Bitcoin Forum
November 04, 2024, 10:47:32 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Unique serial number for every single satoshi  (Read 3971 times)
JiiBs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 272
Merit: 136


View Profile
March 13, 2024, 05:54:13 PM
 #41

While the OP might be a large text to read more carefully to understand, I might follow through on some of them but, I really didn’t pick in on how (what I might consider as the constant) 110000. While .5000000000 and all might explain for failing zeros and the 50BTC in Satoshi conversion, how did the supposedly #110000 which continues to reoccur in the rule of inheritance for output and input comes to be?
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4494
Merit: 3401



View Profile
March 14, 2024, 02:34:34 AM
 #42

... I really didn’t pick in on how ... 110000. ...

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
NotATether
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 7362


Top Crypto Casino


View Profile WWW
March 14, 2024, 08:09:07 AM
Merited by vapourminer (1)
 #43

... I really didn’t pick in on how ... 110000. ...

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.

I feel as though the numbering system would save a LOT of space if it was in binary.

21,000,000 bitcoins in circulation * 100,000,000 sats per bitcoin would put the total number at around 2,100,000,000,000,000. That will take about 50 bits (in hex this value would be 775F05A074000 which is 13 hex characters long, but since the upper nibble (4 bits) of the first character is unused it can be omitted).

The block height is the part that can get tricky as it needs to be future-proofed.

We are way past 800k blocks over the last 15 years. Obviously a 14-bit number (64-50) cannot hold this amount so 64-bit ints are out. But you can fit every possibly practical block height inside a 78-bit (128-50) integer. I chose 128 bits because of memory alignment issues where smaller amounts will basically use this amount of space anyway.

███████████████████████
████▐██▄█████████████████
████▐██████▄▄▄███████████
████▐████▄█████▄▄████████
████▐█████▀▀▀▀▀███▄██████
████▐███▀████████████████
████▐█████████▄█████▌████
████▐██▌█████▀██████▌████
████▐██████████▀████▌████
█████▀███▄█████▄███▀█████
███████▀█████████▀███████
██████████▀███▀██████████

███████████████████████
.
BC.GAME
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄▀▀░▄██▀░▀██▄░▀▀▄
▄▀░▐▀▄░▀░░▀░░▀░▄▀▌░▀▄
▄▀▄█▐░▀▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▀░▌█▄▀▄
▄▀░▀░░█░▄███████▄░█░░▀░▀▄
█░█░▀░█████████████░▀░█░█
█░██░▀█▀▀█▄▄█▀▀█▀░██░█
█░█▀██░█▀▀██▀▀█░██▀█░█
▀▄▀██░░░▀▀▄▌▐▄▀▀░░░██▀▄▀
▀▄▀██░░▄░▀▄█▄▀░▄░░██▀▄▀
▀▄░▀█░▄▄▄░▀░▄▄▄░█▀░▄▀
▀▄▄▀▀███▄███▀▀▄▄▀
██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████
.
..CASINO....SPORTS....RACING..


▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀███▄
██████████
▀███▄░▄██▀
▄▄████▄▄░▀█▀▄██▀▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀▀████▄▄██▀▄███▀▀███▄
███████▄▄▀▀████▄▄▀▀███████
▀███▄▄███▀░░░▀▀████▄▄▄███▀
▀▀████▀▀████████▀▀████▀▀
alexeyneu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 351
Merit: 37


View Profile
March 14, 2024, 02:29:57 PM
Last edit: March 14, 2024, 02:45:20 PM by alexeyneu
 #44

But you can fit every possibly practical block height inside a 78-bit (128-50) integer. I chose 128 bits because of memory alignment issues where smaller amounts will basically use this amount of space anyway.
it's not style bitcoin written in. there're own types like one used for nBits (it's called like vInt or something) . in packet structure it'll be rounded up to 8 bits . with no alignment . as it is in blockheader struct. nBits goes appended to smth else so complete thing occupies integral number of bytes. And it itself has integral size too .But may be it hasn't do not remember. Like 3 bytes
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4494
Merit: 3401



View Profile
March 14, 2024, 08:31:13 PM
Last edit: March 14, 2024, 08:57:45 PM by odolvlobo
Merited by vapourminer (1)
 #45

110000 is the number of the block that the satoshi was created in. Using the numbering system in the post, the 5,000,000,000 satoshis created in that block are numbered 110000.1 through 110000.5000000000.
I feel as though the numbering system would save a LOT of space if it was in binary.

There are many ways to represent an Ordinals satoshi. It is up to the implementation. At its core, an ordinal is a number from 0 to 2099999997689999. As long as  the specification is followed, everything else is just a conversion between numbering systems.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
GaloisField
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2024, 10:58:13 PM
 #46


Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin  Roll Eyes
NotATether
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 7362


Top Crypto Casino


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2024, 09:31:14 AM
 #47

I've been looking for a place to put this Cheesy

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin  Roll Eyes

It seems quite ironic you write this, considering that anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the past 2 years will know about how Casey Rodarmor started Ordinals based on this entire concept, which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

Then he came back again with Runes after the most recent halving to replace Ordinals, but everyone already knew from the beginning that it was just a money grab.

███████████████████████
████▐██▄█████████████████
████▐██████▄▄▄███████████
████▐████▄█████▄▄████████
████▐█████▀▀▀▀▀███▄██████
████▐███▀████████████████
████▐█████████▄█████▌████
████▐██▌█████▀██████▌████
████▐██████████▀████▌████
█████▀███▄█████▄███▀█████
███████▀█████████▀███████
██████████▀███▀██████████

███████████████████████
.
BC.GAME
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄▀▀░▄██▀░▀██▄░▀▀▄
▄▀░▐▀▄░▀░░▀░░▀░▄▀▌░▀▄
▄▀▄█▐░▀▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▀░▌█▄▀▄
▄▀░▀░░█░▄███████▄░█░░▀░▀▄
█░█░▀░█████████████░▀░█░█
█░██░▀█▀▀█▄▄█▀▀█▀░██░█
█░█▀██░█▀▀██▀▀█░██▀█░█
▀▄▀██░░░▀▀▄▌▐▄▀▀░░░██▀▄▀
▀▄▀██░░▄░▀▄█▄▀░▄░░██▀▄▀
▀▄░▀█░▄▄▄░▀░▄▄▄░█▀░▄▀
▀▄▄▀▀███▄███▀▀▄▄▀
██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████
.
..CASINO....SPORTS....RACING..


▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀███▄
██████████
▀███▄░▄██▀
▄▄████▄▄░▀█▀▄██▀▄▄████▄▄
▄███▀▀▀████▄▄██▀▄███▀▀███▄
███████▄▄▀▀████▄▄▀▀███████
▀███▄▄███▀░░░▀▀████▄▄▄███▀
▀▀████▀▀████████▀▀████▀▀
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4494
Merit: 3401



View Profile
July 29, 2024, 05:41:13 AM
Merited by vjudeu (1)
 #48

... which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

That reminds me of a Yogi Berra joke:

Quote
Nobody ever goes there anymore — it’s too crowded.

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
vjudeu
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 2228



View Profile
July 29, 2024, 07:15:08 AM
 #49

Quote
Nobody ever goes there anymore — it’s too crowded.
It depends, what do you want. Because if Ordinals would be attached to normal payments as commitments, and would take zero additional on-chain bytes, then they would be fine. But instead, you have an option: confirm a regular payment, or confirm some Ordinal. So: do you want to do the transition from payment system into a cloud storage?

Fortunately, at the time of writing, Ordinals seems to be dying, because on-chain fees are around 5 sat/vB, and both testnet4 and testnet3 reached minimal fees of 1 sat/vB, and testnet blocks are almost empty again. By the way: if you want cloud storage, then testnet fits better, because if coins are worthless, then there are no payments, and you have only data pushes.

Also, one good thing about Ordinals is that they permanently blocked any block size increase proposals, at least for now. Because if someone will try to do it now, then it will be taken down, using simple argumentation: "there will be more data pushes, and regular payments will stay on the same level, so it won't help, and we won't do that".

But unfortunately, Ordinals also caused some downgrades from Taproot into Segwit, because only then, you can be sure, that you won't be mistakenly marked as a spammer.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
GaloisField
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 1


View Profile WWW
July 29, 2024, 09:19:41 AM
 #50

I've been looking for a place to put this Cheesy

http://www.foopics.com/show/ebf4989def30ec9ef246ffe2c11359fa

Lol.. Not working anymore. If it was interesting maybe you should did put it on Bitcoin  Roll Eyes

It seems quite ironic you write this, considering that anyone who hasn't been under a rock for the past 2 years will know about how Casey Rodarmor started Ordinals based on this entire concept, which it turned out everyone hated as it bloated people's transaction fees.

Then he came back again with Runes after the most recent halving to replace Ordinals, but everyone already knew from the beginning that it was just a money grab.

Yes it is!
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!