NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[pooya87]

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!

Your question shows the flaw in the NFT and Ordinals design. The fact that everyone is forced into storing data that they do not want and should not even be part of the blockchain.
But to answer your question, that's actually a good thing because there is no reason for a file that nobody uses to continue being hosted.

P.S. It goes without saying that storing your personal information including seed (encrypted on not) on bitcoin blockchain is silly and is not worth discussing

[1714186801]

1714186801

[1714186801]

1714186801

[1714186801]

1714186801

[tromp]

Your question shows the flaw in the NFT and Ordinals design. The fact that everyone is forced into storing data that they do not want and should not even be part of the blockchain.

I don't see the flaw in the NFT/Ordinals design.

It's inherent in bitcoin's design, that incentivizes miners to include anything expressible in bitcoin script for a large enough fee.

You're not forced to store any data you don't want (just set pruning), but you do need to verify it as a full (i.e. fully verifying) node, just like you must verify all the tons of silly satoshi dice transactions made in the past.

If bitcoin is ever to survive in the future where block subsidy is insignificant, then you want any use of the blockchain that people can think of and are willing to pay fees for. Only a competitive fee market can pay for long term security.

[n0nce]

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.

If we talk about voting, then people not backing up their systems to the blockchain clearly win.
(1) Nobody uses Ordinals to store actual data, only pictures that they mainly hope to sell the rights to for some sweet cash
(2) There are millions, if not billions, of people, who 'vote' to store their data on systems actually made (and thus far better suited) for data storage.

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.

It may not sound simple to someone who does not need or do proper backups, but this is how everyone serious about their data backs it up and it is very well tried and tested. It is also pretty simple in practice, because - again, these methods have been around for a while - there is tons of tooling (i.e. GUI and service providers) around it. That's not really the case for Ordinals or NFTs.

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.

I'm not sure what you find so funny about this. Again, you are comparing a new NFT hype thing to the industry standard of data storage and archiving and claiming that the former is better and easier than the latter. It makes no sense. This sounds a bit more funny than my realistic (pessimistic?) statements.

[larry_vw_1955]

(1) Nobody uses Ordinals to store actual data, only pictures that they mainly hope to sell the rights to for some sweet cash

wrong. people also store text data on the blockchain using ordinals. at the moment, most of it appears to be readable and not encrypted but do expect that to change. also, you can't know that someone is not using some form of steganography in their images.

(2) There are millions, if not billions, of people, who 'vote' to store their data on systems actually made (and thus far better suited) for data storage.

maybe. but i'm not sure how many of those people have a solid backup plan overall. probably most of them just think if they are uploading to the cloud they are good to go.

It may not sound simple to someone who does not need or do proper backups, but this is how everyone serious about their data backs it up and it is very well tried and tested. It is also pretty simple in practice, because - again, these methods have been around for a while - there is tons of tooling (i.e. GUI and service providers) around it. That's not really the case for Ordinals or NFTs.

bitcoin has been around for about 13 or 14 years now. how long have you been storing your data onto google's cloud?  

I'm not sure what you find so funny about this. Again, you are comparing a new NFT hype thing to the industry standard of data storage and archiving and claiming that the former is better and easier than the latter. It makes no sense. This sounds a bit more funny than my realistic (pessimistic?) statements.

i didn't say it was better for all forms of data storage. obviously if you have gigabyte sized things to back up then bitcoin might be a bit pricey for that. but if you only need to store a few hundred kilobytes from time to time and that data does not need to change then, well, there's bitcoin. you seem to be suggesting that ordinals might have some bug that would corrupt the data being stored. well if that was the case then the blockchain would not be immutable and bitcoin would be worthless.

If bitcoin is ever to survive in the future where block subsidy is insignificant, then you want any use of the blockchain that people can think of and are willing to pay fees for. Only a competitive fee market can pay for long term security.

that IS a good point. miners need to get paid and someone has to pay them. they don't give a damn who. and most bitcoin users don't give a damn about the block subsidy going to 0 and how that would affect miners either.  

P.S. It goes without saying that storing your personal information including seed (encrypted on not) on bitcoin blockchain is silly and is not worth discussing

why does it go without saying? what's wrong with AES-256? you're the one that makes the claim but then you later say you won't discuss it.  

[pooya87]

why does it go without saying? what's wrong with AES-256? you're the one that makes the claim but then you later say you won't discuss it. 

There is nothing wrong with AES-256 or any encryption algorithm and that is not even the argument. In fact by changing the argument to the safety of such an action you are hiding the main problem which is about "storing your personal data" in the blockchain. Why should I store your data on my computer (ie full node storing the blockchain)?

[larry_vw_1955]

There is nothing wrong with AES-256 or any encryption algorithm and that is not even the argument.

AES-256 is considered pretty secure. I wouldn't just choose any random encryption algorithm though.

In fact by changing the argument to the safety of such an action you are hiding the main problem which is about "storing your personal data" in the blockchain.

that's a problem for who? not me, not if i'm the one doing the storing.

Why should I store your data on my computer (ie full node storing the blockchain)?

because bitcoin demands that of you.

now if you ask me do i agree with bitcoin being turned into a decentralized file storage medium? i don't know. i want bitcoin to survive so i want miners to be able to justify their activities even once the block subsidy becomes 0. but i don't want bitcoin to become something it wasn't meant to be either. especially if that has a harmful effect on people just wanting to "send bitcoin"  

[ABCbits]

(1) Nobody uses Ordinals to store actual data, only pictures that they mainly hope to sell the rights to for some sweet cash

wrong. people also store text data on the blockchain using ordinals. at the moment, most of it appears to be readable and not encrypted but do expect that to change. also, you can't know that someone is not using some form of steganography in their images.

Actually you can store any data with Ordinals. Even the example of an inscriptions use plain text[4].

I'm not sure what you find so funny about this. Again, you are comparing a new NFT hype thing to the industry standard of data storage and archiving and claiming that the former is better and easier than the latter. It makes no sense. This sounds a bit more funny than my realistic (pessimistic?) statements.

i didn't say it was better for all forms of data storage. obviously if you have gigabyte sized things to back up then bitcoin might be a bit pricey for that. but if you only need to store a few hundred kilobytes from time to time and that data does not need to change then, well, there's bitcoin.

Even for few hundred kilobytes it could be pricey. For example, with 200 KB data (50 vKB/50000 vB due to witness discount) and 1 sat/vB, you'll need to pay at least 50K satoshi (about $11.72). For comparison Microsoft 365 offer 100GB storage only for $19.99/year[1] and Tutanota (email provider) offer 1GB storage for 12 EUR/year[2]. And if it's not personal data (e.g. your phone number), you can even upload it to Internet Archive for free[3].

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/onedrive/compare-onedrive-plans
[2] https://tutanota.com/pricing
[3] https://help.archive.org/help/uploading-a-basic-guide/
[4] https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html

[n0nce]

(1) Nobody uses Ordinals to store actual data, only pictures that they mainly hope to sell the rights to for some sweet cash

wrong. people also store text data on the blockchain using ordinals. at the moment, most of it appears to be readable and not encrypted but do expect that to change. also, you can't know that someone is not using some form of steganography in their images.

Let's be honest, 99.9% of users think like this: Ordinals == NFTs == easy money. Therefore they will upload cartoon monkeys and try to sell them, that's it.

(2) There are millions, if not billions, of people, who 'vote' to store their data on systems actually made (and thus far better suited) for data storage.

maybe. but i'm not sure how many of those people have a solid backup plan overall. probably most of them just think if they are uploading to the cloud they are good to go.

I can guarantee you there are more people with solid backup solutions in place (even just one reputable cloud storage provider is realistically good enough) than Ordinals users who use that technology to back up their data. Just companies alone should easily be in the millions.

It may not sound simple to someone who does not need or do proper backups, but this is how everyone serious about their data backs it up and it is very well tried and tested. It is also pretty simple in practice, because - again, these methods have been around for a while - there is tons of tooling (i.e. GUI and service providers) around it. That's not really the case for Ordinals or NFTs.

bitcoin has been around for about 13 or 14 years now. how long have you been storing your data onto google's cloud?  

I don't use Google cloud, but that's besides the point.. do you believe people have not been doing backups for more than 14 years?
For what it's worth, Amazon S3 exists since 2006 ^[1], Dropbox exists for 14 years ^[2] and Google Cloud exists for 12 years now. ^[3] These are all still operational today and older than inscriptions, NFTs and in part older than Bitcoin itself.
Cloud storage in general exists since all the way back since the 80s and 90s ^[4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_S3
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropbox
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Cloud_Storage
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_storage#History

you seem to be suggesting that ordinals might have some bug that would corrupt the data being stored. well if that was the case then the blockchain would not be immutable and bitcoin would be worthless.

In no way shape or form did I mention anything about data corruption.

i want bitcoin to survive so i want miners to be able to justify their activities even once the block subsidy becomes 0. but i don't want bitcoin to become something it wasn't meant to be either. especially if that has a harmful effect on people just wanting to "send bitcoin"  

Besides the fact that we will all be dead by the time the block subsidy reaches 0, and that it does not justify putting Bitcoin at risk now for a problem that we won't have for another 100 years, what is suddenly wrong about paying miners through payment transaction fees?
Why can't we just work on Bitcoin adoption as a payment method for the next 100 years? If it becomes a widely accepted currency, it will get congested anyway. No need to add more fuel to the fire. We will need off-chain scaling solutions anyway, just due to the enormous number of transactions; people are more worried about the blockchain getting too full than there not being enough demand to pay miners. That's why Lightning has been developed for the last few years.
Now you come around and claim the problem is the other way round..

[pooya87]

that's a problem for who? not me, not if i'm the one doing the storing.

Obviously!
Spam attackers never care about these things. They are only attacking bitcoin for their own benefit, like 2017 where creators of some of the shitcoins talking about "flippening" were funding part of the spam attack against bitcoin.
This is why such attacks should be prevented as much as possible.

[larry_vw_1955]

Even for few hundred kilobytes it could be pricey. For example, with 200 KB data (50 vKB/50000 vB due to witness discount) and 1 sat/vB, you'll need to pay at least 50K satoshi (about $11.72).

there's people that paid $60 or more to upload their bitcoin "nft" so i wouldn't say $11.72 is too bad of a price to store 300kb on bitcoin. it really is forever. you can't store all your gigabytes on it but maybe just the most important data that doesn't change that you can't afford to lose...that's how i see it anyway.

For comparison Microsoft 365 offer 100GB storage only for $19.99/year[1] and Tutanota (email provider) offer 1GB storage for 12 EUR/year[2].

let me know when they come out with a "lifetime" plan with one time payment.

And if it's not personal data (e.g. your phone number), you can even upload it to Internet Archive for free[3].

i wouldn't trust a non-profit for storing my data sorry.  

Spam attackers never care about these things. They are only attacking bitcoin for their own benefit, like 2017 where creators of some of the shitcoins talking about "flippening" were funding part of the spam attack against bitcoin.
This is why such attacks should be prevented as much as possible.

i would say "attacking" bitcoin is a rather harsh word for storing some piece of important data on the blockchain that you do because it's important to not lose it. the intention would not be to attack bitcoin. or hurt bitcoin. so maybe you should bring it down a notch...

now if you're creating thousands of nfts that have one single word in them like some idiot is and has been doing then yeah, that's probably worth calling a spam attack.

[pooya87]

i would say "attacking" bitcoin is a rather harsh word for storing some piece of important data on the blockchain that you do because it's important to not lose it. the intention would not be to attack bitcoin. or hurt bitcoin. so maybe you should bring it down a notch...

Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service so when people use it for that, it is an attack. Specially when it is not just one or two cases of people storing some small arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain but an increasing threat to the future of bitcoin as a peer-to-peer digital cash.

[BlackHatCoiner]

let me know when they come out with a "lifetime" plan with one time payment.

Check out pCloud. You pay it once 200 EUR, you get 500 GB "lifetime" storage. You pay an extra 200 EUR, you get 2 TB.

I don't understand much the need for lifetime cloud service. I don't trust any of those companies' lifespan to begin with. Leaving my files saved somewhere outside my place for 10 years doesn't provide the same confidence, whether it's a trillion dollar company like Apple keeping them, or a pCloud. If you want to keep your files "forever", buy a hard drive, and make backups every once in a while.

[larry_vw_1955]

Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service so when people use it for that, it is an attack. Specially when it is not just one or two cases of people storing some small arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain but an increasing threat to the future of bitcoin as a peer-to-peer digital cash.

well you're blaming the wrong people. take your finger and point it at the devs instead. you don't think they are the problem here but people that are just using a new "feature" in bitcoin? that's what 99% of the nft crowd thinks that its just a new feature that the devs put in...and you really can't blame them for using it. maybe you can not be happy with someone that knows it was not an intentional thing the devs put it to allow nfts but you really should blame the devs first and foremost. so if bitcoin fails it will be their fault. 100%.

Check out pCloud (https://www.pcloud.com/lifetime/). You pay it once 200 EUR, you get 500 GB "lifetime" storage. You pay an extra 200 EUR, you get 2 TB.

they close peoples' accounts without any warning or explanation as to why and in some cases those people lost all their data so i don't think so. plus they don't even give a refund. but that's probably the least of those unfortunate customers problems at that point. 

If you want to keep your files "forever", buy a hard drive, and make backups every once in a while.

there's nothing wrong with that but most people just aren't going to do it correctly. they'll back things up to a single hdd and hope for the best. but if it crashes then they lost everything. to do it correctly you need at least 2 hdd and you need a hdd docking station. it also seems that some hdd docking stations have a bad habit of just turning the hard drive into raw data that you can no longer read.  so i guess you're going to recommend portable ssds but those are not ideal for longterm storage...

[pooya87]

that's what 99% of the nft crowd thinks that its just a new feature that the devs put in

Not really. Specially because of the amount of discussion around this spam attack majority of people should already know of its true nature. But I agree that devs should have done something about it already, as I've said many times before. The full node devs should have at least made such transactions non-standard at the very least.

[Wind_FURY]

i would say "attacking" bitcoin is a rather harsh word for storing some piece of important data on the blockchain that you do because it's important to not lose it. the intention would not be to attack bitcoin. or hurt bitcoin. so maybe you should bring it down a notch...

Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service so when people use it for that, it is an attack. Specially when it is not just one or two cases of people storing some small arbitrary data on bitcoin blockchain but an increasing threat to the future of bitcoin as a peer-to-peer digital cash.

Because Bitcoin is permssionless and censorship-resistant, I believe not all who uses the Bitcoin blockchain as a "cloud-storage" is attacking the network, ALTHOUGH Ordinals could open attack vectors for bad actors to congest the network, drive fees higher, while also being incentivized to do it to continue doing it.

[NotATether]

Because Bitcoin is permssionless and censorship-resistant, I believe not all who uses the Bitcoin blockchain as a "cloud-storage" is attacking the network, ALTHOUGH Ordinals could open attack vectors for bad actors to congest the network, drive fees higher, while also being incentivized to do it to continue doing it.

Solution:

Push a network upgrade that increases the weight of Tapscripts, when calculating the Weight Units of the transaction.

Although in this form it would require a hard fork, maybe there is a node policy that influences the few calculation that can be tweaked specifically for bitcoin Core (it seemed to work for mempoolfullrbf, at the price of disgruntled hackers stealing the coins of a strong supporter dev).

[vjudeu]

Although in this form it would require a hard fork

Not really, because the only reason why we have 1000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte is that this is the default setting, used by most nodes. Releasing a new version with updated default fee settings will do the trick. It is only a matter of creating additional entry in bitcoin.conf, like "witnessfee=0.00004000", for example picking 4000 satoshis per virtual kilobyte will effectively remove witness discount.

Also, other options are possible, for example this patch: https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/4c022839584020444915c84bdd825831
Note that there are users, which started banning nodes with such patches, because they consider it to be some kind of censorship: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html

[BlackHatCoiner]

well you're blaming the wrong people. take your finger and point it at the devs instead.

I don't think there's anyone to blame, because as I've already said there's no bug in the first place. This extra space some of us consider trash and others "NFT" is what's censorship resistance all about.

they close peoples' accounts without any warning or explanation as to why and in some cases those people lost all their data so i don't think so.

I don't know that, source? A friend of mine uses it without problems.

there's nothing wrong with that but most people just aren't going to do it correctly. they'll back things up to a single hdd and hope for the best.

I can't believe you're really arguing someone should send their files to thousands of strangers' hard drives instead of just buying a hard drive themselves. I hope you can acknowledge the latter being more expensive to do.

Note that there are users, which started banning nodes with such patches, because they consider it to be some kind of censorship: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-February/021464.html

It is some kind of censorship, but not actual. Actual censoring is when you don't consider x transaction valid due to personal reasons. The nodes don't work likewise. Not relaying is like saying "hey, I accept this transaction, but I don't want to give it to others", which is kind of weird, isn't it? If you have a transaction which you checked it's valid, why not wanting to rebroadcast?

[garlonicon]

Actual censoring is when you don't consider x transaction valid due to personal reasons.

You have to consider it valid, when it is placed in a block. However, even if malleability on standard addresses is valid, we don't have problems with that, because standardness is our barrier. And here, when it comes to NFT, the only way that will not invalidate someone's coins is non-standardness. Because any kind of consensus invalidation could block those funds forever, while non-standardness is only making it harder to use, but still possible (as we can see that some pool even decided to include huge transaction over 100 kvB).

So, blocking it on relay level is all we can really do, going further will cause more harm than good.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So, blocking it on relay level is all we can really do, going further will cause more harm than good.

But what you do, in the end? You refuse to relay a transaction you consider valid. If you were to refuse that, why do you accept it in the first place? And if you accept one as valid, why would you not want to relay it to the rest?

while non-standardness is only making it harder to use

But is it, if there's really need for non-standard transactions? Miners can take advantage of this, and regular users who run a full node will not notice those transactions until they're included in a block; as a result, they'll set inaccurate fees.