NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[BlackHatCoiner]

What about using ordinals for legitimate uses? I.e. a simpler and easier notarization of documents inside the mod secure blockchain ever?

That doesn't require to start treating the entire currency as non-fungible.

The reasoning behind this proposal was to prevent excessive blockchain bloat and to encourage the efficient use of Bitcoin's limited block space.

I'm curious to know how much it discourages after all. You can still send it to a miner if you really want it. If you can't send it to a miner, you can create multiple OP_RETURN transactions.

So you have to worry about keeping a copy to of the data alive.

And with Ordinals, you have to worry that everybody has a copy of that data. 

[1714902779]

1714902779

[1714902779]

1714902779

[n0nce]

I agree; that's why I also oppose NFT experiments on the 'world's reserve currency' mainnet chain..

I don't see any experiments. What is currently happening was always possible on a protocol level. People have saved texts, messages, PDFs likewise.

The experiment would be shifting Bitcoin's main use case from A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System to A Decentralized, Free File Sharing Platform.
It was always possible, but it was never attempted, just like most experiments in science. The equipment is there and people come up with ideas they want to test with it.

However, just like you don't immediately deploy untested software to production servers, you shouldn't experiment with Bitcoin as a data storage cloud, on mainnet. Did they have a long testing period on testnet that I missed? Lightning did...

What about using ordinals for legitimate uses? I.e. a simpler and easier notarization of documents inside the mod secure blockchain ever?

I don't see what ordinals offers there beyond what is already provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenTimestamps

OpenTimes stamps provide a proof of existence of a document at a certain block.

Notarization is exactly that, right? Proof of existence at a certain time. You can then go upload that document to every free cloud storage provider, social network and forum, if you are unable to keep important data backed up on your own hardware. Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays. Timestamping is harder and actually useful and I agree that using OpenTimestamps is a much better solution than Ordinals. By only saving the hash, it also reduces disk usage and legal issues for node operators.

[larry_vw_1955]

Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.

how do you do that exactly?

Timestamping is harder and actually useful and I agree that using OpenTimestamps is a much better solution than Ordinals. By only saving the hash, it also reduces disk usage and legal issues for node operators.

the problem with just timestamping is that there's no permanent storage for the data that produced the hash. and the only way to have permanent storage is to have it on a blockchain.

[d5000]

the problem with just timestamping is that there's no permanent storage for the data that produced the hash. and the only way to have permanent storage is to have it on a blockchain.

You can store the data on all shitcoins in existence (mostly for "almost" free, in contrast to Bitcoin's).

You could now argue that Bitcoin could be the only really "permanent" blockchain and all others will eventually die, but I'd disagree here -- the incentive to keep an altcoin running is quite high, so storing it on 20-30 of them (at least 2 of them in the top 30 by marketcap, preferently chosing those with a long life already) and checking each year should be enough.

Yep, there's the problem when you die you can't check, but even Bitcoin could fail eventually. There's no 100% security.

I would be quite interested in a protocol where you can combine OpenTimestamps on BTC with "storage on altcoin chains".

[larry_vw_1955]

You can store the data on all shitcoins in existence (mostly for "almost" free, in contrast to Bitcoin's).

such as what altcoins offer almost free data storage? i'm aware of litecoin implementing ordinals but nothing else. ethereum doesn't have ordinals. so that's out.

so storing it on 20-30 of them (at least 2 of them in the top 30 by marketcap, preferently chosing those with a long life already) and checking each year should be enough.

are all the shitcoins nowadays offering ordinals too or something?  after you spend money storing on that many places you probably spent more than you would have to just store it on bitcoin.

Yep, there's the problem when you die you can't check, but even Bitcoin could fail eventually. There's no 100% security.

but if bitcoin fails, it fails at a certain point that doesn't mean you won't be able to download all the blocks and get your data.

I would be quite interested in a protocol where you can combine OpenTimestamps on BTC with "storage on altcoin chains".

why?

[d5000]

such as what altcoins offer almost free data storage? i'm aware of litecoin implementing ordinals but nothing else. ethereum doesn't have ordinals. so that's out.

Data storage != Ordinals. You simply don't need it, you only need a protocol to insert the data in one or several transactions. You could even use Ethereum, which allows a large freedom in scripting, but it would be probably very costly.

after you spend money storing on that many places you probably spent more than you would have to just store it on bitcoin.

Even on a relatively large blockchain like LTC, a mid-resolution JPEG of some dozens of kB shouldn't cost more than a few cents (it's approximately 1 US dollar per MB).

but if bitcoin fails, it fails at a certain point that doesn't mean you won't be able to download all the blocks and get your data.

It's not 100% sure. If Bitcoin really fails then there would be eventually no node left to download (you can perhaps hope for archive.org or such places but that's also not sure, and why don't you store it there then from the start?). And the probability for that to happen is low, but that's also true for other larger blockchains.

why?

why not? Would be cool for things like articles, short stories or manifiestos, weighing some few kB.

[garlonicon]

However, just like you don't immediately deploy untested software to production servers, you shouldn't experiment with Bitcoin as a data storage cloud, on mainnet. Did they have a long testing period on testnet that I missed? Lightning did...

Storage-related things can stay on testnet, because there is no reason to deploy it to the mainnet. If people want Proof of Work protection, then SPV proofs are sufficient, so a commitment to a testnet transaction, that could be included on mainnet, is enough to cover that case (and it is needed to do that only "every sometimes", just once per N blocks, to commit to the latest block hash, so a single commitment can cover a lot of users).

Also, on testnet, as all coins are worthless, the only thing you can do, is to publicly test things. So, storage-related things are all you can do, and your amount of test coins simply determines, how many data you can push with standard fees. You can use zero satoshis in your transactions, and use all of your coins for fees, and for change, when you don't spend all of them.

Miners shouldn't follow non-standardness, but pure profit.

Again, it seems that testnet fits better even in that case. The best case is deploying a completely separated chain for NFTs, but if people have to spam existing chains, then still, testnet is a better choice, and there is no reason to switch NFTs from testnet to mainnet, when all tests will pass.

[Wind_FURY]

What about using ordinals for legitimate uses? I.e. a simpler and easier notarization of documents inside the mod secure blockchain ever?

I don't see what ordinals offers there beyond what is already provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenTimestamps

A more efficient path for utilizing the security that the Bitcoin blockchain offers, not like Ordinals, in which inscribing the data is directly done on the blockchain. It might give a good debate for Bitcoin NFT HODLers that they're actually HODLing "the NFTs", because the data for Ethereum NFTs are generally stored in off-chain storage sites. But it's probably more efficient system.

Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.

Nothing is for free. Someone is actually paying for it.

[BlackHatCoiner]

However, just like you don't immediately deploy untested software to production servers, you shouldn't experiment with Bitcoin as a data storage cloud, on mainnet. Did they have a long testing period on testnet that I missed? Lightning did...

The real question is what happens if they choose to not deploy on testnet first? Conducting experiments in real life requires some standards that need to be followed, like some paper from your institution which certificates that you're capable for experimenting safely, or follow other guidelines and regulations. Conducting experiments on the Bitcoin network is free for all, and it seemingly can't change without introducing censorship.

the problem with just timestamping is that there's no permanent storage for the data that produced the hash. and the only way to have permanent storage is to have it on a blockchain.

Why don't you just use BitTorrent with a financial incentive, as some torrent sites do? You can also use Tor to improve anonymity and resist censorship.

Storage-related things can stay on testnet

I think the counter-argument is: but testnets come and go.

[n0nce]

Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.

how do you do that exactly?

Google cloud, Microsoft cloud, Apple cloud, Dropbox, post the file to Facebook, Twitter, The Internet Archive, send a copy to every one of your Email contacts, open a few fresh email accounts and send it to yourself, create Torrents, ...
I did not elaborate because the answer seemed (seems) trivial. It is sometimes harder to get stuff off the web than to get it online, actually

Timestamping is harder and actually useful and I agree that using OpenTimestamps is a much better solution than Ordinals. By only saving the hash, it also reduces disk usage and legal issues for node operators.

the problem with just timestamping is that there's no permanent storage for the data that produced the hash. and the only way to have permanent storage is to have it on a blockchain.

The last sentence is wrong, and I do not think it is a problem to just save a hash, either. Quite the contrary.

the problem with just timestamping is that there's no permanent storage for the data that produced the hash. and the only way to have permanent storage is to have it on a blockchain.

You can store the data on all shitcoins in existence (mostly for "almost" free, in contrast to Bitcoin's).

You could now argue that Bitcoin could be the only really "permanent" blockchain and all others will eventually die, but I'd disagree here -- the incentive to keep an altcoin running is quite high, so storing it on 20-30 of them (at least 2 of them in the top 30 by marketcap, preferently chosing those with a long life already) and checking each year should be enough.

Exactly, add 30 shitcoins with data storage to the list above and get a little creative, then your data will literally be online forever.

Yep, there's the problem when you die you can't check, but even Bitcoin could fail eventually. There's no 100% security.

but if bitcoin fails, it fails at a certain point that doesn't mean you won't be able to download all the blocks and get your data.

Bitcoin has failed if there are no nodes online anymore. In that case, there is no place to 'download all the blocks and get your data'.

However, just like you don't immediately deploy untested software to production servers, you shouldn't experiment with Bitcoin as a data storage cloud, on mainnet. Did they have a long testing period on testnet that I missed? Lightning did...

The real question is what happens if they choose to not deploy on testnet first?

Nothing happens, but we should criticize reckless developers that go straight to mainnet and question their competence, instead of praising them as Bitcoin's saviors ^[1].

[1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2023/02/07/the-ordinals-protocol-has-caused-a-resurgence-in-bitcoin-development/

[NotATether]

Keeping documents online forever for free isn't that hard of a task nowadays.

how do you do that exactly?

Google cloud, Microsoft cloud, Apple cloud, Dropbox, post the file to Facebook, Twitter, The Internet Archive, send a copy to every one of your Email contacts, open a few fresh email accounts and send it to yourself, create Torrents, ...
I did not elaborate because the answer seemed (seems) trivial. It is sometimes harder to get stuff off the web than to get it online, actually

None of these really qualify as keeping your documents online forever as any of these things can go down - the cloud, the mail server the social media site, (and torrents don't even store a copy of your files so they don't count at all).

The only way to truly go about it is to host your own website and put the file there, or to run your own email server or to just host the file on IPFS.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Exactly, add 30 shitcoins with data storage to the list above and get a little creative, then your data will literally be online forever.

I think we need to define "forever". Nothing lasts forever. For 2-5 years, maybe uploading a file to 30 shitcoins can work, but as their lifespan is around 2 years, I wouldn't bet all of them not disappearing within 5 years. And I don't know lots of shitcoins that are censorship resistant. Actually, I know none; they're shitcoins for a reason.

Nothing happens, but we should criticize reckless developers that go straight to mainnet and question their competence, instead of praising them as Bitcoin's saviors

Yes, we should. I'm all in for that. Have I mentioned it for the 50th time Ordinals is a dumb idea? I'm just not in favor of coordinating to stop them for doing it, as it would introduce censorship.

[garlonicon]

I think the counter-argument is: but testnets come and go.

For 2-5 years, maybe uploading a file to 30 shitcoins can work, but as their lifespan is around 2 years, I wouldn't bet all of them not disappearing within 5 years.

Testnet3 has more than 10 years, I wouldn't call it "come and go", it is older than many altcoins. Even signet is not enough to encourage people to switch into another test network. You could say this if there would be a chance to reset it, and to move into testnet4, but currently we are far from that.

[larry_vw_1955]

Exactly, add 30 shitcoins with data storage to the list above and get a little creative, then your data will literally be online forever.

I think we need to define "forever". Nothing lasts forever. For 2-5 years, maybe uploading a file to 30 shitcoins can work, but as their lifespan is around 2 years, I wouldn't bet all of them not disappearing within 5 years. And I don't know lots of shitcoins that are censorship resistant. Actually, I know none; they're shitcoins for a reason.

Plus, you still have to store the private keys for those 30 shitcoins somewhere. Along with any passwords needed to decode the data. So you have to have a data storage plan for that too.

[pooya87]

(and torrents don't even store a copy of your files so they don't count at all).

Torrent is actually a good example since "peers" actually store the data themselves and share it with others. It also stays alive as long as the file is relevant and there is demand for it. Which is a much better solution to storing something "forever".

[larry_vw_1955]

It also stays alive as long as the file is relevant and there is demand for it.

isn't that the problem though? your personal data is only going to be relevant to you. so not alot of people are going to see the need to "seed" your encrypted passwords file for example. so it drops off the network. forever!

Which is a much better solution to storing something "forever".

someone's personal data that they encrypt and try and upload to bittorrent probably will not be of use to anyone else so it won't last very long unless they keep seeding it forever...

[n0nce]

Which is a much better solution to storing something "forever".

someone's personal data that they encrypt and try and upload to bittorrent probably will not be of use to anyone else so it won't last very long unless they keep seeding it forever...

I guess we're going to end up going in circles, but I'm still not convinced that uploading your personal data somewhere is the best way to preserve that data. It's not a coincidence that the simplest system is usually the best; in this case:

• Buy or build a local data storage setup with redundancy
• Set up an off-site backup location with regular backups (upload encrypted)
• Pay for a dedicated storage hosting service (upload encrypted)

You can add redundancy in each of those layers, e.g. multiple cloud storage providers, multiple off-site locations and such. A setup like this will basically guarantee fast data availability, both for upload and download. And as long as you pay your monthly expenses, you can use it as much as you like. Meanwhile using Ordinals, you'd pay for each upload, so you may get lazy and do fewer backups, the mempool could be congested, so you delay your backup until the weekend, ... and then we all know what tends to happen.

Of course, you will have to keep an eye on your cloud storage provider: if it sends you emails that it is going bankrupt, choose a new one and set up your 3rd level backups again. But you would need to keep an eye on whether Bitcoin still exists, too, if you used the blockchain to back up your data. It has been mentioned before: nothing is guaranteed to still exist in 20, 30, 50 years..

[larry_vw_1955]

I guess we're going to end up going in circles, but I'm still not convinced that uploading your personal data somewhere is the best way to preserve that data.

you don't have to be convinced. over 175,000 people have already voted with confidence about storing their "personal data" on the bitcoin blockchain. they don't need to back it up. it's there always present.

It's not a coincidence that the simplest system is usually the best; in this case:

• Buy or build a local data storage setup with redundancy
• Set up an off-site backup location with regular backups (upload encrypted)
• Pay for a dedicated storage hosting service (upload encrypted)

this is not the simplest system. and i'm not even sure it is the best. not anymore. not with blockchain data storage becoming an option, not necessarily for huge files but for small files it definitely is.

Of course, you will have to keep an eye on your cloud storage provider: if it sends you emails that it is going bankrupt,

or NOT. they might just walk away oneday with no advance warning.

But you would need to keep an eye on whether Bitcoin still exists, too, if you used the blockchain to back up your data.

you do realize how ridiculous that sounds: checking if bitcoin still exists ? 

It has been mentioned before: nothing is guaranteed to still exist in 20, 30, 50 years..

no one would bet against bitcoin not lasting the next 50 years because they would have to pay out FOR SURE. FOR SURE.

thanks for the laughs.

[BenCodie]

"latest hype" again?

actual (i.e. Ethereum based) NFTs already have a bad reputation for being the ultimate cryptocurrency scam, so I don't see how this trend won't just burn itself out pretty quick

I wouldn't say that. There are genuine use-cases for NFTs in areas such as the music industry which should blossom over the coming years. The hype, yes, was way out of proportion to what it deserved and to this day I struggle to find out why....I personally think the most likely answer was money laundering, which additoinally roped innocent people into the volumes that the laundering was generating in the NFT space [1] [2]. I wouldn't call it the "ultimate cryptocurrency scam" though.

Ordinals on bitcoin, being designed to write on-chain....I still struggle to wrap my head around how it will benefit the ecosystem and how it isn't just a cool side-feature that happens to maximize miner revenue.

[ABCbits]

I guess we're going to end up going in circles, but I'm still not convinced that uploading your personal data somewhere is the best way to preserve that data.

you don't have to be convinced. over 175,000 people have already voted with confidence about storing their "personal data" on the bitcoin blockchain. they don't need to back it up. it's there always present.

I have doubt about the number (over 175K people), but what do you consider or not consider as "personal data"? For example, i don't consider image NFT (such as Bored Ape) or fart sound as personal data. How many of those people actually intend to store arbitrary data rather than looking for profit?

Of course, you will have to keep an eye on your cloud storage provider: if it sends you emails that it is going bankrupt,

or NOT. they might just walk away oneday with no advance warning.

That's definitely possible. But IMO it's very unlikely to happen for major cloud storage service such as Dropbox or Google Drive.