Topic: Why was Ordinal NFTs created? (Read 1278 times)

if bitcoin ever went to POS then i think it's got bigger problems than ordinals. it wouldn't even be bitcoin anymore.

Just because the miners are benefiting does not mean this NFT/memecoin fad is good for Bitcoin. POS has nothing to do with ordinals but rather I am talking about POW being forced into a corner and people might start seeing the switch to POS as an easy option in order to decrease the congestion as well as the transaction fees (by upping the scalability of the blockchain.)

Take a look at what happened to Ethereum once the PoW started showing the weakness of congestion and ridiculously high transaction costs. That became the main argument for the switch to POS. But they sacrificed their decentralization for it. I am simply connecting the dots and seeing something similiar happening to Bitcoin, because of ordinals.

Sure, there might be a different solution, but nobody has proposed one yet. I just hope this is not what pushes Bitcoiners towards accepting POS.

you cant sell something you don't own. unless someone else owns it and lets you sell it but why would they let you do that?   because if they hand over their bitcoin to you and you sell it then they just lost their bitcoin.

maybe but i'm not clear on how.

i'm not sure govt and banks are worried about what bitcoin does to the extent that it determines whether they introduce some digital stablecoin of their own. they're going to do that regardless. or not.

Thanks @pooya87 for the explanation. What I'm still missing is how the 0-input-0-output transactions can distort the inscription numbers. Maybe because there is not a single satoshi in the in/outputs, so the Satoshi order (according to the "Ordinal Theory") is not modified, but it is assigned an inscription number anyway?

I also don't think it's correct to describe ord as a "centralized" system - it's simply a software which assigns the ordinals to satoshis in a particular way. I guess if Casey changes something, most will follow his changes, so it could be described as "de facto centralized". But you can still fork it.

Sorry, I don't think that makes sense. What should be the advantage of PoS when dealing with Ordinals? Ordinals even benefits miners, so it re-assures the current PoW model.

In my opinion, we could describe it as an "attack", but only in the broadest sense: that some group is extracting money from it, for example a NFT trading company, or miners themselves. If it really was thought to "damage" Bitcoin then it's not a very intelligent way, as as I wrote several times, fads come and go, and once people develop alternatives or switch massively to LN/sidechains, the potential vulnerability lowers steadily.

Our options seem to be running out and it seems that Ordinals will not go away, even if we were to restore the pre-taproot transaction size limit or introduce some filter method.

So can we assume the very goal of Ordinals is to be a coordinated attack on Bitcoin, to push Bitcoin out of the competition or, more likely, push Bitcoin towards a POS consensus? If the second hypothesis is true, then who would have the most to gain? Who would have the most control over Bitcoin?

When ETH became POS we saw three addresses that had almost half of all Ethereum. That was a very dangerous moment of decentralization for ETH. But could this decentralization happen to Bitcoin?

I think that no matter how dire the situation becomes, we should steer clear of POS. It feels like a trap that we are being cornered into.

I don't think BRC-20 transactions are going to last long even in the (likely) event that nobody decides to take an official action against them.

After all, it's still a meme coin, so it's subject to trends just like other memes.

Miners would surely benefit in the long run from assets being transferred on bitcoin, but only if they are placed on a protocol that allows for some kind of value/usefulness on the asset. BRC-20 is way too small to store anything useful.

So, for the question on what is the best way for miners to earn fees in the long run, if its not from transactions, it's going to be by using it to make "genuine certifications" for stuff in various industries.

For example, the fashion industry will probably pay big money to mint these things to stop counterfeits

Other kinds of brands that are obsessed with genuine stuff (like ISVs for their software or someone like Apple) would also want a certification for each serial number that can't be tampered with.

So I see an important use case that some new network on top of Bitcoin can provide for these businesses, and all the fees they pay will go to miners and whoever is operating the new network.

And most importantly: The tokens are private, as in, some random bloke on the internet cannot mint a particular kind of token because it will be secret to the business who owns the keys or whatever, for minting such tokens.

This basically kills hype as the assets cannot be traded, avoiding unsustainable fee increases that hurt users.

And I think people are starting to realize that the infrastructure is already in place for hosting that kind of thing. For example there is Taro/RGB (hosting this on Lightning however, is a bad idea and will not work for design reasons), so the basic design for a minted asset has already been made.

So with this constant stream of fees "royalties", you're basically making a similar amount of money that can offset block rewards loss, if such an asset becomes an industry standard (we are talking big like ISO and IEEE like that - of course the public perception on Bitcoin has to completely flip on its head before that becomes possible).

---

Now this is just an idea, and I'm not going to touch it with a 10 foot stick at the moment, because there are more important things that need to be done ATM (improve Lightning wallets gallery).

Well they never inscribed satoshis to begin with using the Ordinals Attack. They are saying it that way to make the attack look like a fancy protocol.

In consensus rules the only thing about values that is checked is that the sum of outputs is not bigger than sum of inputs. This is why you can send 0 satoshis and spend 0 satoshi outputs. It is also not a new thing. Here is the oldest transaction that did this from 2012:
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3a5e0977cc64e601490a761d83a4ea5be3cd03b0ffb73f5fe8be6507539be76c
These transactions are non-standard and majority of nodes won't relay them.

The fix is actually trivial since it is a centralized service and modifying it with a workaround or a way to ignore this transaction or anything like it is very easy.

As I've said before, those who created this attack are very incompetent which has been clear from day one from the way they are abusing the exploit in Taproot scripts.

People shorting Bitcoin
People who make money of ordinals
Govt and Banks who want to see Bitcoin fail so they can hock their CBDCs

Well depends my coins that i mined and held were 31k

As I was mining at that price my pool paid at 97% so like I said new coin was worth 30.4 due to fees.


price dropped to 27.5

my pool paid at 130% so those coins mined  were like 35k

so depending on how many coins I mined and held this crazy attack made me money on new mining and lost me money on the older held coins.

I likely (certainly) lost on the deal as I hodl more btc than I earned this last 10 days.

but I know miners that are almost all cash zero close to zero hodl

this week made them money even with coin price dropping.

It seems to be ending fees are lower nower.

if everyone wins when price goes up then price would never go down so who wins when price goes down? 

As a miner I am not getting dirty rich off the fees.

btc was 31k viabtc paid 97% back to miners. net is   30.07k

btc is 27.5k viabtc is paying 130% back to miners. 35.75k

so  if I made $30.07 a day now I make $35.75 a day

not dirty rich.

Have to ride this out. btc hodl vs btc spam

who wins?

miners only win if price rises with fees.

hodlers only win if price rises while they hold

The Ordinal NFT is actually combined since there is a difference between NFT and Ordinals itself.

Casey Rodarmor differentiated them very easily and improved the Ordinals to whole new dimensions. For example, an NFT would be a metadata which can be updated but that needs to be updated "off chain". What does it mean? Simply put, imagine an artwork of lets say monkey icon where image is little blurry. Then if there comes an update to this image and it needs to be made into high resolution image then one has to update it off chain but there was drawback to this. The original NFT would remain unattended unless and until owner refreshes the NFT on his dashboard.

On the other hand Casey Rodarmor gave amazing update to the next protocol that they coded. In case of Ordinals, they can be updated "on chain" which means if you are accessing the meta data of ordinals then it will updated live on the blockchain. This later formed the Ordinal NFT.

According to them NFT are incomplete while Ordinal NFT are complete.


Bitcoin NFTs? Ordinals Inscriptions Explained (Finding, Buying, & More)

You can find detailed study on the Ordinal NFT, best article and worth 10 min reading.

hard to argue with that.

i mean yeah that's definitely true. my first choice for sending money would not be using bitcoin these last few months, that's for sure. and i don't see that changing anytime soon. have to use other ways. probably forever. 

I think we can safety say spam is exactly what happened.

Only reason you miners like it is your getting dirty rich off the fees.

Terrible for Bitcoin as a whole and has put people off using it for transactions.

Pandora's box is open..

appreciate the link.

yeah, here is casey's exact statement:

“However, fixing the bug by making [the Ordinals protocol] ignore this inscription would change inscription numbers after the curious transaction. I'm honestly not sure what to do!” added Rodarmor soon after the issue was found.

he's not sure what to do  luckily ordinals is not part of bitcoin core. and it can be ignored to that extent...

whoever had the 1000th monkey probably got it by a bit of luck since I don't think you can control exactly what number you get. but they were probably trying so yeah they wouldn't be too happy if casey in his infinite wisdom decided to renumber things...

from the way the article sounded, i would agree. but it does maybe sound a small alarm bell to people who own monkeys that they need to get their house in order. and understand their monkey better.

This story:

Developer Inserts 'Bug' in Bitcoin Ordinals—How Bad Is It?

Basically, there seems to be a technique to inscribe a satoshi you don't own, with some 0-value input/output sorcery. (Technically I haven't understood it fully, others may provide an ELI5).

The problem is if you want to ignore these satoshis you have to modify inscription numbers, and then lots of them will be "off".

Inscription numbers aren't that important in the Ordinals protocol, but if someone was selling things like "the 1000st monkey" or "the 100st BRC-20 token" based on that number, their business model may be broken now.

(As I wrote in the previous post, NFT ownership seems not to be broken by this attack.)

what are you talking about exactly? what do you mean inscription numbers don't work anymore? 

Yep, I believe that too. However, that's true for the hype phase. In the long run, the protocol offering the best compromise between the factors cost, safety and access to the Bitcoin ecosystem will win. And that may be a sidechain.

I've just read that there's a demo sidechain called Soma specially for NFTs, a so-called "spacechain" in beta testing on signet, which would work in a decentralized fashion. (made by the guy who yesterday launched a first successful "attack" on Ordinals ... the so called "inscription numbers" now don't work anymore, but the ownership does, so [for many, unfortunately] the protocol seems not to be broken still).

However, I'd also argue that those using Bitcoin to pay and receive payments would benefit from moving parts of their activity to a sidechain if it is decentralized enough. The problem is that RSK is almost completely centralized, Stacks is already better but uses a premined token. Drivechain is probably the best long term proposal but needs a controversial code change. Thus the idea of a "decentralized Stacks fork" with a merge-mined token.


I've partly read what you discussed about miner incentives, but I guessed partly it was also about scaling/improving the "block congestion" issue. The proposed Soma spacechain would already be able to fulfill both goals - its reward policy could be designed in a way an infinite coin issuance (like in Dogecoin or in Monero) is ensured.

So in the long run, would this not increase bitcoin scaling problem?

My last post is actually only about continuing miner incentives when all of the coins are mined. philipma1957 believes that there might be a situation when fees alone might not be enough to incentivize miners. I merely suggested a "miner-chain" merged-mined with Bitcoin to continue paying the miners through block rewards.

Your suggestion, to push out Ordinals from the Bitcoin blockchain to the miner-chain, made it better. Everyone will get what they want.

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.

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?

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.


ok. don't tell satoshi either.  

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?

 


 

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

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.


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

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.

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.


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


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

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. 

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.

and zero coins lost. how's that?

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.

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


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.

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. 

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.

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.


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

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...

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?

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


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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.


What' your opinion on Drivechains/BIP-300?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.