenly you've got several lanes filled up with a circus act while the people actually trying to travel have to be stuffed into one or two lanes instead of four. And there is a small but sufficient amount of those people who are willing to pay to watch the circus in the other lanes so the circus act clogging up the road is economically viable. That's what NFTs does to Bitcoin.
An interesting idea to think about is if NFTs end up spamming Bitcoin so much that they take over the chain, will it end up being in the best interest of Bitcoin to hard fork away with an anti-Ordinals upgrade and leave the original blockchain as a dead-end NFT-focused s**tcoin. That would be a very drastic scenario but Ordinals is essentially a spam attack on Bitcoin that is unlikely to go away as it seems even though the NFT fad largely died off already there are still enough people interested in paying money for cheap collections of digital images on the blockchain that the economics of NFTs are still worth it. The general consensus of the Bitcoin is to keep the chain immutable and not hard fork, but in cases such as this where unintended consequences of upgrades end up attacking Bitcoin and making it less useful the community may at some point need to consider moving the chain on to an upgrade that isn't compatible with such an attack, unless a soft-fork to stop Ordinals is possible.
But the answer to the questions is it was created because it could be. And yes it is an interesting use of Bitcoin, it's just not a good use of Bitcoin, due to Bitcoin being the digital currency for all of humanity and transaction space being at a premium. The last thing Bitcoin needs is arbitrary non-currency data lessening its ability to move money around.
It's an interesting use of bitcoin, but it in no way helps Bitcoin, while it does hurt Bitcoin's ability to perform monetary transactions on-chain, which as we all know was already at a premium. Unfortunately there is a market for lame collections of digital images to be sold for money and therefore the economics of NFTs is such that the transaction fees are worth sending them around on Bitcoin.
Imagine you have a four lane highway and then someone realizes that there is no rule against circuses marching along the highway. Suddenly you've got several lanes filled up with a circus act while the people actually trying to travel have to be stuffed into one or two lanes instead of four. And there is a small but sufficient amount of those people who are willing to pay to watch the circus in the other lanes so the circus act clogging up the road is economically viable. That's what NFTs does to Bitcoin.
An interesting idea to think about is if NFTs end up spamming Bitcoin so much that they take over the chain, will it end up being in the best interest of Bitcoin to hard fork away with an anti-Ordinals upgrade and leave the original blockchain as a dead-end NFT-focused s**tcoin. That would be a very drastic scenario but Ordinals is essentially a spam attack on Bitcoin that is unlikely to go away as it seems even though the NFT fad largely died off already there are still enough people interested in paying money for cheap collections of digital images on the blockchain that the economics of NFTs are still worth it. The general consensus of the Bitcoin is to keep the chain immutable and not hard fork, but in cases such as this where unintended consequences of upgrades end up attacking Bitcoin and making it less useful the community may at some point need to consider moving the chain on to an upgrade that isn't compatible with such an attack, unless a soft-fork to stop Ordinals is possible.
But the answer to the questions is it was created because it could be. And yes it is an interesting use of Bitcoin, it's just not a good use of Bitcoin, due to Bitcoin being the digital currency for all of humanity and transaction space being at a premium. The last thing Bitcoin needs is arbitrary non-currency data lessening its ability to move money around.
The simple fact that it is called "NFT" while it is not NFT and not even a token, should answer your question that this is a scam. This is basically an attack that is created to turn bitcoin blockchain into a cloud storage and effectively making it unusable as a "peer to peer digital cash".
Otherwise they could have created the same system on a side-chain that would have also been a lot cheaper than using bitcoin mainnet and abusing Taproot scripts. Which is another reason why Ordinals is malicious.
Otherwise they could have created the same system on a side-chain that would have also been a lot cheaper than using bitcoin mainnet and abusing Taproot scripts. Which is another reason why Ordinals is malicious.
Short answer: Because you can ... 
Long answer: A mechanism to create "series numbers" of satoshis was discussed already several years ago in this forum. I don't remember the exact year (and also not the link to the thread) but I mean it was around 2013. So it was only a matter of time until someone might have read the thread and simply implemented it.
What's my problem with Ordinals is not the "ordinal system" itself, but the Inscription feature. And here I do have a question to Casey Rodarmor (the creator):
Why did you create the NFT system as a Taproot hack, and not with the established data storing mechanisms, i.e. OP_RETURN? I know "it's cheaper", but I think if he had implemented it in a system where large NFTs would have been stored in several OP_RETURN transactions (or even better: on a data sidechain, where only the hashes would have been stored on the Bitcoin blockchain), people wouldn't have that many problems with it.
Long answer: A mechanism to create "series numbers" of satoshis was discussed already several years ago in this forum. I don't remember the exact year (and also not the link to the thread) but I mean it was around 2013. So it was only a matter of time until someone might have read the thread and simply implemented it.
What's my problem with Ordinals is not the "ordinal system" itself, but the Inscription feature. And here I do have a question to Casey Rodarmor (the creator):
Why did you create the NFT system as a Taproot hack, and not with the established data storing mechanisms, i.e. OP_RETURN? I know "it's cheaper", but I think if he had implemented it in a system where large NFTs would have been stored in several OP_RETURN transactions (or even better: on a data sidechain, where only the hashes would have been stored on the Bitcoin blockchain), people wouldn't have that many problems with it.
Think of the blockchain as a road.
When it was built it was designed to handle data traffic.
So someone has figured a way to put data on the chain and monetize it.
ie ordinals.
Arguing against ordinal traffic is pretty much like arguing against single occupied cars on highways.
They crowd the road bla bla bla.
Most people simply don’t understand the value of ordinals or nfts.
Simply small in the box thinking.
When it was built it was designed to handle data traffic.
So someone has figured a way to put data on the chain and monetize it.
ie ordinals.
Arguing against ordinal traffic is pretty much like arguing against single occupied cars on highways.
They crowd the road bla bla bla.
Most people simply don’t understand the value of ordinals or nfts.
Simply small in the box thinking.
The introduction of inscriptions on Bitcoin’s mainnet made the creation of Ordinal NFTs on the bitcoin Blockchain. I have read lot of negative comments about the effects of Ordinal NFTs on Bitcoin Blockchain and so I would like to know why it was still created despite negative effects it can have,Although there are some positive comments, The negative comments are something that can cause stressing issues later on.
Jump to: