Bitcoin Forum

so here's an idea:
I have an idea for an NFT collection for true Bitcoin believers.
To get one of these NFTs, you need to prove that you have been keeping 1000 BTC in your wallet for the last 6 months.
This will be verified by you signing a message with your private key and sending it to a smart contract.

Why would someone buy this?
People who see your NFT will know that you're hodling a lot of Bitcoins.
You get access to a community of other whales.

So what does everyone think? Is it a dumb idea or should we make it happen?

Yes, it is.

rats. sent a merit by accident to nftman instead of pooya. apologies.

so just to reiterate.. yes, its a bad idea

Why would I want to put a digital target on my back saying I own or have owned at least 1000 bitcoin recently? Would you want to walk down a street holding a sign saying you are rich or have a lot of gold in your house?

Many bitcoiners want to remain anonymous and not draw unnecessary attention to themselves. They also wouldn't care about hyped digital waste known as NFTs that could maybe have one or two useful applications with the rest being garbage. I am sorry, but I don't think many would be interested in this.  

Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches?
That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point.

Yes many bitcoiners love being anonymous. But also we are people, we like to announce to the world what we are proud of. We like to announce to the world that we believe in Bitcoin, and also the fact that we have made it big at the same time.

First of all, BItcoin doesn't have smart contract. So you probably have to do it on Bitcoin side-chain (such as Rootstock or Liquid) or altcoin with smart contract capability.


It's dumb, but nobody can stop you from making it happen.


At least those items either have very good branding/popularity, long history or impressive engineering.

Apart from them being completely tangible and giving some prestige to those wearing them, it doesn't mean it isn't dumb. You really must have nothing else to do with your money to just spend millions on watches and designer clothes, and I still can't comprehend that authority they supposedly give to you. But to answer your other question, have you seen lots walking in the street holding a sign that says their total in the bank?

If for some insane reason you want to show off your (currently) $30000000 USD, just post your signed message of your wallet address holding said 1k BTC. No need to wrap that into an NFT or some other bullshit-token.

+1

Prove of funds can indeed make some sort of sense for an institution or maybe an individual in certain business related cases to prove liquidity. But again, this step to the Ethereum network is just 100% redundant.

It's a different culture with Bitcoiners compared to your community of people who wear designer clothes. Bitcoiners are more interested in tools that make people more ungovernable, although I believe none would admit it to avoid Big Brother's eyes probing over them. Haha.

Plus your idea is probably good for younger Bitcoin HODLers who want to flex their wealth, but such a project could also be a government honeypot. It's not good for OPSEC.

I can understand designer clothes to some degree as long as it looks good. I don't understand million-dollar watches made from diamonds, rare stones, and similar stuff rappers and the likes wear. It's idiotic to me. Seeing 15 custom-made sports cars in a driveway is equally foolish. That's my opinion at least.   

So, you want to display your faith in Bitcoin by minting an NFT on Ethereum or some other blockchain? Nice. You are not going to get any serious people to support such an idea. Perhaps the younger generation whose symbol of achievement is a custom-made diamond watch worth a few millions.

Technically every script we make in Bitcoin is a smart contract. A more accurate statement is that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.

And what about Ordinals, BRC-20 and the latest BRC-69? It appears that these  protocols enable the creation of both fungible tokens, such as BRC-20,  and non-fungible tokens, such as Ordinals and BRC-69. These tokens exhibit similar   functionality to those ones that smart contracts  runing  on  Ethereum/EVM networks.

Or, did you mean the original Bitcoin protocol?

Those aren't part of Bitcoin protocol. Bug on software to manage those NFT (Ordinals, BRC-20, etc.) could lead to losses easier (e.g. entering invalid JSON). Bitcoin node and miner still treat those as valid transaction.

Each UTXO is a separate token, that can be easily traced in the chain, passed in a transaction, created out of thin air, or destroyed if needed. There are no restrictions in consensus rules that could limit the number of UTXOs, other than physical resources of nodes to process them.

Even more: there are altcoins that copy-pasted a lot of Bitcoin rules. There are chains with opcodes like OP_CHECKDATASIG, that could validate any ECDSA signature. So, not only you can create a token just by making some UTXO, you can also connect it with some altcoin, and then make some outputs that will move on both chains, using identical signature.

They are not enforced by any consensus rules. If there would exist some altcoin, with some miners, that would check those rules, then yes, it could at least be enforced on such altcoin. But now, it is all based on wishful thinking that programmers can create some new rules, like in a soft-fork, and enforce all of them on Bitcoin, without any support from miners and node operators. I guess some of those people will suffer, if there would be some incentive to attack them, and for example include a transaction that would be valid on Bitcoin, but invalid on those chains.

In the cryptocurrency world a token is defined as something that created on a token creation platform as a separate asset and can have its own independent supply.
In bitcoin the UTXOs represent units of bitcoin itself, they are not called or considered "tokens".

You can't create a UTXO "out of thin air". It is always an output of a transaction (whether the block reward resulting from doing work or the result of "consuming" other UTXOs).

That's more of an attack surface you are describing involving copycat-coins which is prevented by adding "replay protection".

They are actually enforced by a centralized set of rules created and decided by the creators of these silly things.

There already exists token platform creation altcoins that people should use to create such things. :)

If you use zero satoshis, then you can easily turn them into tokens, because then they can be combined in any way you want, and there is no limit to the number of UTXOs that you can create. Imagine some attack vector, where some altcoin does not have its own chain, but uses Bitcoin as a storage. You can put all coins into the UTXO database, or even flood it with non-monetary use cases, like domain names, and for example trace ownership by tracing a particular UTXO. Also, you don't need any satoshis, the only thing that is needed, is someone willing to put such transactions into the chain, because for any transaction, you can always attach some zero satoshi outputs, and it will still be valid. That means, even if all coins will be mined, and the basic block reward will be zero, then still, there will always be some incentive, because some people may still want to notarize things on Bitcoin.

You can always attach some zero satoshi outputs to any transaction, and it will still be valid. Basically, testnet3 is just a decentralized token creation platform by definition, because all coins are defined as "worthless", so you cannot trade them. That means, the only thing you can do, is just collecting some satoshis to pay for notarization, and then publish some information on-chain. Because coins are worthless, and blocks are far from being full, you can always pay the minimum price of one testnet satoshi per virtual byte. And then, your balance just describes, how many bytes you can notarize on-chain, because it is the only thing you can do, according to the rules.

So, I still wonder, why people use Bitcoin as their notarization platform, when they could use testnet3, that is cheaper, allows non-standard transactions, allows zero satoshi outputs (which means unlimited token creation), and can be mined locally (by going offline for 20 minutes, the difficulty drops into the minimum, and then you can mine any test blocks on your CPU to see, if something is possible or not).

The biggest mistake of those copycat-coins is "replay protection". If they wanted to include transactions faster, then they could provide just that, without splitting the coins. In this way, it would be possible to go back to Bitcoin, in case of altcoin failure, and then users could have all altcoin features, while still having 1:1 peg with Bitcoin. Also, all altcoin transactions would eventually be confirmed by Bitcoin, just it would take more time, but still, it would be possible.

Also, that case clearly shows us, that it is possible to make some altcoin, attach it to Bitcoin, and then make UTXOs that will move on both chains simultaneously. Then, it can be used to deploy any sidechains, without activating BIPs like 300 or 301. Then, peg-in would be just a proof of ownership for a particular UTXO, pushed on the sidechain, and peg-out could be realized just by moving the coins on Bitcoin, that would also trigger the same thing on the sidechain.

Then, why they push anything on-chain? There is no reason to do so. All that is needed, is just signing a message, and putting that signature on such centralized website, then it could be easily assigned to the first person who did that. And then, if all rules are not enforced by the Bitcoin network at all, they could be fully executed on that centralized website, without any need to touch any on-chain coins, or push any large OP_NOPs on-chain.

True. Also, there are cheaper networks, like testnet3, where "pushing data on-chain" is the only valid use case, because all coins should be treated as worthless by definition. The only reason why testnet needs any coins, is just as a flood protection, in practice people could cover all test cases with zero coins.

its a different culture, yes. but we're still human.

There used to be a user here called "Loaded". His whole thing was going around, flexing that he had 80k BTC.
There have also been a couple users flexing that they had 100+ btc throughout the years.

Also, may I remind you. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are signifying the same thing (Rich Believers in Crypto).

Also, I don't see how this could be a honeypot. Criminals always try to stay under the radar (at least the smart ones).
This would only be useful to people with legitimate funds.

You're trying to be over smart with your words by dude you should keep in mind that everyone else also has their own minds and they wont follow someone's words blindly. I don't think that anyone on this forum is immature to share his/her Bitcoin holdings with someone whom they can't trust, and in fact we can't trust anyone else then our own selves because if we trust others with our privacy and holdings then we will definitely lose the trust when they break it into pieces.

Another thing I would like you to note that no one is interested in NFT's here because we are not naive enough to fall into trap of those digital art images which aren't unique at all. The NFT buzz was created to loot the money out of mediocre users of the crypto-world, and unfortunately I discourage you by saying that you wont mind those mediocre users on this forum.  You would better find those users somewhere else where people had Fodder in their heads instead of brains.

No one sane enough would expose his/her Bitcoin holding to public because of privacy and because of their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. In fact why would anyone claim in public that he/she is holding 1000+ Bitcoin in his/her wallet or wallets? I don't think you will get your goals accomplished here, and I must say that your idea is the dumbest one that I have came across in my whole life.

But such transactions with  zero satoshis OTXOs will be rejected by network,  as, to my best knowledge,  to prevent the blockchain from  bloating with unnecessary data and from spam attacks Bitcoin network enforces all   UTXOs   included into transaction to have at least minimum value, something around 550 sats, if my memory serves me right.

So,  zero satoshis OTXOs are not real in practice and what is not practically real is  mumbo jumbo in its essence, sorry.

To be precise, it's consider as non-standard transaction which means most node wouldn't rely such transaction. Although miner could include such transaction if they wish to do so.

Why are you getting so angry over a NFT idea?

You think nobody with a lot of btc would want others to know? well I just provided examples of people with a lot of btc that wanted other people to know.
What you're really saying is that you wouldn't want others to know if YOU had 1000 BTC. Which is fair enough, but I think I can safely assume that you dont have 1000 BTC.

You didn't make any logical points for us to discuss tbh, you just slandered me.

Because what you have explained in your idea will never be liked by any other person who is true bitcoin holder. If you are applying logic for NFT like this then also have logic for another thing: "Privacy Intrusion".

Your NFT is simply way to breach the data integrity of someone's funds, their wallet status. You will be calling all the best hackers around the globe at your party and ask them to leach out all the bitcoins out of your wallet. That, and secondly no whale would ever like this idea because they are the bitches who are always keeping their secrete with them no matter what.

This would have been good idea if it was a NFT to prove that you are true holder of some other collectible which is public and is actionable. May be a NFT looking after another NFT.

I don't remember ever seeing any posts by those two members you mentioned previously who bragged about having massive amounts of bitcoin, but I have no reason to believe you aren't telling the truth. Anyway, why would you take their word for it just because they claimed it? Ask them for a signed message from an address that holds several thousand bitcoins.  ;) I have never seen anyone from the guys I respect on this forum make such claims as that is not their style.

If you are convinced that your idea could succeed, go for it. You might find more believers on Twitter, Telegram, etc. This is an old-school community.
Also, I would appreciate if you avoid pyramid quotes. It looks bad. You can always edit and remove previous quotes, and only leave the most recent post you are replying to.

Good luck with your NFT idea, and let us know if you decide to do anything with it.

I think this is a funny idea, but more as a parody of this "I belong to that l33t group" bullshit. Thus, my merit to the OP was not a mistake ;D

I mean, if "owning a rare satoshi" is worth something these days, why not "having owned a rare quantity of coins in some moment of time"?

I would however recommend storing the NFT on another blockchain. So you don't bloat BTC blocks with it. The required tech would be so simple that you can use any blockchain which supports OP_RETURN. My idea would be signing some kind of standardized message with the key which held the address, the amount of stored BTC and the time/date when you held that balance, and find a way to create a token with that (should be easy as an extension e.g. of Counterparty or PeerAssets).

That still doesn't make them "tokens". The non-standard nature of such outputs and their rejection and how many of them you can make are not the reason though. The reason is that a UTXO is not a UTXO because of its amount, it is an output containing a smart contract that creates a "lock" that can be "unlocked" when spending that output. That's all there is to a UTXO.

Since that won't be part of the Bitcoin protocol, it can not be considered a "token". Similar to the Ordinals attack, it would be arbitrary data injected into the immutable distributed ledger called blockchain.

Because it is for testing and there is no guarantee that we don't decide to move to testnet4 some day, discarding the whole testnet3 chain. As you already know, testnet coins are worthless so there won't be any incentive to keep them, which means migration to version 4 won't be met with that much resistance.

Who would buy such at thing? The answer is nobody. Tokens are useless as it is, which is why they have to build their nonsense inside bitcoin so that they can abuse the name and popularity to catch some victims!

How is that different from any token? If you own "1 ALT", then it also has a smart contract. It also can be unlocked. By using zero amount, you can just disable amount validation on Bitcoin, but all other properties are preserved. To move it, you still need to provide a matching input, exactly in the same way as for any tokens on other chains.

If there are N parties, then N-of-N multisig can be always used as a base (and nicely compressed by using Taproot address with Schnorr signatures). And then, you can create as long Script as you want, it can be expanded into many transactions, and since Taproot, the upper limit is 4 MB (or something like 10% of that, if you want to stick with standard transactions). The Script is powerful enough to express any logical operation: by using OP_TRUE, OP_FALSE, OP_EQUAL, OP_NOT, OP_IF and OP_ENDIF, you can build absolutely everything. If it will be too large, then you can focus more on optimization, use opcodes like OP_ADD to count things on 32-bit values, instead of doing it bit-by-bit, or split it between many transactions. So yes, you can for example create some output, that could be unlocked by Ring signatures from Monero. It will be another attack vector on Bitcoin, it will be too complex, it will take a lot of space, but the Pandora box is opened, and I think it is a matter of time.

I doubt we will ever see testnet4. Why?
1. There were a lot of halvings on testnet3. If you want to test the same things on testnet4, then you need a lot of history, but if your starting point is the Genesis Block, then it would take a lot of time and power to produce such chain.
2. Core Developers moved to signet, instead of creating testnet4. They have no reason to create another testnet, when they have a more stable chain, without any blockstorms, that can be fully controlled, and easily turned into testnet, just by changing "signetchallenge" into "OP_TRUE".
3. Testnet3 existed for many years, it survived longer than many altcoins, I doubt node operators will abandon that chain, even if it will be removed or resetted in some new client version.
4. If resetting the chain is a good thing, and we need a test network, where old transactions and blocks are discarded after some time, then it should not be triggered manually, but automatically. Also, there is no reason to improve testnet3, if the same improvements could be applied to signet instead.

You are talking about the chain, that is stronger and older than many altcoins.

It would be the main proof that the person didn't understand the idea of bitcoin.

why do you think so?

DOX yourself as a whale to mint, yeah, don't think there are many Bitcoiners who'd want to do that.

Do recall some years back Byteball (rebranded to Giga last I checked) distributing to Bitcoin holders, think a lot of other projects tried the same, that was perhaps similar in idea, if not execution.

I don't even have much coins but I might claim a minnow NFT if I didn't think the network already had enough bloat.

But look where "Loaded" is now, and where he actually got his Bitcoins from. It was probably better for him to have stayed quiet and worked harder on his OPSEC.


It's a different culture. Cryptopunks and BAYC holders are Ethereum whales.


I'm not saying it definitely will be a honeypot, but it's possible. If it's possible, then it's not good for a user's OPSEC.

Loaded didn't get caught because he was flexing, he got caught because he transferred to a KYC exchange.

But yeah you're probably right, Eth whales better would be a better candidate for this project.

But it still doesn't change the fact that a "Flexing NFT", just to prove the owner has 1000 Bitcoins, isn't good for a user's OPSEC. Would it be good for "Loaded" to flex, knowing himself where his coins came from?


👍

Good luck to your idea and don't take my posts personally. They are merely my opinions, which could be wrong or proven wrong.