NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[BlackHatCoiner]

For example you could convert a movie to hex and use a bot to post the hex string in a series of comments on bitcointalk.

Flawed comparison. Bitcointalk does not stand in favor of censorship resistance at posting. Moderators of bitcointalk aren't obliged to allow anyone who pays for a post to not have it removed forever. Bots and spammers don't pay fractions of bitcoin to comment. The Bitcoin network does grant you these rights.

The same "we" that rejects you perfectly valid transaction if it contains arbitrary data in its scriptpub. Something that has been going on for years and nobody ever complained that it is against "Bitcoin spirit".

There appears to be greater demand now for some transactions though. Just because you don't personally recognize value it means they should not happen? Also, I don't think anyone ever claimed we should tell how miners do their job for other such non-standard scripts.

[1714280663]

1714280663

[1714280663]

1714280663

[n0nce]

Are there any serious threats on Bitcoin with Ordinals/NFTs? anything vital? or it's just "No, I don't like them, kick them out of here"!

You bring up some good points, mikey. I'm honestly mostly worried about storing people's potential illegal files and serving them like a webserver to the public. The moral and legal aspects of it, both.

If that's what you want then there is a much simpler way without filling bitcoin with garbage and making it unusable which is to use a side-chain. There is already a couple of projects out there like RootStock that actually create real smart contracts and transfer actual tokens around instead of the fake thing in Ordinals that has no value.

don't you see that's the problem though? you can show them alternatives but they don't care. they just want larger transaction fees in their back pocket. anything that does that for them is welcomed with open arms. apparently. that shouldn't really be suprising to us though. that's how the world works. people with money are the ones that doors get opened for and welcomed in...people without the money they get the cold shoulder.

I mean, we do need miners to secure Bitcoin and make it the highly safe, secure payment method that it is now.
It's just that there needs to be a balance. If there is no money to be made from mining & they leave Bitcoin, the security of the network may suffer (someone could scoop up the old mining hardware and attack Bitcoin).
However if we allow people to use Bitcoin as a playground for 'everything freedom' for the sake of the highest possible fees, we will experience what Ethereum experienced a few years ago when developers jumped on the 'world computer' bandwagon and coded games e.g. chess, where every single move was an individual transaction (!!), collectable cat games (birth of NFTs?) and similar.

If anyone reading is rather new to Bitcoin and doesn't know what I'm talking about:

The game's popularity in December 2017 congested the Ethereum network, causing it to reach an all-time high in the number of transactions and slowing it down significantly

I remember vividly how frightened people were in that time that it got so unusable that it may die and lose any and all of its utility.
There is no use to have a payment network that is super secure by being overwhelmed in transaction count and crazy high fees, but at the same time gets unusable because of congestion.

which is to use a side-chain.

The NFT folks can tell you the same thing, you can use a side-chain for payments as well, LN works great.

Indeed, I am highly in favor of reducing someone's number of on-chain payments, especially low-value ones, and create a handful of Lightning channels once, instead. All for the sake of keeping the load on the blockchain low, IBD time fast, decentralization high and mempool congestion & on-chain fees manageable.

Are you being serious right now? The Bitcoin developers are not some kind of 'evil corporation' who we need to 'teach lessons' by threatening to destroy 'their product'; you don't seem to grasp this is an open-source project, where we as the users already have the power, especially through the decentralized nature of nodes as seen in UASF.
We are all Bitcoin, there is no 'us against them'. We should aim to get the best outcome for it together and not by fighting each other or threatening Bitcoin's destruction.

most of what you are saying there is your opinion. but lets talk facts. none of the developers anticipated ordinals. enough said.

Actually, what I stated were public facts and logic, not personal opinions. If you can point out a flaw in my logic, please go ahead. Developers not anticipating Ordinals does not really answer my post at all.

I already said to use multiple backups. Do note that if you use the blockchain as your single backup, it will be a single point of failure, as well.

not in the same way that pcloud is a single point of failure though. for the bitcoin blockchain to go away, it would almost require the internet to go away. if that happened, what good would your data be anyway? 

This is an opinion, on the other hand. There is no hard proof that the existence of some cloud provider's company in 50 years is more guaranteed than Bitcoin nodes still running. I personally believe Bitcoin will stick around much longer, too, but I cannot prove it.
What we can agree on is that both are n=1, so redundancy is key. Anything more is subjective opinions.

i still have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the block reward needs to be halved every 4 years or however often it is...

Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.

Most people do not understand the issue of fees being too small that miners will say fuck it and switch to other algos.

Shouldn't difficulty adjustments take care of that, though? I.e. big miners go offline, difficulty goes down, home mining gets profitable again, and mining continues on.

To me I think NFTs and Ordinals could help Btc stay attractive to miners.

as long as they don't mind storing jpegs of monkeys and the occasional naked person on their hard drives then yeah. with bigger fees they can expect a bigger commitment to bitcoin in terms of data storage and also competition from more miners entering the space to capitalized on the increased transaction fees.

Interestingly, when you pool-mine, you don't even need to run your own node. You can be somewhat parasitic in that sense.
Meanwhile us stupid altruistic node operators, may face the consequences of storing and publishing such data on the clear web.

[mikeywith]

I'm honestly mostly worried about storing people's potential illegal files and serving them like a webserver to the public. The moral and legal aspects of it, both.

Ok that's another valid point against Ordinal, and I enjoy hearing different opinions that I think are valid, however, there is a counter-argument to this, you take the same legal risks running a full node and not banning a dozen of addresses and countries (one large U.S based mining pool already does that), if your node/miner happened to process illegal transactions it's probably the same thing as storing a legal file on your node's server.

Every tool or a system is created for a clear purpose and when you use it for anything else, that is abuse

If that's the case then almost everyone is abusing the system by treating bitcoin as a store of value and not a means of payment, also, I didn't see the same folks complaining about Ordinals now complaint about LN, where does LN fit into the root principles of Bitcoin? why do we need a second layer, why not have every payment on the blockchain? turning BTC from P2P e-cash to a mere "final settlement layer" is also an abuse using your logic.

I obviously love the idea of LN, and despite why it doesn't fit perfectly in the original purpose of BTC, it actually does provide a great utility, it uses the blockchain to achieve something of value, Ordinals might be capable of doing the same, or it could be just a short-lived hype that would die sooner than most people think, I won't be bothered to see it fade on its own after proving it has no real value, but not by banning it before seeing what it can/can't do.

[n0nce]

I'm honestly mostly worried about storing people's potential illegal files and serving them like a webserver to the public. The moral and legal aspects of it, both.

Ok that's another valid point against Ordinal, and I enjoy hearing different opinions that I think are valid, however, there is a counter-argument to this, you take the same legal risks running a full node and not banning a dozen of addresses and countries (one large U.S based mining pool already does that), if your node/miner happened to process illegal transactions it's probably the same thing as storing a legal file on your node's server.

Good counter-argument. I do think though that it is much harder to tell who is sending money to whom (even harder if we got L1 privacy, which I also advocate for) than to tell whether a document is classified or not or whether it is for a different reason illegal and immoral to store and distribute a certain file.

Someone sending BTC from a Chinese IP could actually be an American citizen being on vacation in China, i.e. the money transfer may be from one American citizen to another and have nothing to do with China even though the IP may suggest so. Some addresses are tied to people through KYC and centralized exchanges, but this information is neither publicly available, nor is it realistic that nodes keep track of such data, so it is completely out of the picture.

Meanwhile I think it is realistic to demand people not store and distribute certain data; as it is legally regulated and enforced in most parts of the world. Just think of image / file hosters who get and need to comply with takedown requests.

Every tool or a system is created for a clear purpose and when you use it for anything else, that is abuse

If that's the case then almost everyone is abusing the system by treating bitcoin as a store of value and not a means of payment

I agree; I even think there were discussions in the past, when Bitcoin was first starting to get treated / considered as a store of value. The difference though is that it does not hurt / hinder people trying to do transactions (use it in its intended way).

also, I didn't see the same folks complaining about Ordinals now complaint about LN, where does LN fit into the root principles of Bitcoin? why do we need a second layer, why not have every payment on the blockchain? turning BTC from P2P e-cash to a mere "final settlement layer" is also an abuse using your logic.

Interesting perspective. To me, it perfectly fits the principles, because Lightning helps Bitcoin be a global payment method by scaling it and increasing the throughput. It reduces mempool congestion while allowing for more payments, meanwhile Ordinals increase the congestion and do not scale Bitcoin in the process. Lightning is P2P e-cash too, just in a slightly different way.

[serveria.com]

Anyway, my question to you, and I hope you answer reasonably, aside from the fact that you think this is "useless data" stored on the blockchain, what other reasons do you have to support the exclusion for Ordinals? let's just assume everyone who agreed with you gathered together and you are going to start lobbying to ban Ordinals, you are going to have to convince mining pools, exchanges, the devs, nodes operators, and a few others, what proposal do you have for them and how are you going to convince those people to ban Ordinals?

There's no need: Ordinals will save us the effort and self-destruct. We (royal we) can just hope it will happen sooner rather than later. We'll just run out of fools who are buying NFTs.

If that's the case then almost everyone is abusing the system by treating bitcoin as a store of value and not a means of payment, also, I didn't see the same folks complaining about Ordinals now complaint about LN, where does LN fit into the root principles of Bitcoin? why do we need a second layer, why not have every payment on the blockchain? turning BTC from P2P e-cash to a mere "final settlement layer" is also an abuse using your logic.

I obviously love the idea of LN, and despite why it doesn't fit perfectly in the original purpose of BTC, it actually does provide a great utility, it uses the blockchain to achieve something of value, Ordinals might be capable of doing the same, or it could be just a short-lived hype that would die sooner than most people think, I won't be bothered to see it fade on its own after proving it has no real value, but not by banning it before seeing what it can/can't do.

Probably because LN doesn't interfere with Bitcoin. LN transactions don't flood the mempool? Is it too difficult to understand?  

[HmmMAA]

Probably because LN doesn't interfere with Bitcoin. LN transactions don't flood the mempool? Is it too difficult to understand?  

By that logic , if a large portion of the population decided to use the network ( BTC ) and the mempool was congested the low fee transactions should be banned ? From my point of view the real reason behind the argument is that people running nodes don't want to invest a single cent more than they already have .  

[mikeywith]

Good counter-argument. I do think though that it is much harder to tell who is sending money to whom (even harder if we got L1 privacy, which I also advocate for) than to tell whether a document is classified or not or whether it is for a different reason illegal and immoral to store and distribute a certain file.

That's true, but hopefully, there would be an easy way out of this at the software-level.

Interesting perspective. To me, it perfectly fits the principles, because Lightning helps Bitcoin be a global payment method by scaling it and increasing the throughput. It reduces mempool congestion while allowing for more payments, meanwhile Ordinals increase the congestion and do not scale Bitcoin in the process. Lightning is P2P e-cash too, just in a slightly different way.

Makes perfect sense, but still, LN takes away from BTC, the original version of Bitcoin was for everything to sit ON the blockchain, not for a dozen transactions to happen elsewhere and then store only the final settlement on the blockchain, nonetheless, LN is a great idea, people will use it to transact faster and cheaper, now with NFTs being stored on the blockchain it doesn't mean the normal transactions can't happen, it just means people need to pay more and compete because this is a free market.

Not saying all these arguments against NFTs are invalid, but the common logic here is that people don't want blocks to be full because they want to be able to transact at close to 0 fee, from your individual point of view, if fees are high, how does it matter if it's because people buying some stupid NFTs or paying for their coffee and tea as far as the fees you have to pay? it doesn't matter, does it? you are still forced to compete against other transactions regardless of their purposes.

I mean if we were to stick to this logic, then eventually when people start using BTC for daily payments, some people will be mad and accuse them of congesting the blockchain and increasing fees and that they must use LN or use their credit cards and leave the blockchain alone.

This whole idea of "I want transactions to be cheap and blocks to empty so I can transact for cheap whenever I want" is just stupid at best because it doesn't matter what the other transactions are about, people are still going to be pissed because they have to pay a higher fee, this is one attribute of communism where a group of people think they can (or even need) to tell the rest of the people how to do certain things like how they should spend their money, and it's all based on self-interest.

with all due respect to everyone here, I am sure the vast majority of people talking shit about NFTs do it because they want to be able to transact for free, most of them don't even own a node to be concerned about the extra capacity they need to provide or anything like that, it's just solely based on the principle of "I want the blockchain to work in my favor, I need to eliminate competition", sticking to that logic, we will have the same debate in the future, of people who use BTC to buy coffee vs those who use it buy tea, the coffee group will be trying to censor the tea group because they think they coffee is more important than tea (I agree with that tho ).

See I know this is NFT vs Transactions, but it's the principle of rejection and elimination that is there to stay if we would allow it, the coffee vs tea debate is just an extreme exaggeration, but I am sure you get the point.

Now furthermore, if the NFT market makes it to the point where it actually makes all blocks full, and fees sky high, those users themselves will have to solve that "issue", it's not just you people that want cheap transactions, everyone else does, even if they pay 2k for some funny jpeg, they would want to store it for 1$ instead of 20$, it's not like those folks have an unlimited supply of money and will keep raising fees to infinity.

They will need to figure out some shit, just like they did with ETH, and look at all the projects built to solve that issue, tens of billions of dollars were injected into the ETH ecosystem, all kinds of different layers and protocols, which all add to the value of ETH as a whole, without all those NFTs, Metaverse and whatnot, ETH wouldn't have grown this large, so why not give these folks a shot with BTC, see what they can build, and eventually the fee/blocksize issue will be figured out one way or the other.

[stompix]

Who's "we"?

Illusionary majority.
People who think that just because they are in the same football team fan club they also share the same views and are shocked when someone is liking pizza and others are thinking is trash food, some are leftist and others right wings and some hate MMORPG games while some are in hentai stuff.

This is the same with Bitcoin, some assume that just because we're all here we have the same views on everything when it's clearly not the case, and when it comes to transactions fees versus value a lot will be shocked to see that the majority of this forum would love to see BTC going to 100k rather than having 1sat/b fees. Bitcoin is a bunch of data, is a tool, and it's free to use as you see fit, no matter how stupid that is.

The whole thing becomes even more ridiculous when we start talking about "spam" is since, for god's sake !!! a ton of us, the people that discuss this here are in either CM campaign or other mixing sigs. What do some tumblers do in order to obfuscate the traces?  A ton of transactions back in forth! Do you think that the guys who have already handled their DNA samples to Binance in order to pass KYC and have never seen a real wallet and don't have a clue what a seed phrase is would find these transactions, how do we call them, block worthy?

Since Mikeywith mentioned how some see NFTs, well I too believe NFTs are crap, and not just because they look like a fad and they really don't serve any major purpose at all, but also since it seems that your ownership of the said "art" is only valid on one chain and not another, much like your painting would be a Renoir in France, a Picasso in Spain and a useless painted piece of paper in Japan. But I still don't see why you should outright ban something just because you don't like it or you think it can cause a problem that would bring Bitcoin down.

If current fees are unsustainable, let's look at numbers, 45.57 BTC in fees in 24 hours, less than 1 Million, this includes transactions that are not ordinals and have outbid them, so if a way less than $1 mil a day attack, or the amount of money a bunch of CEOs get paid in a day is enough to cripple the network, then how is this system going to survive a fight with all those both imaginary and real adversaries?

[philipma1957]

Are there any serious threats on Bitcoin with Ordinals/NFTs? anything vital? or it's just "No, I don't like them, kick them out of here"!

You bring up some good points, mikey. I'm honestly mostly worried about storing people's potential illegal files and serving them like a webserver to the public. The moral and legal aspects of it, both.

If that's what you want then there is a much simpler way without filling bitcoin with garbage and making it unusable which is to use a side-chain. There is already a couple of projects out there like RootStock that actually create real smart contracts and transfer actual tokens around instead of the fake thing in Ordinals that has no value.

don't you see that's the problem though? you can show them alternatives but they don't care. they just want larger transaction fees in their back pocket. anything that does that for them is welcomed with open arms. apparently. that shouldn't really be suprising to us though. that's how the world works. people with money are the ones that doors get opened for and welcomed in...people without the money they get the cold shoulder.

I mean, we do need miners to secure Bitcoin and make it the highly safe, secure payment method that it is now.
It's just that there needs to be a balance. If there is no money to be made from mining & they leave Bitcoin, the security of the network may suffer (someone could scoop up the old mining hardware and attack Bitcoin).
However if we allow people to use Bitcoin as a playground for 'everything freedom' for the sake of the highest possible fees, we will experience what Ethereum experienced a few years ago when developers jumped on the 'world computer' bandwagon and coded games e.g. chess, where every single move was an individual transaction (!!), collectable cat games (birth of NFTs?) and similar.

If anyone reading is rather new to Bitcoin and doesn't know what I'm talking about:

The game's popularity in December 2017 congested the Ethereum network, causing it to reach an all-time high in the number of transactions and slowing it down significantly

I remember vividly how frightened people were in that time that it got so unusable that it may die and lose any and all of its utility.
There is no use to have a payment network that is super secure by being overwhelmed in transaction count and crazy high fees, but at the same time gets unusable because of congestion.

which is to use a side-chain.

The NFT folks can tell you the same thing, you can use a side-chain for payments as well, LN works great.

Indeed, I am highly in favor of reducing someone's number of on-chain payments, especially low-value ones, and create a handful of Lightning channels once, instead. All for the sake of keeping the load on the blockchain low, IBD time fast, decentralization high and mempool congestion & on-chain fees manageable.

Are you being serious right now? The Bitcoin developers are not some kind of 'evil corporation' who we need to 'teach lessons' by threatening to destroy 'their product'; you don't seem to grasp this is an open-source project, where we as the users already have the power, especially through the decentralized nature of nodes as seen in UASF.
We are all Bitcoin, there is no 'us against them'. We should aim to get the best outcome for it together and not by fighting each other or threatening Bitcoin's destruction.

most of what you are saying there is your opinion. but lets talk facts. none of the developers anticipated ordinals. enough said.

Actually, what I stated were public facts and logic, not personal opinions. If you can point out a flaw in my logic, please go ahead. Developers not anticipating Ordinals does not really answer my post at all.

I already said to use multiple backups. Do note that if you use the blockchain as your single backup, it will be a single point of failure, as well.

not in the same way that pcloud is a single point of failure though. for the bitcoin blockchain to go away, it would almost require the internet to go away. if that happened, what good would your data be anyway?  

This is an opinion, on the other hand. There is no hard proof that the existence of some cloud provider's company in 50 years is more guaranteed than Bitcoin nodes still running. I personally believe Bitcoin will stick around much longer, too, but I cannot prove it.
What we can agree on is that both are n=1, so redundancy is key. Anything more is subjective opinions.

i still have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the block reward needs to be halved every 4 years or however often it is...

Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.

Most people do not understand the issue of fees being too small that miners will say fuck it and switch to other algos.

Shouldn't difficulty adjustments take care of that, though? I.e. big miners go offline, difficulty goes down, home mining gets profitable again, and mining continues on.

big snip. i am quoting nonce.

The problem of big miners leaving btc and still have a secure network is at stake.


The first 100 or so blocks of this 1% jump the btc diff was down 28%.

we made about 70 and should have made about 98 blocks.

I see this as almost mathematically impossible odds with the amount of gear in the network.

So
a) someone really big had a power refit
b) someone really big is testing out how easy it is to do a low hash attack on the network.
c) unreal impossible variance.
d) an unknown.

a and b and d are most likely but b is terrible and possible.

So down the road if forced scarcity of coins due to rapid ½ ings continues a real attack on the net work is easy to do.

as I mentioned before having three algos worth of gear and being able to switch around is not too hard.

And it will devalue btc.

So btc needs to figure how to attract mining.

Another thing that fits this is that of how good can a piece of gear be.

Ie pc then gpu then fpga then asic

asics s1, s2 , s3 , s4, s5,s7,s9,s11, s15,s17, s19

we are pretty much done with effectively making gear save power.

So mothballing s19, L7, gpu is kind of easy to do.

Over the next year having 1 mw of three different algos should be cheap

and a neg hashrate attack cheaper if the coin/block reward sucks.

btc would need to alter diff adjustments if a negative hash rate attack happens.

Time will tell how this unfolds Most likely after 2040 it will become more of an issue as scrypt will look better to miners then btc.

[mikeywith]

Shouldn't difficulty adjustments take care of that, though? I.e. big miners go offline, difficulty goes down, home mining gets profitable again, and mining continues on.

I forgot to comment on this till I saw Phil's reply.

I am pretty sure you understand how mining works, but just to shed some light on this subject, the difficulty adjustment is there to keep a pre-determined supply, everything else happens as a result and not a purpose.

When we say that the more the fees the more secured bitcoin is, we actually mean it, the "explain like I'm five" for this is to imagine that you want to secure a bank, you would hire everyone who is capable of using a gun, and the contract states that the rewards will be split between all those guards depending on how much the banks make every day.

The bank has a small garden at the bank, people pay some fees to enter it, so at around midnight, you collect all those fees, and split them between all those guards, when someday the bank makes only 100$ and you got 1000 guards outside, you will give each one of them 0.1$, what is going to happen the next day is that many of them will not show up, because the bus ride costs more than 0.1$ to 90% of them, so only 10% of them will show up the next day, and by the end of the day, each of them will receive 1$ which is good enough for the remaining 10 guards (difficulty drop), but not for the bank, because the bank now has only 100 men guarding it as opposed to 1000, it's more subject to attacks than it was a week ago when the bank made 1000$ a day and gave 1$ to each guard.

Keep in mind the garden is pretty small and can only accommodate a certain number of visitors, so visitors need to bid on the ticket prices to enter, what's ironic here is that you got some bank clients who want to hire an extra guard to stop people wearing blue from entering the garden despite the fact that they are willing to pay well and probably going to make the bank net 2000$ and end up hiring 2000 guards, they want only people wearing green inside the garden because they "assume" the blue color shirts will ruin the garden.

[larry_vw_1955]

Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.

no i proposed to create a fixed block reward forever. be that 50 or 6.25btc that's something that could be decided on. then miners wouldn't need to have new sources of income like the ordinals trash. i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.

A nice practical thought for blockchain use  over  purity  blockchain use thought..

Miners are practical and already have more than enough gear to do  weird shit to algos. In general they simply are looking to turn profit.

you keep bringing up how miners are basically in it for the money. how all you care about is $ per watt. i really don't know what to say about that. all i care about is paying a low transaction fee...

Which is why there are multiple algos to mine. Not just one.

then go mine them. why mention it since by mentioning it, you're just potentially adding to your competition. maybe they didn't know. 

[philipma1957]

Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.

no i proposed to create a fixed block reward forever. be that 50 or 6.25btc that's something that could be decided on. then miners wouldn't need to have new sources of income like the ordinals trash. i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.

A nice practical thought for blockchain use  over  purity  blockchain use thought..

Miners are practical and already have more than enough gear to do  weird shit to algos. In general they simply are looking to turn profit.

you keep bringing up how miners are basically in it for the money. how all you care about is $ per watt. i really don't know what to say about that. all i care about is paying a low transaction fee...

Which is why there are multiple algos to mine. Not just one.

then go mine them. why mention it since by mentioning it, you're just potentially adding to your competition. maybe they didn't know. 

The internet is hard to fully communicate on.

At times it could be late at night and I can’t sleep and I may rush to write the idea down.

Frankly I am so in favor of The long term scrypt alog of ltc + Doge over the btc 4 year 1/2 ings I can’t describe it by typing.

If you look at it on a practical level how does it lose out in the 100 year time span.
Doge never stops the 10000 coin blocks.
There is always enough value for miners.

At the moment by watts the L7 makes 20 dollars for 3000 watts
the s19 pro makes 6.60 dollars for 3000 watts.

So the L7 crushes the s19 pro.

My power price will never lose money. But I am power capped.

I have to be nuts to just mine Btc at 6.60 for  3kwatts
when I can do LTC/Doge for 20. at 3kwatts.

20:is more than 6.60

and even if I only believe in BTC I should convert the 20 in LTC +Doge into BTC.

I magically use 3000 watts to make 20 worth of BTC.

LN hurts BTC a bit by taking fees off chain.

So if NFTs and ordinals help the chain add fees in the long run it will drive price of gear and coins upwards.

What has happened now is I shortcut to cut BTC.

I have 45gh in scrypt makes 135 a day and uses 18kwatts

to make 135 worth of btc a day a need 2.2ph or 22 s19  pro J units burning 66kwatts

so at the moment NFTs and Ordinals look like a way for me to boost  my Btc earnings by keeping and adding to my s19s vs adding to my L7 gear.

I can get 4 s19s for same price as 1 L7 either way they earn 24 a day

one burns 12kwatts one burns 3kwatts.

and I can effortlessly convert the L7 earnings to btc

that helps the scrypt get more secure not the sha 256 network.

the build up goes on the ‘wrong’ network but makes me more btc.

frankly if you say fuck you to NFT and Ordinal and my idea of streching ½ to 6 years after the 2024 along with my idea of recovering stale coins never moved after 60 years 2069

You are saying yes to scrypt mining since they have better scaling and an endles supply of doge while blending in LTC ½ ing.

Hell it night and day that it is superior and BTC needs a tweak.

and BTC ourists are tripping since LN is not btc purity.

LN and purity is like a guy that pays a hooker to blow him once a week so he can say he is a virgin when he gets married.

Please let the Nfts in along with the ordinals.

Simply use encryption and no one can say you are printing porn or state secrets.

I sure my post here has enough letters and characters to me mixed into all kinds of things.

[larry_vw_1955]

Doge never stops the 10000 coin blocks.
There is always enough value for miners.

if doge can do it so can bitcoin. course, that would mean there is no max cap anymore but who's counting? 

My power price will never lose money. But I am power capped.

that must mean your power price is free.

I have to be nuts to just mine Btc at 6.60 for  3kwatts
when I can do LTC/Doge for 20. at 3kwatts.

if they all used the same mining algorithm then there's no way that difference would exist. not even sure why the difference exists anyway.  i guess because scrypt mining hardware is more of a novelty item and more expensive... just a guess though.

and even if I only believe in BTC I should convert the 20 in LTC +Doge into BTC.

of course, you can't hold onto something that will have an infinite supply expecting it to go up in price.

I have 45gh in scrypt makes 135 a day and uses 18kwatts

to make 135 worth of btc a day a need 2.2ph or 22 s19  pro J units burning 66kwatts

you go on youtube and try to find people talking about mining and invariably it's these guys showing off their gpu mining rigs, at least before ethereum went to POS. no one ever talked much about mining bitcoin. it's not for the "little guy".

I sure my post here has enough letters and characters to me mixed into all kinds of things.

thanks for the insights. was interesting.

[philipma1957]

My power price is ½ the coins mined.

So if the machine does not break it eventually pays off.

Then at that point I simply get half the coins.

So the L7s and L3s are all paid off.

They are still bread and butter gear . They just rake in profit.

The gpus are shut off. But they are paid off.

The s19s and s17s make money but less.

In 5 months the LTC does a ½ ing the scrypt will make a lot less for six months and I will add some L7 at a low price.

Its a grind ,but I am a gear head first always was since the 1960s.

[pooya87]

It's pretty simple, Ordinals is an abuse of the system and abuse has to be prevented to ensure the systems survival. Every tool or a system is created for a clear purpose and when you use it for anything else, that is abuse.

Nonsense. Ordinals is an unforeseen use of the system, just as open timestamps is. Neither has to be prevented to ensure bitcoin's survival.

Due to the eventually disappearing block subsidy, bitcoin's long term survival is dependent on full blocks creating a fee market, so one clear purpose of bitcoin is to support all uses which help to fill blocks.

Is it nonsense to say Ordinals is an attack on bitcoin today or is it nonsense to say "eventual disappearance of block subsidy that takes place in 100 years from now should be addressed now by spamming the blockchain today"?!

Flawed comparison. Bitcointalk does not stand in favor of censorship resistance at posting. Moderators of bitcointalk aren't obliged to allow anyone who pays for a post to not have it removed forever. Bots and spammers don't pay fractions of bitcoin to comment. The Bitcoin network does grant you these rights.

I disagree. It was actually a perfect example if you ignore the details of the differences.
The point is that every system has a purpose and to ensure those we have to have rules. When rules are broken someone has to intervene and enforce those rules or fix them if they are loose or flawed.

Bitcointalk's purpose is for discussion, so while a movie is not "garbage" but when it is posted on bitcointalk it becomes garbage and is considered an abuse of the system which has to be prevented.
What people store in bitcoin blockchain may not be garbage either but when people use bitcoin's blockchain which is a ledger for monetary transfers to store arbitrary data, that becomes garbage and it has to be prevented.

[serveria.com]

Who's "we"?

Illusionary majority.
People who think that just because they are in the same football team fan club they also share the same views and are shocked when someone is liking pizza and others are thinking is trash food, some are leftist and others right wings and some hate MMORPG games while some are in hentai stuff.

This is the same with Bitcoin, some assume that just because we're all here we have the same views on everything when it's clearly not the case, and when it comes to transactions fees versus value a lot will be shocked to see that the majority of this forum would love to see BTC going to 100k rather than having 1sat/b fees. Bitcoin is a bunch of data, is a tool, and it's free to use as you see fit, no matter how stupid that is.

Muahahahaha... so you're trying to say that in fact the majority of Bitcoin users support ordinals? That's like the funniest stuff I've heard this year.  

I don't think there's much sense in this discussion when your opposition is coming up with bozo claims like this...

[philipma1957]

Or my bank pays the most interest and has the best rates.

but they keep the cash in the janitorial closet in order to save on a vault and a guard.

So by saving that way the fees are low and the perks are high.

To deny the issue that low fees will chase the miners to better coins with better fees and to think that helps bitcoin in the long run is nuts.

To cherry pick the 100 year number and to ignore

that by 2056 blocks will be

3.125        2028
1.562500   2032
0.7812500   2036
0.3906250  2040
0.1953125  2044. in 20 years coins need to be 400k
0.0976562. 2048. in. 24  years coins need to be 800k
0.0488281 2052 in   28 years coins need to be 1.6 mil
0.0244140 2056 in 32 years coins need to be 3.2 mil

for miners to barely get by with todays difficulty.

and btw a 1 sat fee for a 3.2 million coin is high in terms of fiat

thats a short 32 year span well 33 year as i counted from 2024 next having not 2023.

I figure like getting mileage from a gallon of gas you reach a max amount

Like getting hash cost down to 21 watts a th from 2 million watts a th back in 2012

so the problem with a 3.2 million dollar coin in 2056 is the market cap will be 40 trillion dollars

lets say for the sake of argument we drop power cost 50% over next 33 years.

you will have 200th s23s that burn 3000 watts and while price went up 160x

hashrate and difficulty are 2x. since the fees did not expand and the reward shrank.

net work now is 3.3 million 100 th s19s

at 2000 a machine that is 6.6 billion

my sustainability example above means 3.3 million 200th s23s at 2000 even 4000 a machine means

6.6 to 13.2 billion in gear to protect a 40 trillion marketcap.

and now we have 6.6 billion to protect a 320 billion which was a 1 trillion marketcap

only 33 years for that to be true.


meanwhile scrypt with a blend aproach still has the same 10000 a block doge and of course shrunken ltc

thats only 33 years.

So my issue is BTC is fucked without addressing this in only 33 years.

So No NFT + Ordinals to make up for this issue in the next 33 years. Okay
And no larger blocks to generate more fees. Okay
and LN that reduces fees and makes btc a partial POW. Okay
No recovery of stale unclaimed coins to keep rewards higher. okay
No stretching block time to six years a ½ ing then 8 years a ½ ing . okay

You end up with real issues in 2056.

Now lets argue we go the pure route. What good could happen?

BTC price stops growing and market cap never goes much over 2 trillion.

BTC becomes flat near 100k hashrate stablized to support that. More like gold or silver in stability.

I could see that as the adjustment if and here it comes scrypt did not exist but it does

So LTC+Doge still would loom as a threat in the case of a pure stable flat 100k BTC in 2056

It always comes down to being a bit younger to live long enough to see this in 2056 at 99 years old by than I won’t care much about which algo wins out.

Or if the two largest algos end up being a dual reality.

So I mine both and sit the gpus. Time will tell what is best.

[BlackHatCoiner]

From my point of view the real reason behind the argument is that people running nodes don't want to invest a single cent more than they already have .

I'm not quite sure the reason. I don't believe it's this. I think finding the coordination with the proper components is the big problem. It is a very big project now more, and infringing backwards compatibility means you expect the overwhelming majority to coordinate and find consensus on a brand new Bitcoin, when at the same time, the overwhelming majority is seemingly in favor of monetary conservatism, so it pretty much leaves you with little chances of success.

The point is that every system has a purpose and to ensure those we have to have rules.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of NFTs. Pretty much the opposite, especially when I see friends getting involved with them, with fridge empty.

But I'm respecting the freedom of users to consider it as they like more than I completely disagree with that idea. If we start taking your path, which I agree is the path of good intentions, it won't take long until we start quarrel on whether Bitcoin should be a store of value, or a short-term investment, besides a peer-to-peer cash system as envisioned first.

Bitcointalk's purpose is for discussion

I'm just saying that the purpose of Bitcointalk is decided by a few groups of people, like admins, mods; that's it basically. It doesn't matter what you think this forum is, you can propose whatever you want, but in the end you are not part of the group that makes changes. This is not the same with the Bitcoin network; you're an economic unit.

Muahahahaha... so you're trying to say that in fact the majority of Bitcoin users support ordinals?

There's a difference between supporting Ordinals and supporting the freedom to choose Ordinals.

[cryptosize]

So LTC+Doge still would loom as a threat in the case of a pure stable flat 100k BTC in 2056

What about Monero?

Strange that you never mention it... it's #4 in PoW coins.

[ABCbits]

Every 210,000 blocks. If you propose to just create 50BTC or 6.25BTC per block until 21M cap is reached, there are some reasons against that, e.g. that the limit will be reached quicker and we will still have the issue with what to do when there is no reward at all, just over 100 years earlier than with satoshi's model.

no i proposed to create a fixed block reward forever. be that 50 or 6.25btc that's something that could be decided on. then miners wouldn't need to have new sources of income like the ordinals trash. i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.

While i see appeal of fixed/lower-bound mining reward, i doubt it'll happen when it violate principle of Bitcoin[1].

--snip--

So my issue is BTC is fucked without addressing this in only 33 years.

So No NFT + Ordinals to make up for this issue in the next 33 years. Okay

Unlikely to happen since censorship violate principle of Bitcoin[1]. At most Bitcoiner only can push to make Ordinal transaction with data bigger than X bytes become non-standard.

And no larger blocks to generate more fees. Okay

I believe it's just matter of time before we'll see increase of maximum block size when people realize other scaling solution isn't enough.

and LN that reduces fees and makes btc a partial POW. Okay

What does "partial PoW" even mean?

No recovery of stale unclaimed coins to keep rewards higher. okay

Technically possible. But i doubt there'll be middle ground about how should "stale unclaimed" coins is re-distributed.

No stretching block time to six years a ½ ing then 8 years a ½ ing . okay

This would break expected behavior of bitcoin transaction/address which use block height as it's timelock, including LN.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Principles_of_Bitcoin