NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory

[tromp]

What about Monero?
Strange that you never mention it... it's #4 in PoW coins.

That link ranks by market cap, which is not so relevant.

Relevant to this discussion is the daily energy spent on mining as approximated by the dollar value of the daily mined coins.
You can find this ranking at [1] under column PoW Produced (24h).
It shows Monero down in place 9, while Doge and Litecoin are in 2nd and 3rd place respectively.

In the long term, coins without a tail emission will slowly drift down this ranking as their mining subsidy dwindles to insignificance. In which case Monero could end up in 4th place behind DOGE, ETC, and Nervos...

[1] https://www.f2pool.com/coins

[1714262969]

1714262969

[1714262969]

1714262969

[mikeywith]

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

I believe that Phill meant here is to stretch the halving periods, in other words, to slow down the supply cut until BTC has matured enough and grown large enough in market value, this solution will just delay the inevitable event of when mining rewards will depend more the fees than the block reward itself.

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"?!

The 100 years is just a theory on paper, the actual time of when shit could hit the fan is "unknown", let's do some simple math.


As of right now, the amount of money that miners can extract every 10 mins or so is 6.25 + fees * $20,000 = $125,000 assuming no fees, so it's fine now, that much value is enough to keep 350EH worth of hashrate securing the network.

A year later, the halving happens, BTC MUST be worth $40,000 for the blockchain to be as secured as it is today, or fees need to be 3.125BTC to offset that.

There is a good chance that the halving hits, while BTC is even lower than $20,000, so now it's only 62.5k to be extracted, this won't keep 350EH securing the network, a huge chunk of it will need to shut down.

4 years later, with just 1.56BTC rewards, if we are still at 20k, it will hardly keep 20-30% of that 350EH and you will have a ton of ready-to-be-used hashrate that can attack the weak blockchain.

Now 8 years from now and BTC at 20k is obviously unlikely, but it could happen, it could be the year 2036 when block fees are just 0.7812500, where you need BTC to be trading at 160,000$ to maintain that 350EH, and suddenly some economic turmoil and BTC drops to 60k making it very unsecured with all the hashrate that leaves it.

We don't know at what stage fees will be critical, a sure thing, not 100 years, in just 13 years the block rewards will be BELOW 1 BTC a block, in 21 years the rewards will be LESS than a quarter of BTC, if BTC isn't in the sub million zone, things are going to look pretty mad without large fees feeding the miners.

[cryptosize]

We don't know at what stage fees will be critical, a sure thing, not 100 years, in just 13 years the block rewards will be BELOW 1 BTC a block, in 21 years the rewards will be LESS than a quarter of BTC, if BTC isn't in the sub million zone, things are going to look pretty mad without large fees feeding the miners.

Sub-million?

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of dollars in 20+ years from now.

Feel free to bookmark/screenshot my post for future reference.

[philipma1957]

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.

I mentioned still owning gpus and being able to mine with them vs scrypt vs btc asics

and that dollar per watt works for the miner.

there is grin asic
there is kda asic

I have close to 265kwatts

I have L7 and L3
I have s19 pro and lessor sha miners
I have gpus
I have kda asic
I have grin asic

My goal would be to be able to mine
all 265 kwatts in sha 256 btc using a mix of whatsminer m50s and s19s
65 kwatts in L7
35 kwatt in gpus
 5 kwatts in lessor asics

[stompix]

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...

What I'm saying is that you seem to suffer from the same thing a delusion of being the voice of many, and worse than that is manifesting the same commie behavior of judging one who doesn't agree with you as an enemy. The most important thing is, how do you know what the majority wants? Maybe as extrapolating from the views here the majority doesn't like ordinals but they hate censorship more, which for every single individual or bitcoin "user" would be normal behavior.

But if you're that sure the majority are against it, why don't you fork it already?
Cause all I see here are 4-5 users bitching on a forum about and 200k ordinals being burned already, so who decided this "majority" and who counts the votes of this so called majority? I hope it's not Stalin!

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of dollars in 20+ years from now.

Unless it succumbs to the terror attack of the Jpeg monkeys! 

[philipma1957]

We don't know at what stage fees will be critical, a sure thing, not 100 years, in just 13 years the block rewards will be BELOW 1 BTC a block, in 21 years the rewards will be LESS than a quarter of BTC, if BTC isn't in the sub million zone, things are going to look pretty mad without large fees feeding the miners.

Sub-million?

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of dollars in 20+ years from now.

Feel free to bookmark/screenshot my post for future reference.

 and when it is worth 3.2 million in 2056 the marketcap will be 40 trillion

and the network of hashing need not expand as I illustrated above.

in 2056 if fees do not grow and efficiency doubles we can have 640 eh hashrate mining .

the value of the vault and guards protecting the 40 trillion cap will be the same 6-13 billion that protects the network now.

That is an issue that Nfts and ordinals may solve if allowed to try.

[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.

I mentioned still owning gpus and being able to mine with them vs scrypt vs btc asics

and that dollar per watt works for the miner.

there is grin asic
there is kda asic

I have close to 265kwatts

I have L7 and L3
I have s19 pro and lessor sha miners
I have gpus
I have kda asic
I have grin asic

My goal would be to be able to mine
all 265 kwatts in sha 256 btc using a mix of whatsminer m50s and s19s
65 kwatts in L7
35 kwatt in gpus
 5 kwatts in lessor asics

Monero is no longer GPU-friendly, you need a beefy CPU with 2MB of cache per thread.

We don't know at what stage fees will be critical, a sure thing, not 100 years, in just 13 years the block rewards will be BELOW 1 BTC a block, in 21 years the rewards will be LESS than a quarter of BTC, if BTC isn't in the sub million zone, things are going to look pretty mad without large fees feeding the miners.

Sub-million?

BTC will be worth the equivalent of millions of dollars in 20+ years from now.

Feel free to bookmark/screenshot my post for future reference.

 and when it is worth 3.2 million in 2056 the marketcap will be 40 trillion

and the network of hashing need not expand as I illustrated above.

in 2056 if fees do not grow and efficiency doubles we can have 640 eh hashrate mining .

the value of the vault and guards protecting the 40 trillion cap will be the same 6-13 billion that protects the network now.

That is an issue that Nfts and ordinals may solve if allowed to try.

Hyperbitcoinization will happen much sooner, so I wouldn't worry.

NFTs, smart contracts, the Bitcoin network will try to assimilate everything.

Hell, it might even give Monero a run for their money if BOLT12 becomes a Lightning standard...

Even with just Lightning we will need over 18 years to open LN channels for 8 billion people.

The network will never run out of transactions...

[philipma1957]

Its not transactions its fees .

look below

Latest Block:   780336  (15 minutes ago)
Current Pace:   122.4480%  (145 / 118.42 expected, 26.58 ahead)
Previous Difficulty:   43053844193928.45                           
Current Difficulty:   43551722213590.37                           
Next Difficulty:   between 44707200160869 and 53527864052814
Next Difficulty Change:   between +2.6531% and +22.9064%
Previous Retarget:   Yesterday at 4:43 PM  (+1.1564%)
Next Retarget (earliest):   March 22, 2023 at 4:07 AM  (in 10d 14h 39m 57s)
Next Retarget (latest):   March 24, 2023 at 9:11 AM  (in 12d 19h 43m 17s)
Projected Epoch Length:   between 11d 10h 24m 7s and 13d 15h 27m 28s
Copy stats to clipboard


Mathamatically

this huge jump in hash could mean
a) un real good luck variance of +22.5%
b) more gear turned on and set up
c) testing of excess gear for future hashrate manipulation
d) an unknown


to think the network could be neg 28% in a 100 block span last jump
and then be plus 22% this jump. is nex to mathematically impossible.

to say b yeah maybe
to say d yeah maybe

to say c is possible based on last two beginnings of difficulty is not impossble.

To think a large company such as bitmain has

excess L7 miners
excess S19 miners

is likely.

to think they don’t see what I am writing and have drawn the same conclusions I have is some what possible.


remember they build s19s and L7s for under 1000 dollars.

they can easily be thinking long term 2056 as  I listed and do some wild manipulating down the road.

we all remember the spring 2021 rally getting chopped off at the knees by the shut down of 50% of the hashrate.

So I am like encouraging mining everywhere and if NFTs make better fees for btc good.

To all BTC maxers that is not going to be what happens.

Diversity in mining will not go by by.

[cryptosize]

Its not transactions its fees .

OK, transaction fees will not be reduced. Ever. They will keep increasing.

we all remember the spring 2021 rally getting chopped off at the knees by the shut down of 50% of the hashrate.

The rally stopped for one reason: lockdowns ended in April 2021.

During lockdowns people were willing to invest stimmy checks. Have you forgotten that? FED printed 10 trillion $ out of thin air.

When lockdowns ended, people wanted to enjoy real life and spend their money, not invest them...

Mark my words: we will have lockdowns (and QE) again in 2025. Not for COVID, but for climate change mitigation measures.

So I am like encouraging mining everywhere and if NFTs make better fees for btc good.

I don't mind NFTs or even smart contracts. BTC can and should overtake ETH (especially now that it's PoS).

[mikeywith]

But if you're that sure the majority are against it, why don't you fork it already?
Cause all I see here are 4-5 users bitching on a forum about and 200k ordinals being burned already, so who decided this "majority" and who counts the votes of this so called majority? I hope it's not Stalin!

Speaking of what the "majority" is for BTC, it seems like many people are still stuck in the mailing list era or when only 200 folks knew about BTC, back then one could just scroll through the 20 comments and arrive at a conclusion about what he majority wants, as of today, it's extremely difficult to guess.

To me, from what I see and based on my own judgment, the majority of BTC users want to see it grow in value more than anything else, I know if I ask 10 BTC hodlers if they want to BTC at 200k vs no NFT, they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k or no Segwit,  they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k and transaction fees at 200$ or free transactions and BTC at 20k, they will again chose the same 200k BTC.

I also think most people who are in BTC don't even know wether they are using a legacy or segwit address, they don't even know how to google/check mempool status or estimate fees, they don't know what full node is, what miners actually do, they probably don't even know what is block size and why sometimes they pay 2$ to send BTC when their friend sent the same amount paying only 50 cents.

So who makes the majority or at least, who represents the majority needed to fork BTC to ban Ordinals?

- Mining pools.
- Exchanges.
- Core devs.
- The rich folks who fund Core devs or/and control the media.

Any major change you want to make to Bitcoin has to get the blessing of those listed above, for certain changes you can bypass some of the above, while some of them are a must for any change.

What you notice in the list is the majority of those folks have a lot at stake, too much to lose and nothing much to win, which is why major changes are hard to happen, most people follow the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule, do you want to implement a new change that would add any value to the network without any risks involved? start lobbying and prepare a ton of money and time to hopefully succeed in your campaign, is your proposal going to put the blockchain at 2% risk? forget it.

A change to the protocol that would block Oridnlas is going to be somehow big, you will have a very difficult time trying to convince the above list to do it, unless, strong evidence is presented that shows how Ordinals are going to affect BTC's value negatively, things like "oh, this is not what Satoshi wanted, it's useless data on the blockchain" won't cut it.



 

[n0nce]

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
[...]
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

I would like to make it clear that I don't worry about higher fees; as long as my transaction gets processed eventually. I do worry about congestion / overloading the network. The issue though is that if you get over ~10 tx per second (not sure about the exact number right now) on average for an extended period of time, it is technically impossible to process all transactions. The mountain would never 'clear', i.e. some transactions will be stuck forever.
If more transactions will be added than are mined, I call it 'mempool congestion'. No amount of fee bumping will make Bitcoin process more transactions on average. It can prioritize your transaction, but if everyone set the fee to the same (maximum maybe?) amount, it just becomes a lottery.

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though

It has.

but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.

It may not, in case it was mathematically proven to be a bad idea. I'm not sure about the result of those discussions myself right now, but as someone proposing that idea again, it should be your task to look that up.

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

I may agree with storing encrypted data, that's a different story from a legal & moral standpoint. But NFT people aren't interested in that since then nobody would be able to see the JPEGs besides them.

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

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Lightning here. Want to discuss it elsewhere (since off-topic) or do you know that this statement was wrong?

[larry_vw_1955]

To me, from what I see and based on my own judgment, the majority of BTC users want to see it grow in value more than anything else, I know if I ask 10 BTC hodlers if they want to BTC at 200k vs no NFT, they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k or no Segwit,  they will pick 200k BTC,  BTC at 200k and transaction fees at 200$ or free transactions and BTC at 20k, they will again chose the same 200k BTC.

i really don't care what the bitcoin "price" is. but i do care how much transaction fees cost in real us dollars. $200 would mean bitcoin is broken. good luck with convincing anyone to use it even if bitcoin was worth 1 billion. if higher bitcoin price means higher transaction fees then something is wrong with bitcoin and something else will step in and replace it. maybe it already has. and we just don't know about it yet.

I also think most people who are in BTC don't even know wether they are using a legacy or segwit address, they don't even know how to google/check mempool status or estimate fees, they don't know what full node is, what miners actually do, they probably don't even know what is block size and why sometimes they pay 2$ to send BTC when their friend sent the same amount paying only 50 cents.

ideally they shouldn't have to know any of that to avoid being taken advantage of by the network though.

A change to the protocol that would block Oridnlas is going to be somehow big, you will have a very difficult time trying to convince the above list to do it, unless, strong evidence is presented that shows how Ordinals are going to affect BTC's value negatively, things like "oh, this is not what Satoshi wanted, it's useless data on the blockchain" won't cut it.

but i don't think satoshi would have wanted jpeg monkeys taking up space that was really meant for transactions, real transactions like buying a cup of coffee. you can argue they should be using lightning network but i disagree. i don't trust layer 2 networks. i want my transactions on layer 1. so LN is out.

[philipma1957]

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
[...]
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

I would like to make it clear that I don't worry about higher fees; as long as my transaction gets processed eventually. I do worry about congestion / overloading the network. The issue though is that if you get over ~10 tx per second (not sure about the exact number right now) on average for an extended period of time, it is technically impossible to process all transactions. The mountain would never 'clear', i.e. some transactions will be stuck forever.
If more transactions will be added than are mined, I call it 'mempool congestion'. No amount of fee bumping will make Bitcoin process more transactions on average. It can prioritize your transaction, but if everyone set the fee to the same (maximum maybe?) amount, it just becomes a lottery.

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

i'm sure a fixed block reward has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past though

It has.

but in light of this new nft thing, maybe it need to be revisited.

It may not, in case it was mathematically proven to be a bad idea. I'm not sure about the result of those discussions myself right now, but as someone proposing that idea again, it should be your task to look that up.

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

I may agree with storing encrypted data, that's a different story from a legal & moral standpoint. But NFT people aren't interested in that since then nobody would be able to see the JPEGs besides them.

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

There seems to be a misunderstanding about Lightning here. Want to discuss it elsewhere (since off-topic) or do you know that this statement was wrong?

hidden nft with an encrypted code could make them more valued not less.


As to long term effect of second layer LN to actual blockchain fees.
And turning btc into a POW+POS coin you are correct it is a bit off topic.


My fear for btc is scrypt algo and merged LTC/Doge mining being the superior algo for mining in the long run.

I see BTC as broken but not today more like 2056.

The visible path for the sha256 algo and the visible path for the scrypt algo looks better for scrypt.

Maybe it is why some are pushing NFT+ordinals as a fix.

[garlonicon]

I already asked, but got no answer, maybe you got one now; the gist was: Is something usually considered 'okay' because it is technically possible or because people established and agreed on what is 'okay / good' and what is not?

Simple, killing people is "technically possible", but is not "okay". The same with stealing, and any other kind of malicious behaviour. Even if something is "physically possible to do", it doesn't make it "okay" automatically. Here, the difference is that "physically possible" is determined by consensus rules, so it is like reaching consensus about the correct value of the gravity constant, and making sure that picking some wrong value will not lead into transforming everything to a single, huge black hole.

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

Also, there is a difference between supporting on-chain NFTs, and supporting LN NFTs, sidechain NFTs, or any kind of off-chain NFTs, or even no-chain-signature-based NFTs. For me, the wrong thing is not that NFTs exist, it is the technical way of how they are handled. Also, if someone thinks that NFTs are good from mining perspective, then notice that if the content of those NFTs would be stored off-chain, then miners could place more such transactions in the same block (and then there would be no problem with censoring those transactions, because then they would look the same as other, non-NFT transactions).

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.

I don't think so. Segwit was the latest blocksize increase, and after that, Taproot didn't touch those limits (and I don't think any new soft-fork ever will, quite the opposite: since NFTs, I rather expect stricter rules and limiting the block size). Increasing the maximum block size will affect Initial Block Download. Now, one week is not enough to download and validate the whole chain, using a well-connected server with static IP, running 24/7. Any block size increase will make it worse. Imagine that new node operators will have to wait a month or longer to synchronize with the network, even if they want to use pruning. And note that the only way to truly check if some node has all blocks or not, is to download all of them, because it is possible to use non-official client with custom pruning settings, that will store blocks, based on the number of times someone requested it.

What does "partial PoW" even mean?

I guess it means that LN nodes usually are rewarded without any kind of mining. That means, if you put all coins into LN, then those LN nodes will get all fees that could otherwise be paid to the Proof of Work miners. Imagine a lot of LN channels that are never closed, or when they will be settled on-chain very rarely, maybe also with batching, so once per year, you will see a single 100 kvB transaction, that will close a lot of channels (inputs), create a lot of new channels (outputs), and will pay one satoshi per virtual byte, so 0.00100000 BTC. Then, LN nodes could get for example 1 BTC in routing fees, while on-chain Proof of Work miners will get 100k satoshis (or even less, if everything will be even more batched). Also, more extreme cases are possible: for example, a single input with N-of-N Taproot multisig, and a single Taproot output with M-of-M multisig, that transaction type would consume 111 vbytes. Then, compare 111 satoshis as the minimal fee, with 1 BTC of the routing fees that could be collected by LN nodes in a long time.

[mikeywith]

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee, not just using NFTs, the blocksize is too small, and takes 10 mins on average to process, any medium sized country using BTC for daily payments will cause the thing you worry about, why assume that only NFT will cause this? By the way nonce when I say "you" I do not refer to you as a single person, just a general statement.

i really don't care what the bitcoin "price" is. but i do care how much transaction fees cost in real us dollars. $200 would mean bitcoin is broken. good luck with convincing anyone to use it even if bitcoin was worth 1 billion.

If BTC is worth 200k and fees are at 200$ it simply means that more people are actually using it, there is no need to convince anyone at that point, you need to keep in mind that the 200$ is set by users not by miners, if enough folks pay 200$ fees will be 200$, if they think it is worth it, they will keep paying it, nobody could care less about how sad anyone else for not being able to use the blockchain to pay for their 20$ bill at walmart. If anything, higher fees simply mean people with more value are using the network, does not matter who and for what purpose.

[n0nce]

What does "partial PoW" even mean?

I guess it means that LN nodes usually are rewarded without any kind of mining. That means, if you put all coins into LN, then those LN nodes will get all fees that could otherwise be paid to the Proof of Work miners.

The issue with such statements is that routing fees or amount locked up in channels have no significance in the security of Lightning, whereas this is the basis of PoS coins. Totally different things.
If you earn yield when loaning (any type of) money, that doesn't make that currency PoS and reliant on staking for security, either. Bitcoin's and Lightning's security is and always will be based on proof of work, no matter if you use your BTC to provide someone a service they are willing to pay you for.

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee, not just using NFTs, the blocksize is too small, and takes 10 mins on average to process, any medium sized country using BTC for daily payments will cause the thing you worry about, why assume that only NFT will cause this? By the way nonce when I say "you" I do not refer to you as a single person, just a general statement.

That's why I advocate for reducing blockchain load for small transactions e.g. by moving them off-chain, where they have virtually the same security, while keeping the blockchain pretty cheap and easy to host and sync, which is paramount for decentralization.
I am not sure myself how much volume we can handle with a combination of Lightning & on-chain at the current block size, but I heavily advocate for keeping it as low as possible for as long as possible. Ordinals goes completely against this by effectively reducing the block space we can effectively use for transactions.

[philipma1957]

What does "partial PoW" even mean?

I guess it means that LN nodes usually are rewarded without any kind of mining. That means, if you put all coins into LN, then those LN nodes will get all fees that could otherwise be paid to the Proof of Work miners.

The issue with such statements is that routing fees or amount locked up in channels have no significance in the security of Lightning, whereas this is the basis of PoS coins. Totally different things.
If you earn yield when loaning (any type of) money, that doesn't make that currency PoS and reliant on staking for security, either. Bitcoin's and Lightning's security is and always will be based on proof of work, no matter if you use your BTC to provide someone a service they are willing to pay you for.

Bitcoin would not be a reliable payment method because you may never get your payment through.

That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee, not just using NFTs, the blocksize is too small, and takes 10 mins on average to process, any medium sized country using BTC for daily payments will cause the thing you worry about, why assume that only NFT will cause this? By the way nonce when I say "you" I do not refer to you as a single person, just a general statement.

That's why I advocate for reducing blockchain load for small transactions e.g. by moving them off-chain, where they have virtually the same security, while keeping the blockchain pretty cheap and easy to host and sync, which is paramount for decentralization.
I am not sure myself how much volume we can handle with a combination of Lightning & on-chain at the current block size, but I heavily advocate for keeping it as low as possible for as long as possible. Ordinals goes completely against this by effectively reducing the block space we can effectively use for transactions.

LN node must have a btc deposit by the operator. pretty much a fact correct?

LN node makes btc for the operator. pretty much a fact correct?


While the foundation to the LN node is the mining go the blockchain it is a pos hybrid = do you agree to that?

n0nce it may be a fine nuance to say LN is based on mining I agree it is but it is also based on staking because you must leave btc in it to work.

I run a full blockchain node and it has 0 btc in it. It is a pure based  mining node. LN is not.

Back to the real issue scaling an algo and having enough miners to protect the algo means enough rewards for the miners to keep interest.  Will NFT's do the Job Will ordinals do the job I don't know. And would they have the staying power to keep doing it for years or decades I don't know. I do suspect that it they stick around  they would be a saturated product and not a lasting in demand product.

That is the best argument for not having them at all.

[n0nce]

LN node must have a btc deposit by the operator. pretty much a fact correct?
LN node makes btc for the operator. pretty much a fact correct?

Those are basically correct, both, but neither contributes or is required for the security of the system. Whereas in PoS, 'deposits' are the only means of security for the system.
Lightning's security is fully based on the blockchain, which in turn is fully secured by PoW.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The discussion reminds me of the sustainability problem. On one extreme, if all moved to lightning there would be minimum incentive to mine. On the other extreme, if all moved on-chain, there would be minimum incentive to use due to the excessive cost. Obviously we'll find an equilibrium.

That could happen as result of people using Bitcoin to buy coffee

Forget coffees and teas. This could happen if millions joined the network and wanted to open just one lightning channel.

[serveria.com]

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...

What I'm saying is that you seem to suffer from the same thing a delusion of being the voice of many, and worse than that is manifesting the same commie behavior of judging one who doesn't agree with you as an enemy. The most important thing is, how do you know what the majority wants? Maybe as extrapolating from the views here the majority doesn't like ordinals but they hate censorship more, which for every single individual or bitcoin "user" would be normal behavior.

But if you're that sure the majority are against it, why don't you fork it already?
Cause all I see here are 4-5 users bitching on a forum about and 200k ordinals being burned already, so who decided this "majority" and who counts the votes of this so called majority? I hope it's not Stalin!

If you think the majority supports ordinals, why don't you create a poll on this and we'll see who's the majority?    

I'd gladly fork this crap off immediately but unfortunately I'm not a core dev so all I can do is urge people to act responsibly (rarely works).  

P.S. And all these 200k ordinals were create by 200k people? Or a dozen of spammers?